It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 196
39
<< 193  194  195    197  198  199 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by squandered

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by squandered
 


Thanks. Sorry if I overdid my post.



I Fink U Freeky ;-)


...and U like me a lot?




posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
The ONLY reasons for one rejecting any ideas regarding the wave structure of matter(the only context where toroid lines of force and cymatic structures of the ψ-field make sense), is that he or she has already presupposed an interpretation and world view. This world view is applied TO reality, rather than inferred FROM observations.

The current practice of ascribing 'irreducible lawlessness' to nature simply because it exists in a formalized quantum mechanics, is a preferred material ontological interpretation of the uncertainty relations.

Heisenberg argued against such interpretations(and imaginative interpreting in general), however that does not mean that nature isn't actually existing in one way or another.

He simply thought there was a certain advantage to be had in a sort of epistemological agnosticism regarding what is actually 'happening' between observations.

Right now the prevailing interpretation seems to prefer particle interpretations as what 'actually exists' - even though they will admit all kinds of wave behaviors and ad-hoc assumptions about what a 'particle' can be. We still use the word 'electron orbit', when in fact the 'actual' situation does not resemble a particle (electron) orbiting or revolving around a fixed point.

The meat and potatoes comes when someone like Schrödinger, Bohm, or Wolff tries to say that the ψ-field might represent something real.

There is no a priori reason why wave interpretations are dismissed. This is simply a claim based on OPINION, which prefers to interpret the world as separate fragments.



"That is to say, the primary 'mistake' that can be made in this field is not the positive one of wrongly assigning what originates in thought to a reality independent of thought. Rather, it is the negative one of overlooking or failing to be aware that a certain movement originates in thought, and thus implicitly treating that movement as originating in non-thought. In this way, what is actually the one single process of thought is tacitly treated as if it were split in two parts (but of course without one being aware that this is happening). Such unconscious fragmentation of the process of thought must lead to distortion in all of perception." (Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, p. 78)


In REALITY, however, those fragments are not real. It is like looking at a hologram.

Rather than supposing that the ψ-field represents a 'probability density' of finding a 'quanta'... why can't it represent a real wave structure in space?

Furthermore, why should we EVER consider using the terms 'elementary particles' if such a situation as Heisenberg describes is the case:



"All the elementary particles can, at sufficiently high energies, be transmuted into other particles, or they can simply be created from kinetic energy and can be annihilated into energy, for instance into radiation. Therefore, we have here actually the final proof for the unity of matter. All the elementary particles are made of the same substance, which we may call energy or universal matter; they are just different forms in which matter can appear." (Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 134)


Clearly, the wave structure of matter has had the most reasonable interpretation. I do not argue for the vortex idea because it sounds cool (c'mon its a vortex!!!) but because it fits into the general framework of wave and fluid mechanics and continuous phenomenon.

I recommend reading this interview with Carver Mead (yep, you guessed it... another inconvenient "lunatic" talking about stuff he has no business talking about!!!)

Mead Interview

A taste:



He conveys the sense that during his fifty years of immersion in technology he has made electrons and photons his friends, and he knows they would never indulge in the outrageous, irrational behavior ascribed to them by physicists. In the process, he is also implicitly coming to the defense of reason, science, history, culture, human dignity and free will.

edit on 16-2-2012 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


good thinking, i agree.

the wave field must be the primary field....of which "particles" only coalesce out of.

if you haven't seen it, you might be interested in my post a few pages back..about Russian Pyramid research and the "discovery" of a NEW "physical" field called "Inerton Field".

Post Here

this plethora of research and credentials has already been irrationally denied by the demonstrably small-minded members in this thread, so beware...

the scientist provides a lot of evidence for the existence of the Inerton, and even posits that Inertons are the "gravitons" which scientists can't seem to identify "in the physical".

the scientst also interchangeably calls the Inerton field the Aether field.

perhaps this field is the "wave" field? maybe. maybe the Inerton field at least interacts with the "wave field" of which you spoke of.

although I think I'm leaning towards the possibility that:

"space/time" is the "particle/physical" field....and it's reciprocal "time/space" is the "wave field".

the physicist Dewey Larson and his Reciprocal Systems Theory would prove interesting if you follow this drift..



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Rather than supposing that the ψ-field represents a 'probability density' of finding a 'quanta'... why can't it represent a real wave structure in space?


