You've heard of the String Theory? Well, I've come up with my own theory. It's based in the sub-subatomic particle level. The premise of my theory: Everything at the sub-subatomic level is composed of energy. There is no mass. Objects(and hence, mass...) are made up of energy.
Let's take a table for instance. I place a cup on it. The cup doesn't go through because the table-top appears to be solid. The fact is, according to my theory, that the energy units making up the subatomic particles are repelling each other in such a way as to keep the atoms apart. With the atoms repelling each other, the molecules are next in line and they repel each other. Gravity keeps the cup where it was placed but at the subatomic level it's actually being suspended above the atoms of the table-top.
The implications: No "matter"(matter being made up of energy...) actually touches other "matter". Think about it, your whole body is made up of matter, but none of it touches other matter. In essence, any action we do, such as raising the glass from the table, our body is transferring energy from our fingertips to propel the glass upwards. We never actually touch the glass...
Ok, there's probably already a theory out there with the same concept only under a different name. I'm just presenting the theory that I thought out myself for your consideration. Hope you found it thought provoking!
-cheez out-
Don't you mean, The String Cheez Theory? :)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Wow... at least somebody got the humor in this... that was pretty clever though! I hadn't thought of that... =P
-Cheez Out-
Is there any evidence for this theory?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Haha! Absolutely not! But I maintain that you could test it to find evidence... I just haven't. Keep in mind, I do not have all the necessary equipment and knowledge to prove this theory but, hey, somebody else might...
-Cheez Out-
I have to ask myself, is this really worth responding to? Were it not for the fact that someone asked if there were any evidence for this "theory", I would have said "no" and gone on to other things. But perhaps I can add something of value.
Point 1: This is NOT a theory. A theory is an explanatory mechanism that has a body of evidence that supports it and none that directly contradicts it. At best this is an hypothesis.
Point 2: The most famous equation in all of Physics is Einstein's E=mc2.
E is energy
m is mass
c is the speed of light in a vacuum and it is a constant (186,242.397 miles per second).
Since c is a constant we can consider it a constant of proportionality. Therefore the equation says energy IS mass. So you can't say that there is energy but no mass. IF you have one, you automatically have the other.
Cheezy is also mistaking the forces of nature with energy. They are four forces of nature, and they are:
(1) The strong nuclear force. The nucleus of all atoms are composed of positively charged protons. We know that like charges repel each other. So then why doesn't the nucleus of all atoms larger than hydrogen (which has only a single proton) blow themselves up? The reason is that the repulsive force of the like charges are overcome by the strong nuclear force.
(2) Weak nuclear force. Even though the strong nuclear force exists some atomic nuclei do break down. When they do they can do in 3 ways.
A -- They can emit an alpha particle which is Helium nucleus consisting fo 2 protons and two neutrons.
B -- They can emit a beta particle which is an electron.
C -- A beta particle can smash into a large nucleus unstable nucleus such as Uranium (eg 235U) or Plutonium (eg 239Pu) causing it to split into two smaller nuclei.
The weak nuclear force makes it possible for a neutron to break down into a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino. It is the electron from that breakdown that is shot out of radioactive neuclei with enough force to split those large nuclei.
(3) Electromagnetism. This is the force that governs most of what we see. It is the force in which like charges repel AND unlike charges attract. It is the force that prevents Cheezy's glass from going through the table. The electrons that are circling the nuclei of the atoms of the glass repel the electrons that are circling the nuclei of the atoms in the table.
(4) Gravity. This is the weakest of all the natural forces. The only reason we sense it at all is because it is purely attractive. Suppose you have a small piece of metal sitting on a table. The gravity of the whole earth is pulling it down. If we bring a small magnet close to the metal the metal will jump up from the table to the magnet. Thus the electromagnetic force from the small magnet was able to overcome the gravity from the entire earth. If we compare the strenghts of the two forces we find that electromagnetism is about 1040 times stronger than gravity. If you wanted to write out that number in long hand it would be:
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is a pretty big number. So gravity is very weak force.
Hopefully that will give you a better idea of what physics actually says about forces fo nature.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
lol
:)X
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
What did any of that have to do with my theory???!!! Aghhhhhh you frustrate me so! You look at the present, the tangible and at what can be immediately proven. Of course everything SEEMS solid to us. Even protons and neutrons seem solid to us. Well my theory says that they're not. If you can't get your mind to grasp a concept like that by getting out of your "everthing's solid" point of view then I really don't want to hear your opinions on the subject. I'm talking theoretical physics, not what is considered the norm at the moment. This is supposed to be progressive thinking, not staying in the same mental rut you're accustomed to. Here's a mental excersise for you. Think of an atom. Think of what the atom's made up of. Think of what those things are made up of. Think of what those things are made up of. Keep going. It gives you a different perspective on the solidity of objects.
Ok so you pull up some famous equation and tell me that it disproves my theory. Well here you go. E=Mc2. Energy=MassxConstant Squared. Well there are different types of energy. So with my theory this is how it would look. E1=E2c2. The equation didn't change. Nothing's disproven. It just changes your outlook on matter...
-Cheez Out-