Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Jolly- Joliver on 30/03/2011 10:56:20
-
I was watching a study on firing electrons, through a slit.
They formed a straight line on the other side. Then electrons were fired through 2 slits and a wave pattern ways formed on the other side.
When they tried to investigate using instimentation, the effect was to appear as if there was no wave form.
I was pondering that if you saw the electron as an energy bubble.
When it hit a panel with two slits, the bubble would push through both, maybe divide then rejoin the over side.
But also that the instimentation could effect that bubble form to the extreme that, it either attracts or repels it(squashes it).
Looking at atomic structures an eletron can appear any where arround an atom, with in a given area, so I was think maybe an eletron is just an energy bubble, and that place they call the electron is actually just the bubbles point of highest energy, which will shift.
Any thoughts on the idea?
-
an extencion on the idea
I was watching something else where a person did a study and looked at the brains reaction, to stimuli or a pinch and it was stated that the brain projected information backwards in time so that the person felt the pinch as it happened.
To say that the brain already knew about the pinch then had to wait to inform the person.
If all atoms have an energy field, these fields could be a lot bigger than we realise, and they would inter-relate, meaing that as with the study using the pinch, the inter-reaction of the atomic energy field would occur long before the pinch did, that interplay would appear to be the brain being aware of the future when in reality the brain was just aware of the bubble field long before the pinch happened.
It would also suggest that as there is a lot of space between atomic protons and neutorns that the bubbles in concentration would cause solids to exist, the bubbles would be the surface.
-
following that idea on.
If each atom has an energy field.
The proton the netron and the electron, they appear as bubbles.
I you would get something like this:-
o '
o ' o '
o ' o '
o ' o '
o ' (E) o '
o o '
o ' (0)- proton/s o '
o o '
o ' (')-Neutron/s o '
o ' o '
o (E) ' o '
o ' o '
o o ' '
' ' '
(E) Electrons which would also have a bubble arround them.
Each Proton each neutron and electron.
The close you get the thicker the influence
-
---
-----
--------
-------------------------------
0000000000000000000000000000000
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
-
Quantum mechanics was invented to address questions just like this. It describes the electron as a wave that can squeeze through both slits, not a bubble, but the idea of it squeezing through both slits appears to be correct. If you called the electrons a "bubble," that bubble would have to have all the properties of a quantum mechanical wave function.
-
Quantum mechanics was invented to address questions just like this. It describes the electron as a wave that can squeeze through both slits, not a bubble, but the idea of it squeezing through both slits appears to be correct. If you called the electrons a "bubble," that bubble would have to have all the properties of a quantum mechanical wave function.
It does act in a wave function at times.
But also as a bubble it could expand and retract, no?
It could cover a huge area in a flat disc shape, take many different shapes and forms, but still be a bubble.
-
But also as a bubble it could expand and retract, no?
It could cover a huge area in a flat disc shape, take many different shapes and forms, but still be a bubble.
A bubble could to that. Electrons don't usually. And when they do, quantum mechanical wave functions describe them perfectly well. You haven't given any mathematical details of how these bubbles work, but if they model electrons properly, I can say with almost certainty that they're identical to wave functions. If they're different from wave functions, then they don't model electrons accurately.
-
But also as a bubble it could expand and retract, no?
It could cover a huge area in a flat disc shape, take many different shapes and forms, but still be a bubble.
A bubble could to that. Electrons don't usually. And when they do, quantum mechanical wave functions describe them perfectly well. You haven't given any mathematical details of how these bubbles work, but if they model electrons properly, I can say with almost certainty that they're identical to wave functions. If they're different from wave functions, then they don't model electrons accurately.
I was thinking they would move in a wave form, I was thinking more of a liquid bubble as you would see with liquid in space, then an air bubble. But being able to surround the nucelus of an atom, interconnect with other electron bubbles, yet remain independent as a bubble.
While at the same time increasing in size with heat energy etc and move in varible manners.
AS for the maths involved, someone else would have to work that out.
But also that with that interconnection the reason for solids. as they concentrate.
-
AS for the maths involved, someone else would have to work that out.
