Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I wasnt being silly , I was thinking about it for a long time yesterday !

the unobserved matter will remain unobserved because it has yet to be manifested in the universe!

and I think major scientific breakthroughs into this area will come shortly !

You do have to be able to use your imagination to think up daft ideas then test them!

sadly we dont have the right measuring equipment in order to test this hypotheses , like how can we measure my imagination in what I wanted to manifest and then find the corresponding matter yet to be formed in the 3rd dimension as observable matter which reacts with photons!

I think this also maybe one of the things we may never find out or discover
humans love to think they can figure everything out and we like to think the universe will just yield and offer up all the answers. I doubt it very much , and humans will never know the truth of the mystery that is the universe
sort of like a wee game , to keep us going !

We are so sure of ourselves as a species that we will master everything

What is the loudest theoretical sound in the universe?

At approximately how much distance would there need to be from this to record the audio of such an event?

originally posted by: Steffer
Here's a GIFV version on this instead, perhaps that might work.

Menacing clouds and fog over Lake Superior

Mystery solved! You've heard of "fake news" before? Someone just makes up some news that didn't really happen, it's completely fake?

GIFV is a fake file format! There's no such file format, it's an invention made up by the crazy folks at imgur because they can't decide whether to use an mp4 or webm format and they have some screwball scheme to make an on-demand conversion. The "gifv" isn't a file as imgur implies, it's a set of instructions to initiate a conversion process.

gizmodo.com...

the name is a misnomer. GIFV is not a GIF at all. It's not even really a file! It's a set of HTML5 instructions that converts the video clip to a highly compressed MP4 or webm file, then tells it to play automatically and loop forever, just like a GIF...

Unlike true GIFs, GIFV and other HTML5 variations are tethered inextricably to the browser they are viewed in. You can share them as an embeddable object within various services and sites, but you can't download and view them on your computer. You can't email them, or archive them locally, except as video files. Imgur says it will always give users the option to download the actual GIF file, but then you're giving up all the advantages of GIFV.

I didn't see any option to download the gif file, I had to read the html source code to find the link to that. Their GIFV whole scheme seems crazy to me, they should just pick a format and use that. This is innovation in the wrong direction if you ask me.

originally posted by: Steffer
What is the loudest theoretical sound in the universe?

At approximately how much distance would there need to be from this to record the audio of such an event?

I imagine a supernova would be pretty loud if there was an atmosphere around the star to carry the sound, but there's no air or other media in space to carry sound so the distance question is a non-starter. Deep interstellar space has maybe one or two hydrogen atoms per cubic meter and that's not going to carry sound. The moon has a far "denser" atmosphere compared to interstellar space, and even that wasn't dense enough to carry any significant sound because it's still a better vacuum than the vacuums we can usually make on Earth.

I remember my father telling me about Krakatoa when I was growing up and I wasn't sure if I should believe him at first, it sounded too crazy, but I think he said something about that being the loudest sound on Earth that could be heard at great distances. But sounds just can't travel though space, not as sounds anyway. They can be converted to EM radiation like radio and that can travel through space and then the sounds can be replayed on a radio receiver.

I was wondering if the sun made "noise" but I ran into the same problem with that train of thought, there's nothing to carry any sound it might make. I found an article claiming the sun made "noise" but from a human perspective I didn't really look at it that way, they were low frequency undulations so far outside the frequency range of human hearing it was not even funny.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
flesh and blood wont survive in a zero mass condition

That's why transporter technology seen on Star Trek seems dubious at best, it's really a death machine that kills the subject and hypothetically makes a copy somewhere else, which is only as good as the fictitious "Heisenberg compensator" allows, LOL.

originally posted by: sapien82
I think this also maybe one of the things we may never find out or discover
humans love to think they can figure everything out and we like to think the universe will just yield and offer up all the answers. I doubt it very much , and humans will never know the truth of the mystery that is the universe
sort of like a wee game , to keep us going !

We are so sure of ourselves as a species that we will master everything

Richard Feynman said something one time that implied he thought we would probably figure everything out so we are living in a golden time while we still have mysteries to uncover. I remember thinking that was an optimistic view. Undoubtedly we will continue to learn more but for every question we answer, it seems like a new one pops up so I'm with you in thinking it doesn't seem likely we will ever figure everything out. I do think there's a possibility we will figure out what dark matter is, but there's no guarantee of that. It's possible some dark matter is some kind of particles that just don't interact with ordinary matter at all, in which case it may not be possible to confirm what it is with direct detection. We would have to continue to rely on indirect inferences such as gravitational lensing and galactic rotation curves. We also have a long list of things we know most of it isn't, like baryonic matter, and primordial black holes, etc, so knowing what it isn't may not tell us what it is, but it does add to our knowledge by narrowing down the possibilities.

For your experiment, a good starting point would be to see if you can manifest anything at all, regardless of whether the source is dark matter, or baryonic matter, or fairy dust. If you can't manifest anything outside of your body, then trying to figure out the source of what you manifested seems like a moot point, dark matter or otherwise. If you can manifest something outside of your body using your mind, that would probably be paranormal if you really manifested something with your mind that wasn't there before (passing gas doesn't count), so you should qualify for the million dollar prize from jref.

At what percentage of 'understanding of the universe', do you believe the human race now is at now ?

originally posted by: rom12345
At what percentage of 'understanding of the universe', do you believe the human race now is at now ?

Just for one hypothetical example, we haven't scientifically confirmed even one other intelligent species outside of Earth, but there could be hundreds, thousands, or millions of intelligent species to catalog with lots of information about each one. We've explored a lot of the Earth's land surface, but limited amounts of what's under the land and we haven't even explored much of our oceans, and it doesn't seem technically feasible to explore the deepest parts of the Earth due to temperatures and pressures exceeding engineering constraints. So the Earth is an infinitesimally small speck relative to the universe and we can't even count the whole earth as something we understand.

From that perspective it's in infinitesimally small portion of a fraction of a percent of the universe we've even explored, but that's not what Feynman was talking about, he was talking about understanding the laws of physics which may or may not be uniformly applicable across our universe. We have been clever enough to figure out what distant stars are made of just by looking at their light which suggests some uniformity of laws of physics across the universe, and we understand at least to some extent the physics of those distant processes (like the gravitational waves from the neutron star merger), so I think constraining our understanding to the small portion of the universe we've explored is not a fair representation of our understanding of the laws of physics.

I could probably calculate 20 different percentages in 20 different ways and all of them would be incorrect from some perspective, but what I'll do instead is post two rough guesstimates from my perspective of 1) laws of physics, and 2) overall which are undoubtedly wrong in some ways and only reflect a rough idea on my part.

1) Laws of physics perspective:

Of the 100% of the mass energy content of the universe, about 95-96% consists of dark matter and dark energy which we don't understand. What we understand about the remaining 4-5% (maybe 4.8%?) baryonic matter from the standpoint of the laws of physics, isn't that easy to calculate, but I give us credit for having models that can make accurate predictions for most occurrences that we can observe with baryonic matter, and I deduct from that credit because we know there are gaps in the models and things we don't understand like big bang physics, so ballpark maybe our understanding is about halfway there for the 4% baryonic matter.

So, half of 4% is 2%, which is my rough guess about our understanding the universe from a laws of physics perspective.

2) Overall perspective:

I tend to think of dividing the mass of the Earth by the mass of the universe, but unfortunately we don't know the mass of the universe, and can only estimate the mass of the observable universe at maybe 3E55g (which could be off by several orders of magnitude). We don't understand the entire Earth but we have sent probes to other planets so maybe those two facts offset each other to some extent in support of using that earth to observable universe ratio.

