Have we ever found anything solid?

E=mc^2 energy and matter are one in the same, which i think you're not understanding from your argument. Other than that, neutron stars are almost completely composed of neutrons (we think) and therefore "very solid" with no full atom structures to create empty space they're extremely dense.

You clearly have no idea what the word "solid" actually describes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid

>>7738146
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid
So being solid is kind of an illusion then. Some atoms are resisting changing their formation, but there is nothing really lay-person-solid there?

>>7738142
Do we have any pictures of netrons? Or is it like dark matter where we just measure that it should be there?

>>7738158
Look, we don't have pictures for a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we have no proof. Do you know what science is?

>>7738184
>that doesn't mean we have no proof
It sounds like we have evidence that something material exists, but not proof. That's what I'm asking.

My dick was solid last night when I fucked your mom.

>>7738277
That was probably pretty awkward for you, after the 6 years of decomposition.

>>7738117
black holes are completely solid, idiot

>>7738117
>picture
get out of here, now

>>7738334
What's wrong with a statue of a thumb?

File: QuantumHarmonicOscillatorAnimation.gif (754KB, 300x373px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 300x373px

>>7738153
I thought that was the lay-person-solid! What are you thinking of?

Your view of atoms as mostly empty is wrong. Atoms are quantum mechanical objects, and hence lack a definite position. they instead look like an uncertain smudge that stretches out to infinity. It is true that the probability of finding a particle far from the centre is very low, so it makes sense to think of an atom being confined to a small area, but that still does not result in a "mostly empty" atom, because the electrons are smudged out in a spherically symmetric fashion - every bit of the atom is "filled" with the electrons. You can see in my pic what this looks like - focusing on picture C, you can see that the probability of finding an electron very far from the centre is not zero (the graph never touches the x axis), but it does drop down to very nearly zero at a certain distance. That is what you would call the radius of the atom, and it is clear that the electron "fills" the interior of this space.
In a solid, these electron blobs overlap which means the view of a solid as a load of touching balls isn't totally incorrect. The problem with this model is that it is classical, and electrons are really point particles in (infinitely) many positions all at once, not balls with a definite position and non-zero volume.

Because the nuclei have a much greater mass than the electrons, their wavefunctions are much more localised (this is NOT due to gravity, but the nature of mass in a quantum system) which means if you look at the radius of the nuclei in a solid, they will appear very much spread out, but again they are actually overlapping because they too smudge out to infinity. The nature of the nucleus isn't really important for the macroscopic properties of the substance. the mass of the nucleus determines that mass of the material, and the charge of the nucleus determines the number of electrons, but it is really how these electrons are arranged that gives rise to the chemistry.

>>7738344
Now we're talking. There is no spoon!

File: nuclei.jpg (40KB, 605x570px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 605x570px

>>7738344
You can have materials where the nuclei are actually pressed right up against each other, like in a neutron star. In the outer layers, you have matter that is still made of nuclei and electrons, but very dense. As you get closer to the core the number of electrons and protons starts dropping off, being replaced by neutrons, and eventually the density is so great it effectively becomes one giant nucleus. At the very centre of a large neutron star some people believe we would find quark matter, which is where the density goes above that of nuclear matter and haves like one giant neutron made of many, many quarks and gluons, but that is conjecture.

In the pic you can see a shitty representation of normal matter, and then matter close to the centre of a neutron star (though the lower ones should probably overlap more, that was too hard for me). These are the nuclear wavefunctions - the electrons would spread out over the entire top picture, and would probably be absent from the lower one.
These pics aren't great because the nucleus is of course made of many particles and hence its wavefunction should be much more complex than a single curve.

Does the lack of solids explain why psychic functioning works?

File: Code_of_Hammurabi.jpg (16KB, 384x512px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 384x512px

>>7738117

Not /sci/ but some of you have probably heard of the "code of hammurabi" from your school days, maybe seen a picture before.

Well, the monument itself is in the shape of a finger, with the top artwork being the "nail", much like OP's picture.

>>7738848
So long. So black.

>>7738117
Subatomically speaking OP's pic is a good metaphor for what is happening when you shove your thump in your gf's butthole.