But modern science and most people don’t understand particle size.
There are mainly two reasons for this.
This first is equating size with weight in our scale.
When we compare two different sizes of the same material,
there is no energy difference,
just an increase in particle number, and therefore volume and weight.
. . . . . .. .
BR-549
I was the first to show why anti matter does not exist,
and in the future I would like to have credit for that.

When you say “size” you think about volume and weight.
For example the parameters of volume and weight (energy)
of an electron depends of its speed.
#
Volume and weight of an electron must have geometrical form.
But how to explain geometrical form of single electron if electron
has six (6) formulas.
a) Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron as: E=h*f
b) Sommerfeld found the formula of an electron as : e^2=ah*c
c) Dirac found two (2) more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2
d) According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
e) Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV
Nobody knows why electron has six ( 6 ) formulas.
“We know electron by what it does, not by what it is.”
#
Casimir effect shows that “antiparticle” exist in “vacuum’s sea”.
======================…

 

That is a point I frequently make. We are just beginning to ask questions that are meaningful, and we must take the experimental evidence we already have into account, always. Too many folk try to ignore that which does not fit their universe view. You can not do that and call it science.

It is possible antimatter is unstable long term, but it does exist. It can and has been synthesized. During the early 20th century this was inconceivable, yet by the mid 20th century we are synthesizing new elements in quantities big enough to make weapons stockpiles (ie, plutonium). Of course, there are many other elements besides plutonium, but that was a large part of the effort driving research. By the end of this century it is probable we will by synthesizing new forms of matter altogether, that won't follow the rules we have established for what we know now.

Personally I tend to favor the multi-dimensional point of view, there is a lot of evidence to support it. String theory supports other dimensions in a different direction.

So we could be 4 dimensional beings in a 11 dimensional universe (or even larger) trying to claim all we see is all their is, when in fact the total universe is even larger than we conceive. We are like ants on an elephant trying to claim it is the entirety of everything.

I get a little feisty when people claim to have knowledge we haven't come close to understanding. I prefer to watch current experimental evidence, there is always something new to learn.

Good words. "We don't know" or "we can't know" are dead ends unless we add "but we can form an hypothesis then find a way to test it".

 

Before time began? When was that? When man first started marking it? What is a second? What is a minute? What is an hour? Aren't they just units we measure by some set standard? OK, we call a day a day because the earth rotates about its axes once. A year is a year because that's the time our earth travels one complete circuit around the sun. You can divide it up in many ways, but still, it's the same passage around the sun.

Why do we measure the universe in relative terms to how many times the earth has (or would theoretically have) traveled around the sun? Probably because at one point we thought we were the center of the universe, and everything we knew revolved around us. With time (there's that word again) we've come to know more about our nature and existence. But that hasn't stopped us from imagining we know something because the numbers seem to say so. Numbers have been wrong before. Otherwise Einstein's theories would hold up in the macro world as well as the micro world.

I don't even remotely presume to act like someone who knows anything about quantum physics. All I can say is that time exists because we mark it. Otherwise, does time really exist? Same question as 'does a tree make a noise if it falls and nobody is there to hear it?' In some sense of the word "Noise", the answer must be "No." Because a noise is something WE perceive to be real. Actually it's just vibrations. And a vibration isn't a noise until it's picked up by our auditory senses.

Time, like noise, does not exist. The ONLY "Time" that has ever existed and ever will exist is the time known as "NOW". No matter when you refer to "Now", "Now" is always "now." Even if it was "Now" 10 minutes ago, back then it was "Now". Now, it's "Now". It's the only thing that ever does exist.

The concept of "Eternity" is interesting too. How many times has our universe collapsed in on itself only to explode and become an expanding universe? 10 times? What existed before the first time? Maybe 11 times. Or 12. Or 200 billion. Time itself is a human endeavor to understand things going on around him. To say that something happened 12 years ago only marks how much "Time" has passed since then. Even then, our means of measuring time isn't accurate. Go faster, fly higher, park next to a huge gravity well and time becomes all kinds of different things. OR so the numbers say. And frankly, you can make the numbers say almost anything. But still, eternity. Why eternity? Why not? We can't imagine such a thing. But a god can. Supposedly a god made everything. But if so then he must have made everything in the middle of eternity. So now then the question is "Why did god wait so long to make everything?" Because eternity has no middle. But supposing it did, and eternity stretches on backwards just as it will forward, then god would have had to wait an extraordinarily long time before beginning his creative works.