So if the mass of the Earth is about 6E27g, that divided by the estimated mass of the observable universe gives us

6E27g/3E55g = 2E-28

So that's less than a millionth of a billionth of a trillionth and that's an overestimate because it doesn't include the universe outside the observable universe, nor does it include dark matter though I'm not sure we should really count that for this calculation, but it makes sense to count it in the other calculation above.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

hey Arbitrageur , thanks for the reply!

Yeh I believe I have manifested a few things
indirectly and directly

I manifested an event , over a period of time
I imagined the event , then it happened.

I dont know if that counts. I will try it and see if I can record the results experimentally
although , when we say manifest , are we talking instant materialisation , or just the eventual occurrence
because , If thats the case I can manifest anything I put my mind to!

First I think about it, then I imagine it in 3d , then I sketch it 3d on paper , then I plan out how to make it real
then do it !

Humans can manifest anything really in that case !, just not instantly like "shazam" a particle accelerator or *poof* a hairdryer !

would be cool , but we arent quite there yet !

Lol nice one. a reply to: sapien82

First you say this:

originally posted by: sapien82
so if consciousness does manifest reality in that its a mind over matter universe , then dark matter is just all the matter that is waiting to be manifested into things !

Then you say this:

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I wasnt being silly , I was thinking about it for a long time yesterday !

the unobserved matter will remain unobserved because it has yet to be manifested in the universe!

Now you say this:

originally posted by: sapien82
First I think about it, then I imagine it in 3d , then I sketch it 3d on paper , then I plan out how to make it real
then do it !

So for the third post, you decide to build a wood deck on the back of your house, make some plans, buy the nails and lumber and then construct it. I don't see what that has to do with your earlier two posts, because the trees that your deck lumber came from didn't pop into existence when you decided to build a deck. I can't follow your train of thought here and it still seems like you're being silly but I can't tell. At least with dragonridr I could tell he was being silly when he said you could disengage from higgs by getting your mass to zero, so I made a silly reply too, and that's ok, but you said you weren't being silly. It seems like you were and still are.

sounds rather much like.... this



Thats the fun thing about thinking of an event... and that event happening... it is very subjective and guess what? the human memory is also very very bad at what you think it should be great at. You can retrospectively convince yourself that you predicted something when you did nothing of the sort.

Its like if you suffer from chronic deja vu, no new event or occurrence ever feels new. It is like going to see a movie and upon walking out you think, I saw that before, it was boring. The affect can be closely related to epilepsy for example. Not making an internet diagnosis, but just a few suggestions to why your "I think it and then it happens" can be easily explained.

What would be the most likely possibility of advanced, futuristic warfare?

Lasers (weapons using light as a wave or particle) or acoustical (vibrations, frequencies, focused sound wave) weapons?

I love this thread so expect me to ask even dumber questions than this.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I wasnt being silly !

If you think I am then so be it !

In your example of a a deck!

yes the trees didnt manifest or the nails , but the deck was manifested through your imagination and thought!

Just like how with maths , humans theorise a whole bunch of stuff , explain it with maths before we develop sufficient equipment to test our hypothesis and we manifest reality!

Thats why I asked , were you thinking of instant materialisation of objects , or through manifestation from thought to real world object !

you may think Im being silly but Im being serious

originally posted by: Steffer
What would be the most likely possibility of advanced, futuristic warfare?

Lasers (weapons using light as a wave or particle) or acoustical (vibrations, frequencies, focused sound wave) weapons?

I love this thread so expect me to ask even dumber questions than this.

Lasers are cool but they have limitations. A little fog can make them ineffective, and they have limits to their range because the beam spreads out over distance, but those limitations don't stop them from being developed.

The acoustic weapons I find interesting are the LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) used on cruise ships to ward off pirates. They are non-lethal but apparently create such discomfort that the pirates just can't keep going closer to the ship to board it.

