Yes,Can be able to live in space :D But this is not interesting we ...
I talk about Example They can live in a your Atom in the computer's power button !!
Yeah not Hear to false :)
Atoms core is Load Plus and Only Turning to outer electons they are load to negative.
This is see parallelity to Sun system..Planets resemble to electrons.
Can be have a Liveliness ??
Terry David Silvercloud :
YanıtlaSilIt's a concept, I expect from the concepts of duality one comes to accept with quantum physics. But I expect, since it's not a term I've come across with regards to anything outside of math I imagine you are thinking it's the space inside ...an atom which is not the same as space outside an atom (or so we believe/think). No one really knows for sure but, theoretically, the space INSIDE and atom is different than the space OUTSIDE an atom. But that would only apply to the actual space between protons, neutrons and electrons because, by the Pauli principle, the protons, neutrons and electrons can not occupy the same space at the same time. So... it's all a concept not an accepted concept except that one finds in mathematics.
Peter John Schoen:
YanıtlaSilHere's some insight, for those physicists who really don't know the makeup of an Atoms core..
The key is to consider energy and or mass/energy equivalence, so that we are forced to consider how a relative solid is at all possible..
Or how is ...it that kinetic energy is stored and or converted to an increase in Potential ergo the result a relative solid stored and repulsed around by Space or to be accurate a relative NEAR-Vacuum..
To do this we first need to refer to a 2D model representing KE & PE
so lets define height as PE and width as KE for our models
____
The above line suggests a highly kinetic mass with very little potential, a NEAR-Vacuum in fact, and now let me depict how a relative solid is possible using the implied body of energy..
To do this we first divide our model into four - As such
----
and then repulse from either side the model inward briefly, so that opposing velocities are introduced for them to converge and traverse each other infinitely, much like a bird flying forever at 5 knots in a 5 knot head wind.. and it should be noted all various states of mass including the near vacuum is made possible by this mechanism of opposing velocities..
-=-
With the above model we will note, we now have a much greater potential in the midst with much the same KE as its surrounds on either side, and as such if we extrapolate the model to a 3D one, where we have from all directions opposing velocities converging, in fact have a basic particle "compression point" surrounded by the NEAR-Vacuum, and if we elaborate the model a little further we can get a good idea on what the particles charge may be, so lets do that..
let < define velocity to the right, a parting Kinetic Potential
let > define velocity to the left, a parting Kinetic Potential
let () define opposing velocities.. a minimum of two opposing velocities where each traverses the other, in this case @ "c" but by its very nature expresses zero velocity or zero charge
<()>
If the above model were not surrounded the parting velocities would indeed part and as such the model expresses a positive assertion and or charge..
but for the real 3d world we would need to model the following
<()>o<()> but in a continuing pattern.. Note for simplicity sakes I still work in 2D..
The above model <()>o<()> therefore only depicts two protons, two neutrons and one electron, so I repeat we need to be mindful much the same pattern continues on either side and if the model were 3D it would continue on in all directions, as each and every atom are interlinked..
Anyway all we are interested in at this moment is the atoms charge..
so here is how charge is possible
() = A Protons Neutron and as such presents no repulsion and or charge
o = An Electrons neutron, and as such also presents no repulsion or charge
<()> = A Proton, and as such presents force, repulsion and or a positive charge
>o< = An Electron, and as such is defined as attractive, and I stress defined as attractive, as should one of the responsible protons for the elctrons charge be removed from the model - the defined and or implied attraction presenting as an electron is also made null and void..
example <()>
Hope I have given much insight and accurate physics for thought..
If not let me know..
Cheers!