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.
Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by buddhasystem
Nope, that simply isn't the current play of things, we've moved on from Fenyman et al!
There is still much contention on the very nature of mass and the Higgs Boson – the 'Standard Model' is far from complete.
Who said it was complete? The thing is, it works but we need to find the missing pieces
Originally posted by beebs
Every 'particle' is in fact a stable wave structure - a real structure, not just a point-like object behaving in a manner that follows fluid dynamics... but it is fluid dynamics.
Beebs, once again you pile together scientific-sounding words with no evidence to back it up.
We DO NOT OBSERVE ANY STRUCTURE in the electron or quark at this point in time.
On the one hand the quantum theory of light cannot be considered satisfactory since it defines the energy of a light particle (photon) by the equation E=hf containing the frequency f. Now a purely particle theory contains nothing that enables us to define a frequency; for this reason alone, therefore, we are compelled, in the case of light, to introduce the idea of a particle and that of frequency simultaneously. On the other hand, determination of the stable motion of electrons in the atom introduces integers, and up to this point the only phenomena involving integers in physics were those of interference and of normal modes of vibration. This fact suggested to me the idea that electrons too could not be considered simply as particles, but that frequency (wave properties) must be assigned to them also. (Louis de Broglie, Nobel Prize Speech, 1929)
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
Beebs, once again you pile together scientific-sounding words with no evidence to back it up.
We DO NOT OBSERVE ANY STRUCTURE in the electron or quark at this point in time.
And once again you ignore the meat in my post because you think I just throw the words in there to sound cool.
Everything below the atom is just subharmonic wave structures, the 'factors' if you will of the harmonic ratios of the stable atom.
I use those words because I don't know how else to illustrate what I am saying.
You either get it or you don't.
I posit that this is utter and sheer nonsense. "Below the atom" ? "Subharmonic"? Why subharmonic? Maybe its multiple harmonics? What structures, how can you observe them? What about mesons, are the "above" or "below" atom? How does a meson relate to a "stable atom"? What about metastable atom?
A nucleus is (I assume) "below" the atom. What the hell frequencies mean? What about unstable nuclei?
I doubt you understand anything you are saying. I asked you a question once about your "theory" that every atom contains a black hole, and you basically dropped the ball. No matter what you decided to put in the middle of the atom, a black hole or a "subharmonic", depending on title of the thread du jour, it still is nonsensical.
Here are some statements by physicists that take the opposite position on understanding:
"Never make a calculation until you know the answer." -- Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, pg 60.
"Our mathematical procedures seem to obscure our intuitive and imaginative understanding." -- Bohm, Foundations of Physics 5, 93 (1975).
I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all if we just apply working mathematical rules; that's not what the physicist should be satisfied with." -- Dirac, Physicist's Conception of Nature, pg 11.
In any case, the typical education of a physicist tends to ignore the issue of interpretations.Bohr Complementarity
Originally posted by beebs
Yes, you have not tried to understand my meanings. I am sorry, I did not realize I had to speak slowly.
I mean, that subatomic structure can be looked at as 'sub-particles', or it can be looked at as 'sub-harmonics' because of WPD... or in other words they are the smaller wave structures which make up the wave function of the atom.
Subharmonic frequencies are frequencies below the fundamental frequency of an oscillator in a ratio of 1/n, with n a positive integer number
These structures are quarks, mesons, hadrons, gluons, fermions, positrons, electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc.
The only difference is how you interpret what those 'particles' actually are before you observe them/smash them into oblivion.
Unstable nuclei are unstable wave functions... unstable cymatical structures.
Subharmonic frequencies are frequencies below the fundamental frequency of an oscillator in a ratio of 1/n, with n a positive integer number. For example, if the fundamental frequency of an oscillator is 440 Hz, sub-harmonics include 220 Hz (1/2) and 110 Hz (1/4). Thus, they are a mirror image of the harmonic series.
Just like in your "black hole in every atom" exercise. Actually, what is is then, a black hole or a "subharmonic"? You can't have both.
Hadrons are bound states of quarks. Saying that bound state of valence quarks in the nucleus are "subharmonics" of an atom is just remarkably silly. It's something like "a grain of salt is a subharmonic of a sack of salt".
A surgeon could interpret your head as being full of spaghetti before he does a postmortem. That doesn't make it true, that your head is full of spaghetti. It's not (I hope). Interpreting something unrelated to observables is well, baseless fantasy, and I know you like to engage in that.
Another piece of nonsense. An object is an object. A function is a function. It's not the same. And, the wave functions that describe unstable object are not "unstable".
Every 'particle' is in fact a stable wave structure - a real structure, not just a point-like object behaving in a manner that follows fluid dynamics... but it is fluid dynamics.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
This is exactly how I intend the word to mean:
Subharmonic frequencies are frequencies below the fundamental frequency of an oscillator in a ratio of 1/n, with n a positive integer number. For example, if the fundamental frequency of an oscillator is 440 Hz, sub-harmonics include 220 Hz (1/2) and 110 Hz (1/4). Thus, they are a mirror image of the harmonic series.
Quarks are subharmonics of proton and neutron wave functions.
Just like in your "black hole in every atom" exercise. Actually, what is is then, a black hole or a "subharmonic"? You can't have both.
Obviously you don't understand what I mean, otherwise you would not say such a ridiculous thing as 'You can't have both'. And remember, I am not Haramein. In a toroid wave function, there is an asymptotic vortex of counter-rotating fields(in superposition - see video from chocise at end of last page). That is the stable structure of the atom(according to my current working model).
The asymptotic vortex is what you would call the 'black hole', and there is still subharmonics for the wave function.
Hadrons are bound states of quarks. Saying that bound state of valence quarks in the nucleus are "subharmonics" of an atom is just remarkably silly. It's something like "a grain of salt is a subharmonic of a sack of salt".
Yes, they are harmonic triplets. I don't see why this is any flavor of silly. Your salt analogy reveals your presuppositions, and is utterly ridiculous and not related in any way.
Another piece of nonsense. An object is an object. A function is a function. It's not the same. And, the wave functions that describe unstable object are not "unstable".
Your argument is coming apart at the seams. I quote my earlier post in response:
Every 'particle' is in fact a stable wave structure - a real structure, not just a point-like object behaving in a manner that follows fluid dynamics... but it is fluid dynamics.
...and of course this doesn't make sense -- quarks reside inside nucleons, so the spatial extent is less, which means higher frequency, not lower. Your argument = FAIL.
Care to provide a link to the math?
Whether the wave function is real, and what it represents, are major questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many famous physicists of a previous generation once puzzled over this problem, such as Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Some formulations or variants of the Copenhagen interpretation by Bohr, Eugene Wigner, John von Neuman and others take the more classical approach and regard the wave function as representing information in the mind of the observer. Some, ranging from Schrödinger, Einstein, David Bohm and Hugh Everett III and others, argued that the wavefunction must have an objective, physical existence.
Wait, first you said particles were wave functions, now you are saying every particle is 'fluid dynamics'.
There is a relatively well defined class of objects referred to as black holes. If this is not what you mean, stop using the term (but you can't resist, can you -- it's that compulsive urge to use jargon because it sounds cool).
Triplets?
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
The wavelengths for the quarks will be smaller than the nucleon which contains them, but why would the frequency be higher?
Originally posted by Phractal Phil
Photons seem to obey the formula E = hc/lambda. If you calculate the wavelength of a photon with the energy of a an electron or quark, you get a wavelength perhaps a million times the diameter of the particle.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Electrons and quarks don't have a diameter.