Proton Positive Quotes

The electromagnetic attraction between negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons in the nucleus causes the electrons to orbit the nucleus of the atom, just as gravitational attraction causes the earth to orbit the sun.

How do I know that a table still exists if I go out of the room and can’t see it? What does it mean to say that things we can’t see, such as electrons or quarks—the particles that are said to make up the proton and neutron—exist? One could have a model in which the table disappears when I leave the room and reappears in the same position when I come back, but that would be awkward, and what if something happened when I was out, like the ceiling falling in? How, under the table-disappears-when-I-leave-the-room model, could I account for the fact that the next time I enter, the table reappears broken, under the debris of the ceiling? The model in which the table stays put is much simpler and agrees with observation. That is all one can ask.

Furthermore, because silicon packs on more protons than carbon, it's bulkier, like carbon with fifty extra pounds. Sometimes that's not a big deal. Silicon might substitute adequately for carbon in the Martian equivalent of fats or proteins. But carbon also contorts itself into ringed molecules we call sugars. Rings are states of high-tension- which means they store lots of energy-and silicon just isn't supple enough to bend into the right position to form rings. In a related problem, silicon atoms cannot squeeze their electrons into tight spaces for double bonds, which appear in virtually every complicated biochemical.

Post-Racial. Trans–Jim Crow. Epi-Traumatic. Alt-Reparational. Omni-Restitutional. Jingoistic Body-Positive. Sociocultural-Transcendental. Indigenous-Ripostic. Treaty of Fort Laramie–Perpendicular. Meta-Exculpatory. Pan-Political. Uber-Intermutual. MLK-Adjacent. Demi-Arcadian Bucolic. That is the vernacular of the inclusive, hyphenated, beau-American destiny we’re manifesting here! You and me! Book by book we’re making it happen! But it doesn’t happen by planting flags and picking at the scabbed-over wounds of a certain Dispossessed Neo-Global Cultural demographic committed at the hands of a onetime possibly improprietous proto-nation.

We use the effect of centrifugal forces on matter to offer insight into the rotation rate of extreme cosmic objects. Consider pulsars. With some rotating at upward of a thousand revolutions per second, we know that they cannot be made of household ingredients, or they would spin themselves apart. In fact, if a pulsar rotated any faster, say 4,500 revolutions per second, its equator would be moving at the speed of light, which tells you that this material is unlike any other. To picture a pulsar, imagine the mass of the Sun packed into a ball the size of Manhattan. If that’s hard to do, then maybe it’s easier if you imagine stuffing about a hundred million elephants into a Chapstick casing. To reach this density, you must compress all the empty space that atoms enjoy around their nucleus and among their orbiting electrons. Doing so will crush nearly all (negatively charged) electrons into (positively charged) protons, creating a ball of (neutrally charged) neutrons with a crazy-high surface gravity. Under such conditions, a neutron star’s mountain range needn’t be any taller than the thickness of a sheet of paper for you to exert more energy climbing it than a rock climber on Earth would exert ascending a three-thousand-mile-high cliff. In short, where gravity is high, the high places tend to fall, filling in the low places—a phenomenon that sounds almost biblical, in preparing the way for the Lord: “Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain” (Isaiah 40:4). That’s a recipe for a sphere if there ever was one. For all these reasons, we expect pulsars to be the most perfectly shaped spheres in the universe.

