Atom BBC4 & GWH

[MattF]

Ah, but you're referring to things which have already been proven, not just theoretically proven. I was referring to the, (upto just), unachieved states of perfection.

[Apache]

the nucleus is so dense

Bit like some of the readership

[That Ruddy Squirrel]

particle fishing trev !!

but seriously,give me five minutes to make a cup of coffee and i will try and think of something !!!

Just a cup ?

Put a pot on you mean bugga !!

Milk and no sugar please

[BUSHWHACKER]

particle fishing trev !!

but seriously,give me five minutes to make a cup of coffee and i will try and think of something !!!

What do you use for bait then?

[Vultch]

Thanks to forum all three episodes will be Sky + its repeated at 2:00 am

[gwh200]

Ah, but you're referring to things which have already been proven, not just theoretically proven. I was referring to the, (upto just), unachieved states of perfection.

well take the bose einstein particle again.it was invented as a way to endow particles with mass.it may or may not exist,only because of two separate states of as yet unachieved perfection(an energy state and sort of condensate problem which "theoretically" is a proven yet unachieavable state.

there are perfect states where number theory is concerned as well.perfect numbers eg are extremely rare and there existence can only be postulated,a googleplex is such a ridiculously big number it looks like a heap of exponenets heaped upon each other,but its existence is a perfect yet at the same time theoretical folly,yet it finds a real time application in a molecule count

[MattF]

a googleplex is such a ridiculously big number it looks like a heap of exponenets heaped upon each other,but its existence is a perfect yet at the same time theoretical folly,yet it finds a real time application in a molecule count

That does also bring up the point of proven versus able to prove, however.

Firstly, I'll say that I'm cr@p at remembering the theorists names, but for example the calculation to define where any electron is with regards to the nucleus at any given point in time, due to that amorphous, or quasi-sine type effect that you mentioned previously.

That is proven as being correct but can never truly and actually be proven due to the way it happens, so whilst being perfectly correct is still unproven, yet is also proven correct. (Btw, does that make any sense whatsoever)?

Can't remember if that is Quantum or standard theory, btw. (Plus, I really do hope I haven't done my usual trick and merged two separate calculations/theories into one idea).

Edit: Btw, if the above is complete and utter cr@p. I'll blame you for making me think this hard.

[dieselboy]

im still confused at to what light is :/

and how can an electron be in two places at the same time? i vaguely remember this in school

what does this mean?

when light leaves the sun,it takes about 8 minutes to reach us.when an electron at the sun's surface spins "up" its counterpart (which may be at ,perhaps,saturns outer ring) will react with this spin and return the spin instantaneously

have you ever thought about black holes? do you think its possible that when the star dies, its electrons break out of that orbit or shell and get forced onto the nucleus? and thats why its so dense? this might explain why there is that burst of energy as well.