Because we infer our world view from observations, and observations tell us that a 'quanta' sometimes behave like a wave, and sometimes like a particle. So since we do not apply our world view TO reality, we must conclude that a 'quanta' isn't a real wave structure in space, no matter how much we want it to be.

(basically, the answer to your question is already in your post).



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by squandered

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by squandered
 


Thanks. Sorry if I overdid my post.



I Fink U Freeky ;-)


...and U like me a lot?


In my own special way



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


let's remember that according to quantum physics, particles are "probability densities".

quantum physics posits that there is a "field" which is more fundamental than our physical world. it is described as the "quantum foam" out of which our physical atoms arise in the first place. in this multidimensional quantum field there are what's called "probability clouds"..... which show that there are areas of space which are more probable to generate particles than others.

fundamentally, there is ONLY the "quantum foam"/"wave field"/"ether"....our physical atomic world only exists my virtue of that field's capabilities.

particles do NOT exist before the existence of the "quantum foam". only out of the quantum foam do arise particles. , the "random" nature of "quantum foam" organizes it's-self in order to provide "probability" that "physical" particles may manifest.

who's to say that this multidimensional, multitemporal, quantum foam is not the "wave field"? particles and the particle fields do not exist without the precursory existence of the wave field.
edit on 2/16/12 by metalshredmetal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Mead Interview



But whenever Schrodinger tried to talk, Bohr would raise his voice and bring up all these counter-examples. Basically he shouted him down.


Sounds like this thread.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Rather than supposing that the ψ-field represents a 'probability density' of finding a 'quanta'... why can't it represent a real wave structure in space?
What do you mean by "structure"?

I looked it up. Here's one definition:

www.merriam-webster.com...

b : something arranged in a definite pattern of organization
The probability density plots do indeed show "something arranged in a definite pattern of organization", so it does meet that definition of a structure. The something is the individual probability points, and the shapes seen show the pattern of organization. The structure can be seen in the density plots:


That's a picture of the structure. And the shapes could be said to be wave-like. So what's the problem? Do you mean something else by structure, and if so, what?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Mead Interview



But they’re also waves, right? Then what are they waving in?

It’s interesting, isn’t it? That has hung people up ever since the time of Clerk Maxwell, and it’s the missing piece of intuition that we need to develop in young people. The electron isn’t the disturbance of something else. It is its own thing. The electron is the thing that’s wiggling, and the wave is the electron. It is its own medium. You don’t need something for it to be in, because if you did it would be buffeted about and all messed up. So the only pure way to have a wave is for it to be its own medium. The electron isn’t something that has a fixed physical shape. Waves propagate outwards, and they can be large or small. That’s what waves do.


Yes, it's interesting.


OMG the word "intuition"!!!

Oh no!



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
quantum physics posits that there is a "field" which is more fundamental than our physical world. it is described as the "quantum foam" out of which our physical atoms arise in the first place.


This is (predictably) false. Quantum physics does "posit" anything like that, one can go through a perfectly useful tome of quantum mechanics and not find this term at all. The foam is a concept and a hypothesis which has not been verified, and which is extremely difficult to probe. To speak of it with certainty is plain stupid. And to make even stronger claims that you know that "physical atoms arise" from foam is even more stupid. Even if the foam does exist and there is strange curvature of spacetime at ridiculously small scale, this hardly means that "atoms", as you put it, are a direct result of these fluctuations.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
quantum physics posits that there is a "field" which is more fundamental than our physical world. it is described as the "quantum foam" out of which our physical atoms arise in the first place.


This is (predictably) false. Quantum physics does "posit" anything like that, one can go through a perfectly useful tome of quantum mechanics and not find this term at all. The foam is a concept and a hypothesis which has not been verified, and which is extremely difficult to probe. To speak of it with certainty is plain stupid. And to make even stronger claims that you know that "physical atoms arise" from foam is even more stupid. Even if the foam does exist and there is strange curvature of spacetime at ridiculously small scale, this hardly means that "atoms", as you put it, are a direct result of these fluctuations.


This is where I get off.



strange curvature of spacetime at ridiculously small scale,


Small compared to what = what you observe in your own limited function.

Intuition trumps that by virtue of the fact it is unbridled, however, I'll leave you with this quote:
"Facts become real because something you 'knew' was real, happened"

You only prove what you are biologically predestined / designed to observe. Add a few tools and we get libraries of facts to use, but you won't fill any gaps. You can only shed some light at matters at hand.

In order to field bigger questions you will have to become far more sensitive to what affects us.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered



strange curvature of spacetime at ridiculously small scale,


Small compared to what = what you observe in your own limited function.


Compared to fundamental constants we observe in Nature, such as Planck length.



You only prove what you are biologically predestined / designed to observe. Add a few tools and we get libraries of facts to use, but you won't fill any gaps.


Why do you assume that we (humans) are "predestined" to observe and nothing else? We are pretty good at building theories, too. And tools. But the facts we get will ultimately tell us what theory should be considered valid and which one relegated to trash bin.

Sorry I ended up creating another and unnecessary description of the Scientific Method, and probably not a good one.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Planck length, come on. Then what?
I believe in infinite smallness. You can drill down into something and keep going forever.
My only example is the magnified images of tiny bugs. You wouldn't think something you can't see can be so complex....

At a certain point there is a new form of gravity, as such. I have another vague example, say you are a miniature artist and you make a sculpture on a pin head. Gravity is MUCH different, (I know). This is not an example of a new form of gravity / weight, but my point is that under this level there is another level. At some stage, maybe at a planck size things seem to float about in the aether. To borrow a term.. perhaps the quantum foam is absolutely massive to anything living at that size.

That's why I'm not attached to observable, repeatable phenomenon. It get's worse if I carry on. It's like a huge building that we only see the corner of. Sure I realise that science builds theories on strong proof, so the corner has angles etc etc. It's just that we as living beings have far more innate knowledge built into us, not because we are special but because it is real - just takes time to reveal the specifics - if that makes sense..



Why do you assume that we (humans) are "predestined" to observe and nothing else? We are pretty good at building theories, too. And tools. But the facts we get will ultimately tell us what theory should be considered valid and which one relegated to trash bin.


What happened to meditation?
Do you know the significance of thought (in relation to Buddhism)?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 





which show that there are areas of space which are more probable to generate particles than others.


It is my understanding that the whole 'probability' and 'irreducible lawlessness' of the orthodox interpretation says that they are the probabilities of OBSERVING the particles. Not that the particles are there before the observation or 'generated' in nature, but rather that Bohr considered Heisenberg's quantum mechanics as fundamentally UNCERTAIN and STATISTICAL in nature.

They didn't really think that the quanta was 'created' during the observation, but that the probability cloud represented a real physical reality of uncertainly and statistically evolving NATURE as it REALLY EXISTS.

Heisenberg did not advocate for such an ontology, however that point must have been lost on his followers (or the people who don't bother enough to go read what he wrote).

Both Heisenberg and Bohr wanted to fundamentally re-create our conceptual and logical frameworks to reflect this indeterminate philosophy.

What Mead is saying, is that they were WRONG.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





The probability density plots do indeed show "something arranged in a definite pattern of organization", so it does meet that definition of a structure. The something is the individual probability points, and the shapes seen show the pattern of organization. The structure can be seen in the density plots:

That's a picture of the structure. And the shapes could be said to be wave-like. So what's the problem? Do you mean something else by structure, and if so, what?


They are not 'probability density plots' a priori, that is the a posteriori interpretation you are placing upon the data.

The 'probability density' interpretation is Born's interpretation and solutions to Schrödinger's work.

Schrödinger intended them to be real physical 3D waves in space. WAVE mechanics. Particles DO NOT form such geometrical (cymatical) 'structures'.

They just don't.

Right now, the ad hoc assumption is that there is a 'complementary wave aspect' existing in über-metaphysical Copenhagen superphysics that allows these particles to be everywhere and nowhere and interfering with itself and producing some wave behavior of itself blah blah... but its 'actually' particles that are behaving lawlessly and uncertainly and thats just the way nature is so just accept it we will never understand it thats why we have mathematicians...

Bollocks.

It's a WAVE.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


very correct, imo.

and yes, i forgot to add in that very important fact: that conscious observation collapses the wave function into a "particle" function. thanks for remind me


i was too busy trying to get across the idea that the "wave" world is the foundation upon which the physical world exists...and the physical world cannot exist without the capabilities of the "wave" field. i totally skipped over the observer



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
duh blepo sted
edit on 2/16/12 by metalshredmetal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by squandered
 





Intuition trumps that by virtue of the fact it is unbridled, however, I'll leave you with this quote: "Facts become real because something you 'knew' was real, happened"




"Facts become real because something you perceived was real, happened."



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


Don't forget to normalize planck units, so you can develop some fundamentals while you're at it.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


We define quantum scale: Velocity and 'range' of positions.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 193  194  195    197  198  199 >>

log in

join