My four things I care about are truth, meaning, fitness and grace. [...] Sam [Harris] would like to make an argument that the better and more rational our thinking is, the more it can do everything that religion once did. [...] I think about my personal physics hero, Dirac – who was the guy who came up with the equation for the electron, less well-known than the Einstein equations but arguably even more beautiful...in order to predict that, he needed a positively-charged and a negatively-charged particle, and the only two known at the time were the electron and the proton to make up, let's say, a hydrogen atom. Well, the proton is quite a bit heavier than the electron and so he told the story that wasn't really true, where the proton was the anti-particle of the electron, and Heisenberg pointed out that that couldn't be because the masses are too far off and they have to be equal. Well, a short time later, the anti-electron -- the positron, that is -- was found, I guess by Anderson at Caltech in the early 30s and then an anti-proton was created some time later. So it turned out that the story had more meaning than the exact version of the story...so the story was sort of more true than the version of the story that was originally told. And I could tell you a similar story with Einstein, I could tell it to you with Darwin, who, you know, didn't fully understand the implications of his theory, as is evidenced by his screwing up a particular kind of orchid in his later work...not understanding that his theory completely explained that orchid! So there's all sorts of ways in which we get the...the truth wrong the first several times we try it, but the meaning of the story that we tell somehow remains intact. And I think that that's a very difficult lesson for people who just want to say, 'Look, I want to'...you know, Feynman would say, "If an experiment disagrees with you, then you're wrong' and it's a very appealing story to tell to people – but it's also worth noting that Feynman never got a physical law of nature and it may be that he was too wedded to this kind of rude judgment of the unforgiving. Imagine you were innovating in Brazilian jiu-jitsu. The first few times might not actually work. But if you told yourself the story, 'No, no, no – this is actually genius and it's working; no, you just lost three consecutive bouts' -- well, that may give you the ability to eventually perfect the move, perfect the technique, even though you were lying to yourself during the period in which it was being set up. It's a little bit like the difference between scaffolding and a building. And too often, people who are crazy about truth reject scaffolding, which is an intermediate stage in getting to the final truth.

The relevant facts can be summarized in a few sentences. (I won't try to do it in one.) All things are made from atoms and photons. Atoms in turn are made from electrons and atomic nuclei. The nuclei are very much smaller than the atoms as a whole (they have roughly one-hundred-thousandth, or 10^-5, the radius), but they contain all the positive electric charge and nearly all the mass of the atom-more than 99.9%. Atoms are held together by electrical attraction between the electrons and the nuclei. Finally, nuclei in turn are made from protons and neutrons. The nuclei are held together by another force, a force that is much more powerful than the electric force but acts only over short distances.

Every object is embedded in the vacuum with which physics surrounds it. This means we don't observe the naked object-rather, we see it as the surrounding vacuum will dress it. Take, as an example, a positive electric charge, such as the proton's. Its presence modifies the surrounding vacuum. The effect appears because the fluctuating electrically charged particles and antiparticles in the vacuum move apart during their lifetime. The proton attracts negative charges and repels positive ones. On the average, the charge distribution will then look much as we illustrate in figure 76a. The field of what is now a polarized vacuum weakens the proton's electric field. Its true naked charge is larger than what it appears to be from some distance; the closer we get to the proton, the larger the charge we observe.

The neutrons, as we have said and as their name suggests, carry no electrical charge. The protons have a positive charge and the electrons an equal negative charge. The attraction between the unlike charges of electrons and protons is what holds the atom together. Since each atom is electrically neutral, the number of protons in the nucleus must exactly equal the number of electrons in the electron cloud. The chemistry of an atom depends only on the number of electrons, which equals the number of protons, and which is called the atomic number. Chemistry is simply numbers, an idea Pythagoras would have liked. If you are an atom with one proton, you are hydrogen; two, helium; three, lithium; four, beryllium; five, boron; six, carbon; seven, nitrogen; eight, oxygen; and so on, up to 92 protons, in which case your name is uranium.