OK, I don't believe in a god. That's just me. And I don't believe in the concept of time, beyond how many times a crystal vibrates. We merely PRESUME to know what time is. The speed of light. And whatever else one can presume to know. But HOW do we know the speed of light? If light travels 1 mile per hour, and time can change then light speed can change. So it's 186,000 miles per second. Anything traveling at that speed - time is supposed to come to a stop. So if LIGHT is traveling at the speed of light then how can it travel any distance PER SECOND IF time has stopped? Maybe the TRUE speed of light is 372,000 miles per second - BUT because as it goes faster time slows down, and thus, light itself slows down. Maybe the "Speed of light" is ACTUALLY "The HALF speed of light." Maybe ALL our calculations based off of the speed of light are wrong. Maybe THAT is why Einstein's theories break down under certain circumstances. Well, it's all "MAYBE".

So when it comes to thinking of these things - I prefer to sip a beer and watch the ants try to contemplate their farm. To them it may be all the universe. To us it's just two sheets of glass and a plastic frame. Maybe We're the ants in some cosmic scientist's farm, THINKING we know all there is to know. Science fiction (and those pesky numbers) seem to suggest parallel universes. Well, like I said, you can make numbers say almost anything if you're good enough with them. Granted, I am less than able to figure time concepts in an RC circuit. Let alone the cosmos.

What was before the big bang? A previous big bang - probably. Can it be proved? Nope. Not with the understanding we have now.

HEY! ALL! Have a good time.

 

A greater question to ask is what made stuff clump together in the first place?

Freak weather.

 

'does a tree make a noise if it falls and nobody is there to hear it?' In some sense of the word "Noise",

Of course the tree still makes a sound. Observation is not required. The air vibrates. Stuff still mashes against stuff. It happens whether it is observed or not.

Re: speed of light
So many miles per second? How long is a mile? What is a second?
So do we need to have standards that are not based on some king's finger, foot or other appendage. Not based of something unique to Earth? The size and mass of a hydrogen atom? At what temperature and gravity? Pressure? That depends on a specific size planet and atmosphere.
Is there any way to set standards that is nor arbitrarily referenced to something?
Can we assume all inhabitable planets will be Earth size and distance from a sun?

 

Of course the tree still makes a sound. Observation is not required. The air vibrates. Stuff still mashes against stuff. It happens whether it is observed or not.

Another point of view: 'sound' is the result of air pressure waves against a tympanic membrane, activating nerves and interpreted by a brain. No ear to hear it and no brain to interpret it, no sound.

 

Another point of view: 'sound' is the result of air pressure waves against a tympanic membrane, activating nerves and interpreted by a brain. No ear to hear it and no brain to interpret it, no sound.

Why is an observer required? Would you say an earthquake didn't happen if there was no observer? A crime is not a crime if there is no witness? The sound is the vibrating air. No ear is required. If the observer is deaf would you say there is no sound?

 

Why is an observer required? Would you say an earthquake didn't happen if there was no observer? A crime is not a crime if there is no witness? The sound is the vibrating air. No ear is required. If the observer is deaf would you say there is no sound?

An earthquake is an earthquake and crime is crime. These are axiomatic.

But vibrating air is sound?

What about, say, vibrating metal pressed against your skull? You can hear something, but it's not coming from vibrating air. Is it sound? Hmmmm....

If a tree falls on the moon, and lots of astronauts are around to not hear it, did it make a sound?

 

An earthquake is an earthquake and crime is crime. These are axiomatic.

But vibrating air is sound?

What about, say, vibrating metal pressed against your skull? You can hear something, but it's not coming from vibrating air. Is it sound? Hmmmm....

If a tree falls on the moon, and lots of astronauts are around to not hear it, did it make a sound?

Re: "If a tree falls on the moon,"
No air to make a sound. They could feel the ground vibrate. The ground vibrates whether there is someone around to observe it or not.
The event does not depend on an observer.

 

The argument seems to be whether the laws of physics apply whether or not someone can observe them.

So just limit the question to what happens and not someone's opinion of what's happening.

 

Another point of view: 'sound' is the result of air pressure waves against a tympanic membrane, activating nerves and interpreted by a brain. No ear to hear it and no brain to interpret it, no sound.

And here's something else stated by quantum mechanics:
Nothing is real (or coalesces) until it is observed.

 

The argument seems to be whether the laws of physics apply whether or not someone can observe them.

So just limit the question to what happens and not someone's opinion of what's happening.

If there were no people in the world the physical reality of the event still occurs.

 

And here's something else stated by quantum mechanics:
Nothing is real (or coalesces) until it is observed.

Re: "Nothing is real (or coalesces) until it is observed"

Being that such a conclusion is illogical I assume you must be mis-quoting something. Can we trace this concept back to its source? I suggest the events occur whether or not they are observed or the entire big bang story falls apart. Stuff had to be happening before there was an observer.

 

Re: "Nothing is real (or coalesces) until it is observed"

Being that such a conclusion is illogical I assume you must be mis-quoting something. Can we trace this concept back to its source? I suggest the events occur whether or not they are observed or the entire big bang story falls apart. Stuff had to be happening before there was an observer.

