'Edge' of the Universe

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />But size really is a major difference between neutons and hydrogen atoms. 10^-10 meters for hydrogen vs 10^-15 meters for neutrons.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Apples to oranges. In the hydrogen atom, the electron is somehow bound -outside- the nucleus. The neutron contains it internally.

It's like saying the Sun would be fundamentally different if one of its planets fell back in.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
A factor of about 100,000X, or 5 scale ticks.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Which I'd fingered above as one -organizational- level away. That's why I don't think the two can be compared 1:1. Analogous to comparing a feather with the whole chicken, or if you prefer a molecule with a waterfall. Any data obtained is anecdotal at best.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Put a proton and and electron together one way and you get really small. Put them together a different way and you get really big.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The hydrogen atom doesn't "put them together", it loosely assosciates them in a way determined by the properties of the medium in which they are immersed. A neutron actually does -combine- a proton with an electron to yield a single particle on the same organizational scale as the original two.

Absent elysium, all a hydrogen atom amounts to is two independent particles that happen to be in physical proximity to within five orders of magnitude. Nothing makes them act as a unit.

- Kevin

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
Have you checked the batteries in your thinking-cap lately?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Your post above just said it. The negative charge component is about 3.5 times the size of the positive charge component. That leaves a net negative charge, and that's why I think the data are erroneous.

- Kevin

Size means, well, size. As in diameter. It has nothing to do with the amount of charge. The amount of charge in a proton is the same as the amount of charge in an electron. If the size of one is greater than the size of the other, all that means is that its charge density is lower. Put them together and they still cancel, charge-wise.

===

Your observation is like saying a kg of styrofoam is heavier (more massive) than a kg of uranium, because the foam is bigger.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Size means, well, size. As in diameter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My error there. I was reading 'size of the charge', not 'size of the matter containing charge'.

Question, though: How the hell did they pin that one down, short of actually separating the components and weighing them?

Aside from that, though, the statement insinuates that the "components" retain their charge when fused into a neutron, implying that the "charge" is somehow intrinsic to the particle, and not to the surrounding elysium. That may or may not be the case, but I don't think we've exhausted the ways elysium might account for charge, and that amounts to an invent-no-unnecessary-hypotheses situation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your observation is like saying a kg of styrofoam is heavier (more massive) than a kg of uranium, because the foam is bigger.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Clearly not. However, a kg of styrofoam would certainly displace more water than a kg of uranium, discounting successful buoyancy; and I'm leaning toward the idea that a neutron displaces more elysium than a proton, and both far more than an electron.

Or does the current school of thought point to elysium -penetrating- classical subatomic parts?

Again, I think that neutrons' neutrality debunks the idea that C-Gravitons are responsible for charge. Got any other ideas?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(from further back)
And in liquids the particles are also in constant contact. But the nature of that contact is different than in a solid because there are different forces at play.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hrm? I may very well be misremembering, but I thought that constant contact only occurred in solids at absolute zero. High school physical science teaches that the difference between gases, solids, and liquids of like composition was merely the average amount of space between molecules, enforced by the average amount of kinetic energy in each individual molecule.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(from further back)
Keep in mind that as scale changes we are likely to see behavioral changes in what we might otherwise want to call a liquid or a solid or a gas. The nature of contact between particles at scale -20 does not have to be exactly like the nature of contact between particles at scale -10.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Meta Model postulates that the fundamental laws of physics are uniform at every scale. Contact - or, collision - is the very first fundamental used in building the Model. Seems like we can expect the same behaviors, albeit with different parameters of size and density.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(from further back)
For the sake of argument I will stipulate that god did everything. Now, why don't we move on and try to actually understand some stuff.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Fair enough, the point is academic anyway. For what it's worth, I reread that section of TVF's book; I have to concur with the point that there must be infinite matter present at all infinite scales, and in a universe that has already existed for an infinite time; <i>in order for the meta model to work</i>. Otherwise, the universe would dissipate.