Let us pause for a moment and consider the structure of the atom as we know it now. Every atom is made from three kinds of elementary particles: protons, which have a positive electrical charge; electrons, which have a negative electrical charge; and neutrons, which have no charge. Protons and neutrons are packed into the nucleus, while electrons spin around outside. The number of protons is what gives an atom its chemical identity. An atom with one proton is an atom of hydrogen, one with two protons is helium, with three protons is lithium, and so on up the scale. Each time you add a proton you get a new element. (Because the number of protons in an atom is always balanced by an equal number of electrons, you will sometimes see it written that it is the number of electrons that defines an element; it comes to the same thing. The way it was explained to me is that protons give an atom its identity, electrons its personality.) Neutrons don't influence an atom's identity, but they do add to its mass. The number of neutrons is generally about the same as the number of protons, but they can vary up and down slightly. Add a neutron or two and you get an isotope. The terms you hear in reference to dating techniques in archeology refer to isotopes—carbon-14, for instance, which is an atom of carbon with six protons and eight neutrons (the fourteen being the sum of the two). Neutrons and protons occupy the atom's nucleus. The nucleus of an atom is tiny—only one millionth of a billionth of the full volume of the atom—but fantastically dense, since it contains virtually all the atom's mass. As Cropper has put it, if an atom were expanded to the size of a cathedral, the nucleus would be only about the size of a fly—but a fly many thousands of times heavier than the cathedral. It was this spaciousness—this resounding, unexpected roominess—that had Rutherford scratching his head in 1910. It is still a fairly astounding notion to consider that atoms are mostly empty space, and that the solidity we experience all around us is an illusion. When two objects come together in the real world—billiard balls are most often used for illustration—they don't actually strike each other. “Rather,” as Timothy Ferris explains, “the negatively charged fields of the two balls repel each other . . . were it not for their electrical charges they could, like galaxies, pass right through each other unscathed.” When you sit in a chair, you are not actually sitting there, but levitating above it at a height of one angstrom (a hundred millionth of a centimeter), your electrons and its electrons implacably opposed to any closer intimacy.

Two Types of Subatomic Particles Fermions (matter) Bosons (forces) electron, quark, photon, graviton, neutrino, proton Yang-Mills Bunji Sakita and Jean-Loup Gervais then demonstrated that string theory had a new type of symmetry, called supersymmetry. Since then, supersymmetry has been expanded so that it is now the largest symmetry ever found in physics. As we have emphasized, beauty to a physicist is symmetry, which allows us to find the link between different particles. All the particles of the universe could then be unified by supersymmetry. As we have emphasized, a symmetry rearranges the components of an object, leaving the original object the same. Here, one is rearranging the particles in our equations so that fermions are interchanged with bosons and vice versa. This becomes the central feature of string theory, so that the particles of the entire universe can be rearranged into one another. This means that each particle has a super partner, called a sparticle, or super particle. For example, the super partner of the electron is called the selectron. The super partner of the quark is called the squark. The superpartner of the lepton (like the electron or neutrino) is called the slepton. But in string theory, something remarkable happens. When calculating quantum corrections to string theory, you have two separate contributions. You have quantum corrections coming from fermions and also bosons. Miraculously, they are equal in size, but occur with the opposite sign. One term might have a positive sign, but there is another term that is negative. In fact, when they are added together, these terms cancel against each other, leaving a finite result. The marriage between relativity and the quantum theory has dogged physicists for almost a century, but the symmetry between fermions and bosons, called supersymmetry, allows us to cancel many of these infinities against each other. Soon, physicists discovered other means of eliminating these infinities, leaving a finite result. So this is the origin of all the excitement surrounding string theory: it can unify gravity with the quantum theory. No other theory can make this claim. This may satisfy Dirac’s original objection. He hated renormalization theory because, in spite of its fantastic and undeniable successes, it involved adding and subtracting quantities that were infinite in size. Here, we see that string theory is finite all by itself, without renormalization

But, there should be nothing ‘Right’ unless something is ‘Wrong;’ like an electron-proton pair. Were we told that ‘Wrong’ is what you are not supposed to do but they have the values in defining ‘Right?’ After all, the negatively charged electron is responsible for all the reactions in creations and destructions while the positively charged proton quietly remains in the nucleus, to influence the electron. Life is a mixture of appreciations and dislikes; love and hate. Nobody can deny it. Everything seems ‘Right’ until it goes ‘Wrong.

