http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6XMwDkVrVE
!

Moderator: Moderators
According to chaos theory the behavior of chaotic systems appear to be random, when in fact they are deterministic, their future conditions are completely defined by their initial conditions with no random elements involved.TradeMark wrote:What i actually meant, everything is constructed by this kind of particle gravity thing, and it just appears to look like something else, "dark matter" etc.
As far as I know you are talking about Quantum Mechanics. These ideas are all theories, in theory it is deterministic, but we are unable to run tests to prove this, because higher dimensions have been proven to exist, and they exist inside the matter we are trying to study. And these dimensions seem to have a mind of their own, in some experiments, particles have been proven to exist only when being observed.In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance.
Hyperspace is deeper theory of non locality, where we begin to see that the space between atoms is swallowed up in higher dimensions, because both atoms know what each other are doing regardless of their location.Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen did show that if quantum mechanics is correct, then the classical view of how the real world works (at least after special relativity) is no longer tenable.
Are you talking about that... when some stuff was being observed, it acted like they were particles, but when nobody observed them, they acted like a waveform?Scratch wrote:And these dimensions seem to have a mind of their own, in some experiments, particles have been proven to exist only when being observed.
I don't think so. Let me just straighten one thing out, the phenomena where they only materialize when being observed is something else.TradeMark wrote:more like a speedball map, because its round and symmetric, and much more fun.![]()
Are you talking about that... when some stuff was being observed, it acted like they were particles, but when nobody observed them, they acted like a waveform?Scratch wrote:And these dimensions seem to have a mind of their own, in some experiments, particles have been proven to exist only when being observed.
Thats just because the observing affected the result. No own mind or anything.
By mind of its own, I mean the unseen world. Astronomers call it the mysterious dark matter, which actually gives the atom energy to its orbiting electrons. To go further than that is to say that this unseen world is actually the proven fifth dimension(and up to 4 more), which we are unable to penetrate with any kind of radiation in any spectrum.In other words, quantum mechanics cannot give exact results, but only the probabilities for the occurrence of a variety of possible results. Heisenberg went further and said that the path of a moving particle only comes into existence once we observe it.
I dont know much about anti matter, but I will address your other points for entertainment.Aether_0001 wrote:1. Oh no my head hurts at the thought of intense physics.
2. Isn't it not possible right now to conclude what the world is made of?
3. Antimatter = particle
4. Whats emmanuel?
5. Explain your points without giving away half your argument to links, which i assume almost no one looks at. They only look at what's on the page.
6. My idea of the universe is generally that the universe is made of small particles bound, yes, by gravity, but also by electromagnectic forces, and the inter-quark force, etc.
7. Wouldn't antimatter repel matter? Otherwise how would it exist without annihilating?
Edit-8. I hope i addressed everything.
Are you suggesting that because there's empty space in between particles, there must be something in between them that we just can't see for some bizarre reason and not that it's just empty space?2. Like I said, over 99% of the world is dark matter/energy. Just think about it, the size of the particles themselves is less than 99% of the size of the empty space between them, which there is no account for. (in fact the ratio is in the millions I think.)