Rail guns are somewhat futuristic; though the technology has been demonstrated, they aren't in use as weapons systems that I know of. Your laser pointer is portable, but high power lasers and rail guns require power supplies with an output large enough to feed the power requirements of the weapon, which can be huge. They may have more peaceful applications than weapons systems as the wiki on rail guns indicates:

railguns are still very much at the research stage, and it remains to be seen whether or not railguns will ever be deployed as practical military weapons. Any trade-off analysis between electromagnetic (EM) propulsion systems and chemical propellants for weapons applications must also factor in the novelty and complexity of the pulsed power supplies that are needed for electromagnetic launcher systems.

In addition to military applications, NASA has proposed to use a railgun to launch "wedge-shaped aircraft with scramjets" to high-altitude at Mach 10, where they will then fire a small payload into orbit using conventional rocket propulsion.[5] The extreme g-forces involved with direct railgun ground-launch to space may restrict the usage to only the sturdiest of payloads. Alternatively, very long rail systems may be used to reduce the required launch acceleration.[6]

originally posted by: sapien82
Thats why I asked , were you thinking of instant materialisation of objects , or through manifestation from thought to real world object !

I'm trying to follow your context and train of thought and am not really following it. You mentioned "dark matter is just all the matter that is waiting to be manifested into things" and I was trying to see where you were going with that idea but now it sounds like you're no longer talking about that but have switched gears into what sounds more like a positive-thinking pep-talk that "you can accomplish whatever you set out to do", which really has nothing at all to do with dark matter, or are you saying it does, and if so I don't see the connection.

For example the origin of the trees in the deck is understood as chemical processes taking place with energy received from the sun without invoking dark matter; photosynthesis just converts ordinary matter from one form to another. Your nailing the boards together obviously requires no dark matter either. Your idea for the deck comes from your brain which is powered by the food you eat so again, no dark matter needed.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey Arbitrageur , no problem , let me think about it over the weekend and I will see if I can link them together !
Dont worry it was just a random thought that I had !

I will see if that leads anywhere

Have a nice weekend if I dont reply before then

a reply to: Arbitrageur

First an aether update. I finally got a model for the last two terms of the Lorentz Force Equation by making slight tweaks to my original Maxwell derivation, so I started to write things up for publication. When doing so, I quickly found that my tweaked axioms now led to some additional terms in the Maxwell derivation - terms that should not be there. So I tweaked the axioms again to resolve that problem, and I now have the Maxwell derivation written up from the latest axioms. But now the Lorentz Force Equation derivation faces a new challenge. This is how it has gone - fix one thing and a problem pops up somewhere else. While slow, I believe progress is being made. The axioms remain quite simple in each iteration, it is just extremely hard to find a set of simple axioms that makes everything work out.

It is now quite clear that my hard copy letter to Nima Arkani-hamed will not be answered. It has been many weeks now since I sent it.

And now to resume our conversation, with a quote from your last reply to me (that I already replied to once above on page 364):

I don't think you understand what Feynman says about philosophy and you didn't understand his example of gravity in the video I posted in your other thread...you made some comment about something completely different from gravity which showed you didn't even seem to understand he was talking about gravity.

I explained my thinking concerning the magnetic dipole in a response on page 364 above, but have not heard back from you. I didn't hear back the first time I responded about the dipole either. When I don't hear back I usually think that my response is clear and that agreement (or at least an acceptable difference of opinion) has been obtained, but that clearly was incorrect the first time around. (You thought I misunderstood the video because I raised the magnetic dipole issue, but I thought Feynman was generalizing past gravity, see my earlier response on page 364.) So has agreement, or at least an acceptable difference of opinion, with my position been obtained now? Or do you still believe I am misunderstanding something important from the Feynman video?

After thinking more, I realize that second video you posted from Feynman is quite supportive of my point of view. (Perhaps that was your intent - if so, thanks.) I had acquired a somewhat negative view of Feynman as being one of those "only the math is important" types. I am not sure where I got that view, and I am happy my view was wrong. His comments about the Mayan astronomers are pretty much exactly where I find myself today. Yes, the Standard Model coupled with relativity can exactly explain experimental results - but it has no (by design) reality-based, physical-model underpinning. I do have a reality-based, physical-model underpinning (much like Feynman's real, physical, orbiting moon) but of course the status quo has done far more to fit data to its equations than I have, so they have lots more calculations, just like the Mayans had.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
do you still believe I am misunderstanding something important from the Feynman video?