What I fail to see is how it came to exist in such an infinite condition - and the "it's infinitely old, thus didn't come to exist, it always did" argument amounts to saying that the universe as a whole is the exception to causality, and therein lies the horsepill I referred to. Like I said, though, the point is academic for now.

One last brainburp - let's assume for the sake of discussion that the scale system I've been toying with is correct in its prediction of about 5 orders of magnitude between organizational scales, on the basis that it holds up for the scales that we can see. Following that, if elysons are at SI scale -20, and CG's are at SI scale -30, then there ought to be an intermediate organization beginning at about SI -25.

- Kevin

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kcody</i>
Following that, if elysons are at SI scale -20, and CG's are at SI scale -30, then there ought to be an intermediate organization beginning at about SI -25.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That reminds me; if someone can postulate the next two scales smaller than C-Gravitons, and then somehow prove their existence, they will have effectively debunked the Planck length crowd.

- Kevin

[kcody] "High school physical science teaches that the difference between gases, solids,
and liquids of like composition was merely the average amount of space between molecules,
enforced by the average amount of kinetic energy in each individual molecule."

That's a significant over simplification, probably based on a discussion of an "ideal" particle model of some sort. And its not the way I learned it.

===

The particles that make up solids and liquids are in direct contact essentially all the time. Another way to say this is that the mean free path of the particles in a solid or a liquid is zero.

The primary difference between a solid and a liquid is not the distance between neighboring particles (which for some solids, like ice, is actually greater than in the liquid), rather it is the strength of the neighbor-to-neighbor bond. In a solid it is so strong that a particular neighbor is firmly attached to several particlular neighbors, and a lot of force is needed to make any one of those bonds slip to a different neighbor. (This firm connection between neighboring particles is why solids are so good at moving transverse wave energy. Move one of the particles sideways and ALL of its neighbors, not just the ones on either side, are dragged along with it. Wiggle a slinky [or a tight rope or water hose] side-to-side for a nice visual aid.)

When a solid melts there is a discontinuous change (called a phase change) in the nature of the neighbor-to-neighbor bond.

In a liquid the bond is weak enough that the bond can easily slide from one particular neighbor to another. The forces created by the weight of the liquid are large enough to cause this, thus a liquid has no shape of its own. (The weakness of this neighbor-to-neighbor bond makes it difficult for liquids to move transverse wave energy*. Move one of the particles sideways and the neighbors to each side are also moved, but the moved particle (mostly) slides past the particles in front and behind. The difficulty that liquids have with transverse waves is a sigmificant theoretical problem for MM's elysium as the light carrying medium, IMO. Somewhere, somehow, elysium is going to have to imitate a solid in this respect. Gravity might do the trick; I'll get to that one of these days.)

Note - Real solids and liquids are in fact slightly compressible because the size of each particle is not 100% constant and the shape of each particle is rarely (if ever) 100% spherical. These deviations from "ideal particles" happen because real particles vibrate-in-place as a result of their temperature (kinetic energy) and because the separation between real nuclei varies slightly as the electron cloud/swarm/shell of one particle presses against the electron cloud/swarm/shell of another due to temperature, pressure, etc.

===

When a liquid boils there is a another discontinuous change (also called a phase change) in the nature of the neighbor-to-neighbor bond.

The particles that make up gasses are in direct contact with one or more other particles only part of the time. Another way to say this is that the mean free path of the particles in a gas is greater than zero, and the actual value will depend on temperature, pressure, particle size, etc. There is essentially no bonding force between neighboring particles, and no two particles are neighbors for more than a brief time. (It is essentially impossible for a gas to move transverse wave energy, so elysium needs to be as little like a gas as possible.)

LB

* With the notable exception of surface waves, where gravity supplies a restoring force that is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Surface waves in liquids can be very efficient at moving transverse wave energy.