Is CERN a waste of money ?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Lostinspace, Jul 5, 2018.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,587
    Can the term "space" be viewed as the bounded "volume" of the universe, within which dynamic fields of various kinds are enfolded. Would such a model not satisfy all possible perspectives?

    Somewhat like a balloon which was inflated with smoke. The balloon is round, bounded by the edge of the universal gravitational sphere, the smoke inside is swirling.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Lostinspace likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,125
    Sure. But you might run into trouble with two parts of that:

    1) The term 'bounded' inevitably leads to "bounded by what?" which might lead people to think that there is some sort of enclosure or barrier. As long as people understand that the barrier is quite literally nothing, though, it works.
    2) The term 'enfolded' has a similar issue; that that might lead to people thinking that it's enfolded IN something, like chips in a chocolate chip cookie.

    But agreed with the overall idea.
    Works in the same way that the rubber sheet analogy works - that is, as long as you don't look at it too closely.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Maybe we could suggest , bounded by gravity or space-time , ''inflating'' by an increase in entropy ?

    Additionally can we consider the 'edge' is where space-time 'thins' out ? i.e light intensity
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
    Write4U likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,587
    An atom is a gravitationally bounded sphere with a volume, no?
    No, it is a proven fact that Higgs bosons are "enfolded" in the Higgs "field" and can only become physically expressed from collisions in that highly dynamical field (visualize smooth ocean waves crashing on the rocks, creating individual droplets) . There are several more of these enfolded particles, each hidden in their respective dynamical fields within the volume of spacetime.

    p.s. I am using the terms "enfolded" and "unfolded" as David Bohm used them. i.e. latent potentials becoming expressed in reality, via a probabilistic "implicate" mathematical imperative.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,587
    Yes I tried to present the concept in its simplest form, but I believe that most of the apparent details have been answered as individual aspects of spacetime.
    This was David Bohm's main argument. He suggested that we should always look at the universe in terms of a Wholeness and the Implicate Orders contained in the wholeness.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,125
    Not really. They are electrostatically bounded shape. The shape is expressed as a probability distribution, sometimes called a cloud. It is often somewhat spherical, but sometimes looks very different (and that fact is _very_ important in chemistry.)
    Agreed. As long as people take away that definition, then all is well.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,587
    Thanks for the correction, but are there any perfect spheres in the universe, or the universe itself, other than the electron orbit in an atom? I can well understand a sphere being distorted by a pressure exerted from the inside by a dynamic field within the sphere. But if an electron changes orbit it is a quantum event, which establishes a new perfectly circular orbit by the outermost electron(s).

    As far as chemistry is concerned, I also understand that the joining of particles breaks the spherical shape of a compound chemical, however I believe that there is a mathematical tendency of everything to " movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction".

    In principle a circle or a sphere are the most satisfactory (compact) formations possible other than "superposition".
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,125
    Sure. Planets are pretty close. They are far more spherical than atoms that have p, d or f orbitals, which aren't spherical at all.
    Electrons don't really orbit the nucleus. They exist as a standing wave, residing within a probability distribution near the nucleus. That's why the "outer surface" of an atom (not that you could see such a thing, or even define it well) often looks more like a dumbbell or a pacifier than a sphere.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,587
    Wow, thank you for that. Drawings of the electrons in atoms of the elements can be so misleading.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    But now that I look at the nucleus, it is obvious that protons and neutrons in the nucleus project cones of different field strengths, or something like it.
     
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,449
    You are taking those pictures way to literally! A helium nucleus is not made up of 4 little spheres.
     
  14. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,090
    science
    rhetorical rant
    question voided
    subjective association with no terms of reference
    further information required to define terms of nature of question variables.

    do you use anti biotics ?
    did you pay to have that studied ?
    was it done in the main street of the local town under a spot light with your personal approval ?
    will you be handing back all your vaccinations that you and your mother got ?
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,587
    Actually I was talking about the orbit of the electrons around the nucleus. The configuration of the protons and neutrons seems to show an imbalance in the cones (fields) projecting from the nucleus, perhaps causing an other than perfect circular orbit of the electron.

    If the orbits of electrons are not perfectly circular then there needs to be a causality, no?
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,444
    No. When we talk about curvature of spacetime, we're talking about intrinsic curvature, not curvature relative to something "outside". There is no need to introduce any "background" space.

    The term "field" is technically a mathematical one. Fields are, in the end, models of processes that we observe. In general relativity, spacetime is described as a manifold, not as a field.

    The "curvature" is a mathematical description of what the manifold is doing. It does not imply that space is made of some kind of substance.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,587
    Ah, yes, but in QM aren't particles formed in several different dynamical fields within the manifold? Perhaps it's the fields which are causal to the formation of the manifold?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_stress_tensor
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
    Lostinspace likes this.
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,090
    you have reminded me of a question i wished to ask some sciencey folk(physics)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

    i probably should start a thread
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,587
  20. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Thank you , I think some members are missing the point and relevance.
     
  21. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    I think you are missing the point, the background space is not outside, it is the underlay of space-time. Background space is ever present underlying matter. Remove matter from a volume of space, that leaves ''pure'' space. Geometrical points of space are stationary , in relativity , we can look at space as the stationary reference frame that everything is in motion relative too.

    In example consider a photon travelling from point A to point B, the length is constant , an invariant that does not change unless the destination is in motion. The photon is traversing relative to the stationary background of space.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,444
    There is no space without space-time. Why do you think you need two things, when one will do?

    Absolute frames of reference frames went away when relativity was invented.

    Lengths are frame-dependent, and you haven't specified a frame here.

    It sounds like you think there's something that absolutely stationary, that you want to call the "background of space". Such a thing is not necessary and there's no evidence for it.
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,328
    There is a reason for the shapes, if that is what you mean by "a causality". You need to pay attention to the comment about the orbitals (note, not "orbits"), being described as standing waves.

    The shapes are the fundamental and harmonics of a standing wave pattern, for something constrained by attraction towards a central point. The shapes are the same as the fundamental and harmonics set up by making a ball vibrate. They are called "spherical harmonics". More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics
     
    Write4U likes this.

Share This Page