Thread: The stars

When looking with the naked eye (not that my eye is ever dressed) I often wonder when looking at the stars (apart from the sun) that they look like point particles with no internal structure.

whats your question or discussion?

whats your question or discussion?

I guess: Are stars point particles or not?

Are you seriously asking that? You've displayed enough knowledge here to where I'd like to think you wouldn't really be asking this question.

thats obviusly not the question since no one lack that amount of data

Originally Posted by leohopkins

When looking with the naked eye (not that my eye is ever dressed) I often wonder when looking at the stars (apart from the sun) that they look like point particles with no internal structure.

aside from now knowing that internal structure, would it surprise you to know many are complex galaxy that appear only as that spot....

My point is that (yes we have telescopes and spectoscopty (if thats how it is spelt?!) to know what stars are; how they function and what they are composed of.

Now....Even with the most accurate particle detectors in the most powerful particle accelerators we have today can only look into the world of the quantum with what could be considered looking into the macro with the naked eye. My point is we say that the electron os a point particle that has no internal structure. Maybe they do have an internal structure of some kind that we are not seeing or have the machines with the capabilities of seeing.

As far as im aware a particle detector at present is just a glorified steam room.

My point is we say that the electron os a point particle

thats not how the electron is seen today. They arent thought of as a particle nor a wave but something with certain propeties

Yes well.

My point is we should be trying to develop methods on attempting to find better ways of particle detection.

what do you think scientists are doing with their time and money?
going to the donut shop?

not quite;

it would seem to be that most of the money is going towards getting particles to smash into each other at higher speeds / energies.

we really should be concentrating on working out how to detect them properly first.

I believe that the heisenburg uncertainty principle can be broken; we just dont know how yet, and thats where the money should be pumped into !

Originally Posted by leohopkins

I believe that the heisenburg uncertainty principle can be broken; we just dont know how yet, and thats where the money should be pumped into !

What exactly is your belief based on?

Common Sense

Originally Posted by leohopkins

not quite;

it would seem to be that most of the money is going towards getting particles to smash into each other at higher speeds / energies.

we really should be concentrating on working out how to detect them properly first.

I believe that the heisenburg uncertainty principle can be broken; we just dont know how yet, and thats where the money should be pumped into !

Common Sense

HAHAHAHAHAHA
youre using common sense in quantum mechanic? oh my that was a good laugh. You gotta realise that common sense has nothing to do with QM. Leave it.

uncertainty principle is a law of the universe and cant be broken, if you know the position exacly you got no idea about the momentum and reverse is also true.

now say after me "Common sense has nothing to do with the fundamental parts of the universe"
repeat that every 3 hours for a week and more if you still think other wise

I see what you are saying but how can you possibly "know" an electon's "position" for instance ?
An electron is ALWAYS moving, always fluctuating. It has no absolute position because there is no absolute time. Matter has momentum, but inheritantly it has NO absolute position as there are no single instances of time. You can keep slicing time down into thinner and thinner wafers; ad infinitum. The only thing you can possibly HOPE to achieve by attempting to find an electron's position (for instance) is to find out where it WAS and NOT where it IS.

As for your comment on QM not being based on common sense or logic, I think you are wrong. We just havn't dug deep enough yet.

Imagine this scenario (for example) - You start digging the earth and you come across a pointy object in the ground and you want to know what it is, so you dig further around it. The further you dig the harder it becomes to "dig" because the ground gets harder. You can see that this pointy object gets wider at the base then all of a sudden your tools are incapable of digging any further, but you can hear sound coming from the object; it sounds like music. Thats strangely illogical you think. Thats not based on common sense. WOW THATS WEIRD !!!

Moments before you came to that site; a church stood at that site with its steeple and spire; There was no-one inside however somebody had left a music system playing and a landslide had just covered the entire church.

If your tools were good enough to uncover the entire church, you would be able to deduce a logical explanation for the phenomena.

Ultimately what we are dealing with here is not just a "jigsaw puzzle". It is a jigsaw puzzle of a maze. So you cant "guess" what piece might be there and work our way around it. Its SO impossible; we need to find ALL the bits and pieces first (that is find all types of fundamental sub-atomic particles FIRST) - Then we will have found the entire jigsaw. but even then our work is not over, now we have to plot our course through the maze...i.e. find out how each of these particles works and interacts with each other.

I see what you are saying but how can you possibly "know" an electon's "position" for instance ?
An electron is ALWAYS moving, always fluctuating. It has no absolute position because there is no absolute time. Matter has momentum, but inheritantly it has NO absolute position as there are no single instances of time. You can keep slicing time down into thinner and thinner wafers; ad infinitum. The only thing you can possibly HOPE to achieve by attempting to find an electron's position (for instance) is to find out where it WAS and NOT where it IS.

well then i can say this, the electron has been anywhere from the nuclues to i guess 1-5 meters from it since it came to exist.

the rest just seemed like nonesense.

QM is based on probability since particles are waves and particles in a duality. its pure random there