I don't know how important it is, which is why after I started to prepare a reply and it sounded negative like I was arguing with you I decided to drop it because it didn't seem that important. But since you're pressing me for a response, you mentioned the time index a little after 10 minutes was where you thought he was generalizing and no longer talking about gravity. I think you're missing two things:

1. Look at where he's pointing on the blackboard when he makes his statement about inverse square! It's a gravity equation so I find it hard to see how you can infer he's not still talking about gravity when he's got his finger pointing to a gravity equation:



2. I find it somewhat surprising that your comment seems to infer that somehow Feynman is not aware there are other relationships besides inverse square when he wrote textbooks saying there are, or did I misinterpret your comment?

After thinking more, I realize that second video you posted from Feynman is quite supportive of my point of view. (Perhaps that was your intent - if so, thanks.) I had acquired a somewhat negative view of Feynman as being one of those "only the math is important" types. I am not sure where I got that view, and I am happy my view was wrong. His comments about the Mayan astronomers are pretty much exactly where I find myself today. Yes, the Standard Model coupled with relativity can exactly explain experimental results - but it has no (by design) reality-based, physical-model underpinning. I do have a reality-based, physical-model underpinning (much like Feynman's real, physical, orbiting moon) but of course the status quo has done far more to fit data to its equations than I have, so they have lots more calculations, just like the Mayans had.

In a way I suppose it's supportive in the sense that he not only entertained looking at problems from different angles, he insisted on it, and you're trying to look at things from different angles.

In the Mayan astronomer analogy to mainstream physics, I hope most physicists are at least considering the possibility that relativity might be wrong in some way even though it makes good predictions. Nima Arkani Hamed said he was willing to consider that possibility to try to solve an unsolved problem, sorry he didn't get back to you because my efforts pale in comparison to the years he spent working on the vacuum energy problem so he must be far more knowledgeable about it than me. On the other hand, the fact that he devoted so much time to it without any degree of success might have left him with some bitter feelings about pursuing that topic further, just speculating, but not completely because he was very derogatory about his own papers and called them I think "crappy", not from a lack of tremendous effort, but just because he didn't feel he got any closer to an answer. So maybe he's trying to stay away from that topic now, could be why he didn't reply, or could be many other reasons.

Theoretical physics is tough because most new ideas turn out to be wrong. We've "kicked the tires" pretty hard on the ideas we have but that doesn't guarantee they're any more right than the Mayan astronomers, who were after all getting the right answers. In that analogy ultimately modern science should be able to convince a Mayan astronomer that the new approach is more founded in reality, but how you're going to demonstrate such with your theories I don't know. We can send out spacecraft to get a better look at the solar system than the Mayans had, but subatomic particles are much harder to observe.

Do you think protons will eventually decay? Do you think some unknown particle or natural phenomenon could change everything we think we know about the eventual heat death of the universe?

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
Do you think protons will eventually decay?

I don't know. The half-life appears to be at least 10E34 years from experiment. That's just a lower limit, it could be much longer, if it has a half-life at all.

Do you think some unknown particle or natural phenomenon could change everything we think we know about the eventual heat death of the universe?

I posted a talk by Neil Turok a few pages back which I didn't think was that great, but I loved the question and answer session since some of the audience members had exactly the same questions I did and I wanted to hear the answers. One of them pertains to your question about heat death of the universe.



The first question was something like what's outside the observable universe.

1:27:30
Turok says it's "not economical" to talk about ideas that can never be tested (such as what's outside the observable universe), which makes perfect sense.