Positivety is always given in nature while negativity always taken in nature - eg. Electrons and protons

Basically, this is a rigorous analysis that shows that numerous universal constants—like the force of gravity, the weight of a proton, the force that binds protons and neutrons within atomic nuclei, and so on—have to be almost exactly what they are for life to exist in the universe. The odds of these constants all having the precise values needed for life are worse than the odds of winning the lottery a thousand times in a row. “So how is this possible? Theologians believe God is the answer. Scientists were initially stumped but soon declared that this riddle was easily answered if one posited an infinite number of universes. Given an infinite number of universes, one of them was bound to get it right. And, lucky for us, we happen to find ourselves in this perfect universe.” Faith raised her eyebrows. “But science admits it has no way to prove the existence of other universes. So both explanations rely on faith. Given this, why is a creator any more absurd than infinite universes? A creator may not be the answer, but science’s answer isn’t really any better.

This book is dedicated to all the protons in the universe who continue to remain positive in spite of the negativity whizzing around them

We refer to them as neutrons (neutral) and protons (positive). If the first is the customer, and the second is the bartender, the neutron asks, “Why didn’t I get a check?” The proton bartender replies, “For you, there’s no charge.” The neutron asks again, “Are you sure?” And the proton replies, “I’m positive!” See? Comedy is that simple …

Is the theory that lifeless, mindless atoms (obeying either deterministic laws or probabilistic laws of indeterminism) produce weird, unfathomable, ineffectual, pointless, mental illusions supposed to be more convincing than that we have genuine free will? The whole notion that a world made exclusively of matter, as materialist fundamentalists such as Harris insist, can suffer from illusions, delusions, hallucinations, mental illness, mental breakdowns, mental disorders, is so spectacularly silly that no sane person could ever take it seriously. Harris, in his pathological determination to rid us of free will, has posited instead a world of delusional atoms in need of psychiatric help! What, do electrons hallucinate? Do protons have delusions of grandeur? Do quarks imagine themselves free? Are 1D-strings narcissistic? If none of these things is true, how on earth does Sam Harris propose that if humans are made of atoms alone, we can suffer from such illusions? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Harris doesn’t offer any evidence at all!

Think Like a Proton and Stay Positive and I Have to Make Bad Puns about Elements Because All the Good Ones Argon and one with a dozen roses that said Science and I Have Good CHEMISTRY.

There is a polarizing effect for both echo chambers and shouting arenas. Conversation modes: Conflict; me centered, shouting arena. Negative charge, electron. Discovery; us centered, idea generation. Neutral charge, neutron. Relationship; other centered, echo chamber. Positive charge, protons. The smallest atom doesn't require neutrons but all the other atoms do.

In Maxwell’s imagination, empty space is filled with taut “strings” of this kind. They emanate from many of the particles that make up all the “stuff” in the world around us. Take, for example, the tiny negatively charged electron, a constituent part of all atoms. Imagine just one electron motionless in empty space. Tight strings stretch out from all directions through even the vacuum. Known as electric field lines, they’re invisible and incorporeal but if you put another charged particle, like a positively charged proton, in a field line, it feels pulled toward the electron just as a bead in the chain feels pulled. Now imagine the electron starts oscillating up and down. Just as the wave traveled down the rope, waves travel away from the electron down the electric field lines emanating from

Uranium atoms are unstable. They’re as wobbly as water-filled balloons. The force that holds them together, called the strong force, is almost completely counterbalanced by the force that tries to push them apart: the positive electrical charge of the 92 protons that make up their nuclei. As the rule goes, opposite charges attract, but like charges repel. Uranium is the last natural element in the periodic table, element 92, because of this inherent instability. The elements beyond uranium—neptunium (93), plutonium (94) and so on—are all manmade

Ok if they had a problem their system of parties basically took polarised positions about it, and if you look at them like they were an atom, then call the problem the protons, and the parties electrons, all that they could do was orbit the problem doing absolutely nothing about it. Are you following my thought chain here?