Science proves God - Page 5

Aerozord · 07-31-2011, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azisien

I'm fairly certain gravity is nowhere near the dominant force at play on the scale of an electron.

not a matter of it being dominant, unless another force opposes it gravity will make all things round. I just dont see why any of the others would do so

Magus · 07-31-2011, 01:08 AM

Listen I'm still trying to grasp the fact that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time or whatever. And sometimes photons can be in two places at once, I guess, according to this Quantum theory mechanics stuff. Why are they bringing up antimatter again? To hurt my stupid brain? Did they even figure out a way to measure antimatter yet? Last I heard it was invisible and unmeasurable, i.e., stuff might not even exist and that particle accelerator might be the one of the most expensive waste of money ever. I heard they might have had some antimatter over there for a few seconds so far, so did they figure out a way to measure it with our material measuring devices, then?

Sithdarth · 07-31-2011, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Did they even figure out a way to measure antimatter yet? Last I heard it was invisible and unmeasurable, i.e., stuff might not even exist

Maybe about a century ago.

Quote:

I heard they might have had some antimatter over there for a few seconds so far, so did they figure out a way to measure it with our material measuring devices, then?

Seriously? I hope there is just sarcasm I'm missing here. Antimatter is exactly every bit like normal matter the electric charge is just opposite.

Magus · 07-31-2011, 01:27 AM

See this is why people who pay for science funding (politicians), should have science degrees. Because most politicians have no more idea about any of this than me, that is why science funding is a miniscule part of the national budget.

I mean, you are saying all matter has an electrical charge, that it is unitary, and antimatter has the opposite of that. And yet there are negatively charged ions and positively charged ions and electrons and neutrons and protons and shit within atoms. So is the charge of matter actually "electrical" or...?

Unless you think they teach quantum shit in high school or whatever. I'm a liberal arts English major, see. Like I said, I have a hard time just understanding how light is a particle and a wave at the same time. And despite hours spent on Wikipedia I am not much wiser!

Thanks for the help, though, I'm glad they can measure antimatter and have proved it exists. I thought it was still in the "theoretical" category.

EDIT: Ooh, never mind, I found an article that explains antimatter comes in all the same forms as matter, such as anti-electrons (electron with a positive charge, basically a particle that has the same exact mass as an electron but a positive charge, thus they would annihilate each other), anti-protons (proton with a negative charge), etc. Kind of a basic thing to understand but it makes it a lot clearer now.

...what's the antimatter equivalent of a neutron, though?

Professor Smarmiarty · 07-31-2011, 03:11 AM

It's an antineutron. Same charge as as a neutron (0) but it is made of antiquarks rther than quarks.
How can anyone trust this ridiculous god science. Of course we have "antimatter" and it's made up of "antielectrons" and "antiprotons" and it makes "antidogs" and "anticats". Foolish!

Meister · 07-31-2011, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Part of the laser system used by scientists at Imperial College to measure the shape of the electron. Photograph: Joe Smallman/Imperial College

Bullshit you guys are in there all day dropping E and playing trance.

Pip Boy · 07-31-2011, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meister

Bullshit you guys are in there all day dropping E and playing trance.

Yeah. Science.

The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk · 07-31-2011, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus

Did they even figure out a way to measure antimatter yet?

Yes.

As for light, think of it like this; there are 2 theories used to talk about light, particle theory and wave theory. Particle theory is used to talk about how light is generated, wave theory is used to talk about how light is propogated. Trying to use either theory to talk about the opposite thing doesn't work.

Light (photons) are created when energy is applied to an atom, causing electrons in the outer shells of those atoms to change orbit, which releases packets of energy, called photons.

The particles then travel through space in all directions in the form of a wave. They're still particles (or rather, packets of miniscule energy, since all particles are basically energy anyway), and there's still countless numbers of them, they're just arranged into wave like patterns. Obviously there's more to it than that but that's the general gist.