But he goes a step further and says if your model has such ideas which can't be observed that means there's something wrong with the model. That makes zero sense to me. I see nothing wrong with having a model which only enables us to observe what's in the observable universe, meaning I think that can be a perfectly fine model even if it leads to us not knowing some things. So I must admit his thought process on this matter seems very odd to me. I can accept there are some things we may never know, but I don't think he can accept that.

The next question at 1:29:55 is relevant to your question, which is "how do you reconcile a cyclic universe with dark energy?" (Turok mentioned a cyclic universe in his talk).

He gives an answer having to do with the mass of the Higgs boson which implies that the dark energy could go unstable when our universe's vacuum energy tunnels to a lower level. I can't say he's wrong but it sounds quite speculative. Nevertheless I don't have any other or better ideas on how the heat death would be avoided; perhaps some other theoretical physicists have other ideas I haven't run across.

If that comes to pass I suppose it could have an effect on protons too but for now I doubt I'll live long enough to see them decay.

Turok says LHC measurements indicate the vacuum we're in will be stable for 10E500 years. It's fair to say none of us will be around to test his prediction that the vacuum might become unstable after that. If we have any descendants still alive then I imagine they would have evolved into something non-human, long before that, and they probably won't remember Turok's prediction.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks. I watched the end of the Feynman video again (although I had to go back to page 364, as the one on this page would not run for me). Feynman still appears to me to be making a generalization on how all the laws of physics can be expressed in many different ways, but I can see your point as well. And clearly he knew E&M! My point was that a part of his generalization was failing in one aspect of one case - a non-gravity case. Perhaps I was being too picky. I understand where you are coming from now. But I am glad to resolve that.

As for what my theories can do, they do several things. They allow for a return to realism and absolutism. They allow for physical models in our understanding. They resolve major unanswered questions, such as not requiring the immense zero point energies in vacuum (the cosmological constant need not be so high); the nature of wave-particle duality (ultimately, things are wave-packets wherein the carrier wave has wave-like characteristics, while the envelope behaves like a particle); and quantum collapse (the real instantaneous collapse of a wave packet to another wave packet as a result of momentum transfer). And in every case my theories enable experimental tests to be done. The ABC Preon Model makes numerous predictions for new high energy physics events. Except for what I am working on now, all of the works appear in a peer-reviewed journal. Yet, it has all been ignored and been censored from Wikipedia.

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you take a look at my other thread that I commented on recently. I made some comments about multiple universe theory to a colleague. Those comments would have also been relevant to the OP of your excellent thread, but I thought they'd fit in better on mine. Also, my whole thread could have fit into your thread, but if you are really going to stop at page 400 then I didn't want to hasten that day. You and other contributors are doing some really good work here I and I don't want it to end any quicker than it needs to. I find it a shame that so many pages were wasted on that pendulum and Garfield nonsense.

On average how many atoms are split (I know likely not accurate language) in an atom bomb (I know there are many types and sizes that contain different, so a rough range would be helpful)?

How is so much energy contained in an atom?
Is it that, there is not really 'so much energy contained in an atom' but its that the chain reaction of the splits and initial explosion chain react all the atoms of air in the vicinity (this would still mean there is an ..for me...incomprehensible... amount of energy in atoms, but not the so simple lack of much thought view I previously imagined where 100-100000 atoms were split in the device and from that alone the shockwave of force strictly came from inside those relatively handful of tiny tiny atoms: The shockwave that knocks over buildings 1000s of yards away and mushroom cloud = (is contained in, strictly) the inside of atoms.

But now I am asking is that result: epic ridiculous shockwave + mushroom cloud contained in 99999999999 atoms surrounding the atombomb in the air, as like a cousin of lightening, the bomb creating a million bolts of lightening in a fraction of a second through the surrounding air.

But that possible change of perspective is still minutia compared to my nonunderstanding of how so much force can be contained in something so incomprehensibly tiny.