Check this out, it's rather illustrative:

http://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe/​

*** According to the quantum theory, before the observation is made, a subatomic particle exists in several states, called a superposition (or, as Wheeler called it, a ‘smoky dragon’). Once the particle is observed, it instantaneously collapses into a single position. Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

 

Check this out, it's rather illustrative:

http://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe/​

*** According to the quantum theory, before the observation is made, a subatomic particle exists in several states, called a superposition (or, as Wheeler called it, a ‘smoky dragon’). Once the particle is observed, it instantaneously collapses into a single position. Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

"Sense of humor"? Yes. How does he imagine the universe forms where there is no observer to make it form?
Unless he is suggesting a god is the ultimate observer in the universe. In that case the tree falling in the forest makes a sound. God is the observer.
I would rather suggest the physics of the universe runs just fine without man as an observer. Stars and atoms form with no need of man's cooperation.

 

This where theories of the multiverse come in. There are plenty of experiments where light and electrons act as both a particle and a wave, but can not be both.
The multiverse theory offers a tentative explanation.

 

This where theories of the multiverse come in. There are plenty of experiments where light and electrons act as both a particle and a wave, but can not be both.
The multiverse theory offers a tentative explanation.

Or where a single electron interferes with itself in a dual-slit experiment.

 

This where theories of the multiverse come in. There are plenty of experiments where light and electrons act as both a particle and a wave, but can not be both.
The multiverse theory offers a tentative explanation.

Re: "multiverse"
There seems to be multi-versions termed multi-verse/
What we consider the limits of our universe constitutes just one of many "universes". Good, in general. I have to consider our view of the universe is like people living in a valley surrounded by high mountains and considering there is no world outside their valley.
Or that the universe expands only to collapse and explode again.
Or Hawking's idea that there are multiple parallel universes somehow intermingling with the one we know. No support that I think is credible.

 

Again, those experiments I mentioned. Very old, and very confusing data, but real.

The universe is much stranger than we imagine, so we have stretch our imaginations.

 

Tree falling on the moon does not produce a sound but still produces a vibration. The vibration is called " A Moon Quake ", not a sound.

The argument of whether a tree makes a sound or not is irrelevant. The point I was making was that we "Perceive" things. We perceive light and images, but they're nothing more than photons striking the rods and cones in our eyes, producing an electrical impulse. From there it's the BRAIN that perceives a picture, a scene, an event or even just a flash of light. Apollo astronauts were seeing flashes of light when they had their eyes closed. Those "Flashes of light" were cosmic particles colliding with the rods and/or cones in their eyes. It was the BRAIN that perceived "a flash of light."

My argument is that time is a man made measurement. We define what a second is, what a minute is, an hour, an inch or millimeter, a foot, a yard, a meter, an acre. But these things are all man made for the purpose of governing time and space. Distance - as it were. The whole question was founded on the idea of what existed before the big bang. My postulation is that there were probably -nay! LIKELY, more big bangs. But we can never hope to measure them. SURE we can theorize they existed based on mathematical calculations, but if the numbers we choose as constants are wrong then the conclusions are wrong.

Light? I say its speed CAN vary. And I'm not talking about red shift or blue shift - I'm talking about it on the whole. And light IS bent by gravity, this much HAS been observed. The same distant galaxy shows up on two sides of a distant star. Why? Because the light passing around it is bent back inwards the same as a lens focuses the light. Whether its speed is 186,000 MPS (forgive me for not knowing the metric, and I know it's easy enough to google), but regardless of the speed of light, the numbers we calculate everything is based on observed facts that are OBSERVED within our own realm of viewable and measurable medium. Those numbers predict that time changes under differing circumstances. Therefore, light in a heavy gravitational pull WILL travel faster (or slower - I don't know which). So how can the numbers we call "Constants" be "Constant"?

The big bang. I've heard them talking about the seconds after the big bang, the second of the big bang, tenths of a second, hundredths, thousandths and even much smaller units of measure. HUMAN measurements. Who knows?! Those millionths of a second can actually be hours. Just that WE HUMANS exist within THIS time frame - doesn't mean the whole universe does. Multiverses? Numbers. Based on possibly faulty assumptions. After all, George Washington was treated for an illness that lead to his death. It wasn't the illness, it was the perceived PROPER treatment of "Blood Letting". Poor George. The medical "Professionals" THOUGHT they knew what to do. So are we any smarter today? I bet not much. Trees on the moon. Vibrations. (which are vibrations, not sounds)

Where does it end? I don't know. All I know is that today I have to order some parts to repair a stereo. At this moment I really don't care how many big bangs there may have been, nor do I care how far or fast light travels in some man made unit of measure.

Like I say, I'll sit back and suck down a beer and watch the stars. If they show me something new - great. If not - at least I'm enjoying the show. Light from thousands of years ago. (HEY! TIME TRAVEL!)