TDK · 07-31-2011, 11:32 AM

But actually (according to some theories, at least) what it comes down to is that all particles are also waves, but it only becomes evident when they go really fast! The 'wavelength' of, say, an apple sitting on your desk, which is actually going fairly fast in an absolute sense - through space, not on earth - would have a minuscule wavelength because it is going fairly slow in the grand scheme of things. However, light moves very fast, as you might have heard! So its function as a wave is very evident.

This is also the reason that electrons are waves. They similarly move quite fast (I'm not sure about their actual speed to be honest)

Azisien · 07-31-2011, 11:39 AM

We're working on it! Last I checked, some scientists had shown the wave nature of fairly small molecules. Next up, big molecules. Then maybe a virus. Bacteria. Protists. A platyhelminth or two.

Cats.

07-31-2011, 01:08 AM	#42
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	Listen I'm still trying to grasp the fact that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time or whatever. And sometimes photons can be in two places at once, I guess, according to this Quantum theory mechanics stuff. Why are they bringing up antimatter again? To hurt my stupid brain? Did they even figure out a way to measure antimatter yet? Last I heard it was invisible and unmeasurable, i.e., stuff might not even exist and that particle accelerator might be the one of the most expensive waste of money ever. I heard they might have had some antimatter over there for a few seconds so far, so did they figure out a way to measure it with our material measuring devices, then? __________________ The Valiant Review

07-31-2011, 01:27 AM	#44
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	See this is why people who pay for science funding (politicians), should have science degrees. Because most politicians have no more idea about any of this than me, that is why science funding is a miniscule part of the national budget. I mean, you are saying all matter has an electrical charge, that it is unitary, and antimatter has the opposite of that. And yet there are negatively charged ions and positively charged ions and electrons and neutrons and protons and shit within atoms. So is the charge of matter actually "electrical" or...? Unless you think they teach quantum shit in high school or whatever. I'm a liberal arts English major, see. Like I said, I have a hard time just understanding how light is a particle and a wave at the same time. And despite hours spent on Wikipedia I am not much wiser! Thanks for the help, though, I'm glad they can measure antimatter and have proved it exists. I thought it was still in the "theoretical" category. EDIT: Ooh, never mind, I found an article that explains antimatter comes in all the same forms as matter, such as anti-electrons (electron with a positive charge, basically a particle that has the same exact mass as an electron but a positive charge, thus they would annihilate each other), anti-protons (proton with a negative charge), etc. Kind of a basic thing to understand but it makes it a lot clearer now. ...what's the antimatter equivalent of a neutron, though? __________________ The Valiant Review Last edited by Magus; 07-31-2011 at 02:29 AM.

07-31-2011, 11:32 AM	#49
TDK Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Reality Posts: 2,914	wherein sith or smarty can feel free to correct me if this is not accepted theory But actually (according to some theories, at least) what it comes down to is that all particles are also waves, but it only becomes evident when they go really fast! The 'wavelength' of, say, an apple sitting on your desk, which is actually going fairly fast in an absolute sense - through space, not on earth - would have a minuscule wavelength because it is going fairly slow in the grand scheme of things. However, light moves very fast, as you might have heard! So its function as a wave is very evident. This is also the reason that electrons are waves. They similarly move quite fast (I'm not sure about their actual speed to be honest)

07-31-2011, 03:11 AM	#45
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	It's an antineutron. Same charge as as a neutron (0) but it is made of antiquarks rther than quarks. How can anyone trust this ridiculous god science. Of course we have "antimatter" and it's made up of "antielectrons" and "antiprotons" and it makes "antidogs" and "anticats". Foolish!

07-31-2011, 11:39 AM	#50
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	We're working on it! Last I checked, some scientists had shown the wave nature of fairly small molecules. Next up, big molecules. Then maybe a virus. Bacteria. Protists. A platyhelminth or two. Cats.