this is what I really meant when I suggested quantum energy the quantum world was more about electrons ,and the entanglement between , electrons , rather than the whole of the atom and protons and neutrons and the sub-atomic world which is where I was thinking
sub-atomic chemistry , is in the combining of quarks ( which is being done , interestingly ) and hopefully other sub-atomic particles , in combinations
I think the word "chemistry" only applies to the study of atoms and one lower level of decomposition: protons, neutrons and electrons. If you want to talk about the next level--bosons, leptons and quarks--I would say that you've exited the realm of chemistry and are now up to your neck in physics. Possibly even cosmology, that messy place where physics, mathematics and philosophy intersect awkwardly.
This is the second time I've seen you roll this description of cosmology out, and I find it rather puzzling. Cosmology is substantially less mathematical than other branches of physics - say particle physics or string theory. Physics and philosophy have always been slightly awkward bedfellows, but without a doubt historically, quantum theories have been far harder to interpret than cosmological ones, and many of the philosophical conundrums in modern cosmology are inherited from quantum theories.
I consider macrocosmology (where did the universe come from) and microcosmology (can we break a lepton down into smaller pieces) two branches of the same field of study. After all, on the one hand, at t=0 the entire universe was a point, whereas on the other hand, gravity--the reason the universe has not expanded so much that there are no more stars and planets--continues to resist our attempts to integrate the Four Fundamental Forces. I see particle physics and the string hypothesis as microcosmology. Micro- and macrocosmology are inextricably related. I refuse to call the String Hypothesis a theory since it has not been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt like relativity and evolution. I still remember that cute 1980's 11-dimensional model, in which all the particles vibrate in and out of our plane of observation, creating the illusion of the Uncertainty Principle. Now that is an intersection of physics and math with philosophy!
I'd agree with this - cosmology is essentially the use of particle physics to answer questions about the structure of the universe at the scale of the whole universe. Macro and micro prefixes are not required. This is true, but we know a great deal about the properties a theory of quantum gravity must have by inference, even if we don't know in the theory in detail yet. We also know there must be a theory of quantum gravity rather than just more layers of classical gravity, because of the existence of points that in classical gravity are singular. It is taking a great deal of self control to not simply call you an idiot for these beliefs and move on. String theory is far far more than a hypothesis. As the linguistics mod you'll probably appreciate the definition of "hypothesis" is a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences String theory has a great deal of complicated mathematics behind it, and as such is in no sense an assumption. The reason it has not been experimentally tested is that one can show the regime where stringy effects become important is at an energy scale far beyond what we are capable of producing with accelerators. That is hardly that fault of string theory, but the effort to test is via indirect means goes on, as you'd expect it would. String theory is a completely legitimate theory of physics like GR or QFT. By this I mean it is mathematically rigorous but it is not experimentally proven. There are millions of examples of this in physics that are studied because they are useful as toy models. Some examples off the top of my head are N = 4 super Yang-Mills theory, The Ising Model, the London theory of supercondictivity. The list goes on. As for the remark about the uncertainty principle, it's not clear to me that you believe it but in any case it's pure bilge. The 11 dimensional model you refer to is M-theory which is the theory that contains the 5 string theories. String theory is a fully quantum mechanical theory so the uncertainty principle exists there in all 11 dimensions, not just in the 4 we observe. If you don't like string theory then why are you bringing this up?
I may be an idiot but it's because of the imprecise way I expressed myself rather than beliefs which I don't actually espouse. Yes I understand this. Nonetheless the definition of a theory in science, as opposed to mathematics, police work or vernacular conversation, is a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. When laymen see us calling evolution a theory and then on the next page we're calling string theory a theory, that is precisely why they feel absolutely justified in doubting evolution "because it is just a theory." Scientists need to clean up their act. They are absolutely horrible communicators when trying to explain things to laymen. That may not have mattered 300 years ago but it is a critical problem today. I understand that too. But the fact remains that it has not been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus has not become part of the canon of science like relativity, evolution and plate tectonics. Until then, it's important to reassure laymen that it is qualitatively different from those other "theories." The best way to do that is to make it unnecessary, by simply not calling it a theory in the first place. If it requires coining a new word, then let's go for it. If there's one thing scientists are renowned for, it's their ability to coin new words, with the vocabulary of Greek, Latin and several other languages to draw from. In other words, it is not a canonical theory, which means that there is a reasonable (if small) probability that it may yet be falsified. It may qualify as a theory in mathematics, because mathematical theories are derived from pure abstractions. But scientific theories are derived from empirical evidence of the natural universe's present and past behavior. If we cannot verify (yet) that string theory happens to be a perfect description of events that take place in reality, then it cannot (yet) be a scientific theory. This is a perfect illustration of my good-natured gibe at cosmology. Here is one of those awkward places where physics and mathematics come crashing together, and I suppose we can even invoke philosophy because we're arguing over definitions. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry, as I said I did not express myself clearly. It was the 11-dimensional model which seemed to me to make the uncertainty principle an illusion, because the uncertainty itself is an illusion, not our analysis of it. In this model those particles are not popping up in different places at random; they are moving about in a fashion that is quite orderly and predictable, if only we could observe the other seven dimensions.
The MACRO dynamics are a functional culmination and result of the micro dynamics. The two observations are useful, that each reveals an explanation of the other with an equalized result expected. We cannot observe the MACRO "big picture" beyond the cosmic horizon. We cannot observe the micro "little picture" beyond the edge of the planck realm. We have yet to probe "directly at location", the "dynamics of the space" between two significantly large mass structures (m1 & m2 in the law of gravity): Gravity The largest MACRO dynamic observed is the collision and passing event between two large "clusters" of galaxies (not discussing individual galaxies). These collisions reveal that normal matter does not encompass the actual mass density of the dynamic. The Inverse Square Law of Gravity shows this important "r" generated dynamic structure. This inverse square relation is revealed over again, when observing Electric field, Light, Sound, and Radiation dynamics. courtesy: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu
