Are the space particles of the Aether reallly quantrons?
474119
Space does not come in particles.\n\nThere is no aether.\n\nQuantrons do not exist.\n\nBut apart from that I'd say you're probably almost right.
632020
That we've found so far, anyway. The Michael Crichton book Timeline (not the movie, dear God not the movie) talks about light particle/waves as indicative of the existence of parallel universes. It's very interesting. Not only do they exhibit particle/wave behavior but no one can observe a photon where it is, only where it was. And sometimes it seems to have disappeared entirely only to reappear in a different place. Makes me wish I was smart enough to full grasp quantum physics.
721799
I'm just adding on to icarus62. If an electron\nbehaved totally as a particle, then the resulting pattern\nbehind a shield with 2 slits should look like it would\nif the shield were made of steel and the 2 slits each\nallowed bullets to go thru and a machine gun were fired\nat the slits. But it doesn't. It looks like a pattern \nresulting from a radio wave that was beamed at it.
465871
Got literacy?\nAnyway there are some theories as to the possiblities of intantaneous teleportation that involve massive electromagnetic fields but as of now there is no real way to teleport things.  According to quantum mechanics, though, extrordinarily small particles (electrons et al) have a tendency to "tunnel" varying distances almost instantaneously.
406372
The following things are not random, but appear to be:\n\nFlipping coins, throwing dice, the weather, etc.\n\nAll of the above are ruled by the laws of physics. But in those cases, the results might as well be random because the equations governing them are so complex that in practice we can't find exact solutions for them.\n\nHowever, one might ask whether there exist any physical system that it truly random - or do the equations of physics predict exact results for everything? (The only reason we don't know the future, in that case, would be because the equations are too difficult to solve.)\n\nThe answer is actually quite surprizing. Subatomic particles - that is, things smaller than atoms - are truly random. It is impossible, even in principle, to ever calculate what they will do next. All we can do is calculate a probability. That's from an area of physics called Quantum Mechanics. So, in this area of physics, instead of asking a question like, "Where will the particle land?", we ask, "What's the chance of the particle landing over here? Or over there? Or anywhere?" Quantum mechanics produces some truly "spooky" effects - such as the fact that an electron, trapped at the bottom of a bowl, can get out of the bowl without having to get up over the sides! That's a phenomenon known as tunneling, and is due to the fact that there's a small chance of the electron being outside the bowl, even if the electron doesn't have enough energy to get over the walls. That means that it must, at some point, be seen outside the bowl. But it's energy means that it can't go over the walls! So, it basically "teleports" from inside the box to outside the box. There are other quantum mechanical effects due to probability as well - but I'm sure you can find those with a quick internet search...
1110551
The term "Aether" in the context of the Michelson-Morley experiment actually means "preferred reference frame of the universe" - it was thought that light if the earth were traveling with some speed (call it v) with respect to the preferred reference frame, then the light would actually travel through the preferred reference frame with a speed c + v. \n\nMichelson-Morley demonstrated that there is no preferred reference frame - no "aether" so to speak.\n\n"Aether" in that context is a fixed "background" of the universe against which the earth, sun, stars, etc. were all thought to be moving. Whether or not "aether" consisted of something was not important to the Michelson-Morley experiment. Certainly for our small minds it is easier to think of a preferred reference frame as a substance or medium that the earth, sun, stars, etc. were moving through, but it was not necessary for the purposes of the experiment.
463605
Einstein didn't prove that aether didn't exist, that was discovered in other experiments. Einstein came up with the idea of space time, which is considered aether's replacement
994144
You mean quantum teleportation? I can point you to some layman's sites explaining how it works. . . Keep in mind, you are only teleporting the state of the "matter" (the experiments I am aware of only move photon states, though in principle you could apply them to electrons and protons), not the energy itself. Also, entangling macroscopic quantities of matter with some stream that could teleport its state (making a copy at the other end) is currently an intractable engineering problem.
391450
I'm not sure you can say we are 'made up of space-time', but the question of why space-time is stable is a good one. The answer is that on the quantum level it may very well not be stable. But the averaging of all those instabilities leads to a result that appears stable at higher levels.
836672
science people say so...\nbecause with measurements, everything is quantized.... and if something can't be quantized, like ghosts, then they are not real, or of no interest...\nbecause science people are interested with matters of consequence...
1026545
hmmm, i think they are made from tachyons
167982
The study of zero point energy is the result of the need to prove that space is not an empty entity. It was developed as a response to the scientific dogmatism that the belief of the theory of the "Aether" was just a imaginary concept that could never evolved to anything.\nThe Aether was believed to be a substance of space which contained all the power necessary to hold things together to form matter into a structure and was the cause of all motion.Many of the Modern Scientists denied this concept on the basis of their interpretation that Einstein had disproved the Existance of the Aether.\nHowever ,the proof of the puding came when an experiment evolved into being; the Casmir Experiment!\nIt was discovered in the experiment that two masses (two flat plates)touching and confined in a vacuum without the influence of electronic charge experienced a force. It was concluded that there must be a source of power stored in space.Hence energy could be obtained from the interaction of the substance of space.This was called zero point energy.This idea now became a blow to Scientists ,that perhaps the Classical Scientist may have been right.\nScience is not absolute; to most it is just a game  to satisfy humankind curiosty About God's Creation.\nUnfortunatly , to put it in plain language "we don't see to good!"
664927
First, can a subatomic particle appear to be in two places at once?\n\nAccording to Quantum Theory, the answer is yes, because in order to know where a particle is, we have to measure its position, but the very act of measuring its position will alter the particle's behavior. So in effect we can never be sure where it is exactly. So in this sense, we may get measurements that give results that says the particle is here and there (this is the Uncertainty Principle).\n\nOf course, this is NOT new to quantum theory. So what's new? Someone mentioned "quantum entanglement" and "quantum teleportation". These are some of the new topics in quantum theory.\n\nPS - there is no such thing as Aether quantum dynamics or\n Auto dynamics, and Bohr's quantum mechanics is alive and well. The only addition we've added to Bohr's theory is the concept of electron cloud (i.e. a probability cloud) around the nucleus of an atom rather than electron orbits.
14731
Photons, gluons, gravitons and Z are neutral and elementary so they are their own anti-particles.\n\nThe W+ and W-, the weak force carriers, are charged and are anti-particles.  W+ and W- can annihilate each other.
6613
Quantum physics predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy at every point in the universe. This is different from the cosmic microwave background and is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations. \n\nA minority of physicists accept it as real energy which we cannot directly sense since it is the same everywhere, even inside our bodies and measuring devices. From this perspective, the ordinary world of matter and energy is like a foam atop the quantum vacuum sea. It does not matter to a ship how deep the ocean is below it. If the zero-point energy is real, there is the possibility that it can be tapped as a source of power or be harnassed to generate a propulsive force for space travel. \n\nThe propellor or the jet engine of an aircraft push air backwards to propel the aircraft forward. A ship or boat propellor does the same thing with water. On Earth there is always air or water available to push against. But a rocket in space has nothing to push against, and so it needs to carry propellant to eject in place of air or water. The fundamental problem is that a deep space rocket would have to start out with all the propellant it will ever need. This quickly results in the need to carry more and more propellant just to propel the propellant. The breakthrough one wishes for deep space travel is to overcome the need to carry propellant at all. How can one generate a propulsive force without carrying and ejecting propellant? \n\nThere is a force associated with the electromagnetic quantum vacuum: the Casimir force. This force is an attraction between parallel metallic plates that has now been well measured and can be attributed to a minutely tiny imbalance in the zero-point energy in the cavity between versus the region outside the plates. This is not useful for propulsion since it symmetrically pulls on the plates. However if some asymmetric variation of the Casimir force could be identified one could in effect sail through space as if propelled by a kind of quantum fluctuation wind. This is pure speculation. \n\nThe other requirement for space travel is energy. A thought experiment published by physicist Robert Forward in 1984 demonstrated how the Casimir force could in principle be used to extract energy from the quantum vacuum (Phys. Rev. B, 30, 1700, 1984). Theoretical studies in the early 1990s (Phys. Rev. E, 48, 1562, 1993) verified that this was not contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics (since the zero-point energy is different from a thermal reservoir of heat). Unfortunately the Forward process cannot be cycled to yield a continuous extraction of energy. A Casimir engine would be one whose cylinders could only fire once, after which the engine become useless. \n\nORIGIN OF ZERO-POINT ENERGY \n\nThe basis of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of the fundamental laws of quantum physics. According to this principle, the more precisely one measures the position of a moving particle, such as an electron, the less exact the best possible measurement of momentum (mass times velocity) will be, and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h. A parallel uncertainty exists between measurements involving time and energy. This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter. \n\nA useful calculational tool in physics is the ideal harmonic oscillator: a hypothetical mass on a perfect spring moving back and forth. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that such an ideal harmonic oscillator -- one small
606473
Quite frankly, we don't know. Like listed above, there is a variety of smaller particles that we have been able to smash an atom into. However, each time we build a bigger smasher, we get new particles. The thought is that there is a fundamental particle that is no longer divisible, but I don't think science has commited to it yet.
170874
Most physicists (like Feynman) will tell you it's definitely a particle.  I think they're full of crap, and it's a wave.  The fact that it can only be absorbed and emited in discrete packets doesn't necessarily mean that it really travels as a particle, and the notion of a particle flies in the face of the double-slit one-photon experiment.