Unfortunately, science judges ideas almost entirely on their ability to use mathematics to model reality. Without any mathematical basis, an idea is basically scientifically useless.
-
AS for the maths involved, someone else would have to work that out.
Unfortunately, science judges ideas almost entirely on their ability to use mathematics to model reality. Without any mathematical basis, an idea is basically scientifically useless.
Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.
I had an idea, sadly the to learn the maths I would have to learn to form a mathematical model for this idea would probably take quite a few years, plus quiet a few year of study into nuclear psychics.
Needless to say it's a lot of effort just to draw up a model of an idea that could be wrong.
At least this way possibly someone else that does have the knowledge could look into it and possibly draw up a model.
The first step in it all is thinking up ideas that possibly could explain the reasons why things happen as they do.
I can draw what I mean, turning that into maths is something else entirely.
but no ideas are not scientifically useless they are the basis of an hypothesis.
If this idea was right, it could explain why there is so little material, yet things are solid.
Why electrons move in a number of ways and forms, a bubble would ripple esp on impact, yet be still at moments, it could also move in relation to other bubble energies(attraction repulsion) like a hot air balloon on it's side while one side huge the other small(a repulsion from the nucleus, yet connection kept). And Maybe even why instrumentation effects them.
But it's just an idea, as a hypothesis it's OK, it is how well the models explain what we can see that ultimately decides but as you say, the model needs maths.
-
I had an idea, sadly the to learn the maths I would have to learn to form a mathematical model for this idea would probably take quite a few years, plus quiet a few year of study into nuclear psychics.
Needless to say it's a lot of effort just to draw up a model of an idea that could be wrong.
At least this way possibly someone else that does have the knowledge could look into it and possibly draw up a model.
I don't mean this to be insulting, but statements like this are so common as to be cliche, "I have a great idea, but can someone else do the mathematics/experiment?" Even if someone did want to spend their valuable time doing all that work on a new idea, you would have to give them a good reason why yours is better than all the others out there.
-
Wiybit. It's always the interaction that defines the outcome. and what defines the interactions are the 'surroundings' and 'relations'. You don't really need to bind the intermediaries to any specific shape. That we do so I expect to be a result of the way we observe everything macroscopically. There motion is real, and easy to agree on, ignoring relativistic effects for this as we don't observe those normally. We also have clear causality chains for the overwhelming part of the phenomena we observe, at least we thought we had :). Newtons ideas is very stable for describing most of what we see, so 'dipping' into QM it's easy to bring those ideas with us and expect them to have complementary resemblances there too. As I see it, that is, not all will agree on that.
-
I had an idea, sadly the to learn the maths I would have to learn to form a mathematical model for this idea would probably take quite a few years, plus quiet a few year of study into nuclear psychics.
Needless to say it's a lot of effort just to draw up a model of an idea that could be wrong.
At least this way possibly someone else that does have the knowledge could look into it and possibly draw up a model.
I don't mean this to be insulting, but statements like this are so common as to be cliche, "I have a great idea, but can someone else do the mathematics/experiment?"
Am I even in a postion to assess the idea? Not really. Not my call either way, simply to say Maybe it could be correct maybe not, but either way I am not in a position to really say. Better to suggest it then say nothing.
Even if someone did want to spend their valuable time doing all that work on a new idea, you would have to give them a good reason why yours is better than all the others out there.
Again that is there call not mine.
-
Wiybit. It's always the interaction that defines the outcome. and what defines the interactions are the 'surroundings' and 'relations'. You don't really need to bind the intermediaries to any specific shape.
I wasn't, it's a form that can make many shapes. Fluidity
-
This question definitely belongs in new theories.
-
Yes, if Wiybit wants to develop it into a theory. As it then will be on its way to become a new idea of life, the universe and all :)
-
The problem is that, if science wanted lots of new ideas about how the universe works, they could ask a bunch of school-kids.
What science needs is ideas that work to explain things. Without the maths to back it up, this idea does nothing towards that goal.
-
Yes, if Wiybit wants to develop it into a theory. As it then will be on its way to become a new idea of life, the universe and all :)
Umm I do hitch hike, on occasion [:)]