But I guess it does help to frame it differently, if it is the case that the result of the nuclear explosion (excuse the easy colloquials) is not contained inside 50 atoms, 50 tiny atoms always holding back the potential to nuclear explode, this though just always seemed crazy to me, as if you can have a hammer and anvil and place different objects on it and hit down, and some of them shoot out ooze and juice, fruit, and marbles, and some shoot out sparks, and some flip up into the air, but if you could swing down hard enough you can create a *______cue mushroom cloud video______*

So if my renewed personal perspective (which I am not suggesting is original or unique, it may be the standard obvious accepted understanding, just something I never thought much about) is correct, the splitting is like a strong digging into a deeper fabric of the strong connection of atoms, the strong magnetic connection, and gravitational, of the air, how gravity is holding the air towards earth, and how magnetism is holding the air molecules together, and maybe even the ground is related in some way, but its like the initial local splitting at bomb near landing, really digs deeply into the innerness of air atoms, and so violently rips it apart, that the force of that violent ripping apart continues to travel on and violently rips apart other air atoms and so on

so still my lack of understanding, and my question stands: how is such violent ripping potential (result in *____cue mushroom cloud video___*) stored in a little tiny atom. Might the answer simply be its stored in 9999999999999999 unleashed at once?

Like if you are at the ocean and take a bucket of water and pour it on your head, its bearable, you can take some atoms and pour it on your head and say, there is no way a *____cue____* is contained in those atoms that just were poured on my head, but then you lift up the entire ocean in a ...very big crane... and lift it up a bit high and drop it on your head, and well maybe there is something 'strong' in those atoms.

But it is the power to cause motion. How is so much power to cause motion contained in a handful of atoms (dont bring up gasoline cars please, its a different kind of motion, a violent ripping and spreading, though yes I guess we can consider gasoline explosions as some sort of distantly related microcosm).

So I will leave with this, lets say you have one atom (that is split-table and related to nuclear explosion) and you had a small enough hand to hold it in, and you had a powerful enough microscope to see it, and you had the ability to split it at will, with a magic invincible tiny toothpick (dont dismiss everything or anything I have said because absurd impossibility, play along for the benefit of deeper understanding), and you record this in much slower than the slowest possible slow motion, a close up of the toothpick slowly going towards the atom to split it: you can go forward one frame at a time, and each time you do your hand moves 1 planck length forward, so you can fast forward until you are really close, and skip 50 or 10000 frames at a time. The last 40 or 100 or 10 or 5 frames before the toothpick pierces/splits this atom, what is being observed, and then the point 0, and then the first frame after split, and then 2nd, and then 3rd, and then 4th, etc. What did the splitting do? What is leaking out of the broken atom? The electrons go one way, and protons and nuetrons another? Do the quarks split? What *"IS"* nuclear force (compelled to say, made of)? Please dont say: Oh theres just a heck of a lot of magic/nuclear force in the atom and when you split it all the tremendous amount of magic/nuclear force comes spilling out.

Photons existed where before splitting? And tremendous amount are stirred from the field/generated immediately post split? Gluons contribute? Neutrinos? Dark energy contributes? Gravity field turns a blind eye to all this and is hands off? Higgs field too? Could this activity pierce so deeply into the so tightly knit and interwoven deep fundamental fabrics and connections that it breaks down or 'does weird things' locally (and extended outwards) to the relations of the fundamental fields and particle connections? Are tiny black holes made?

Please answer as many of these questions (all of them) as honorably, honestly, unbiasedly, as possible, I can already sense my follow ups.

a reply to: DanielKoenig

How is so much energy contained in an atom?

E=mc^2

One gram matter contains as much energy as 43 thousand tons of TNT. That is what you would get from a matter-antimatter reaction. Splitting (fission) is much weaker, converts about 0.1 percent of mass into energy.

You can split nuclei because they are composite objects. Just like you have electrons in an atom, you have quarks in a nucleus. The result of splitting is a pair of lighter nuclei.

More important to understand is that E=mc^2 also means that you can create matter by providing the required energy. So matter itself can be seen as a certain state of space, bunches of condensed energy.