New Theory of Matter – profound implications on the perception of reality, space & time.

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!

You did? Where did you move? I want to see a theory that
a) explains the observables to 10^-7 precision
b) predicts new phenomena we can hope to see at the LHC

Do you have any of that? I want specifics.

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. And no, crp@p science in the OP is not helping.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Who said it was complete? The thing is, it works but we need to find the missing pieces

Here you go again...

This is the missing piece.

There is sound/ratios/vibrations. And there is space-time/inertial aether.

The structure of matter arises from the cymatics in the medium.

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.

Everything below the atom is just subharmonic wave structures, the 'factors' if you will of the harmonic ratios of the stable atom.

Fractal mathematics(and quantum/wavelike inseparability and interdependency) make the idea that we must have 'boundary conditions' obsolete. There is no definite Heisenberg Cut, no actual meaningful boundary or distinction between the subject and the object.

We have still made valid observations we have just been interpreting it the wrong way. See this discussion on objective-realists vs. contextual-realists(also, there is a bit on the Heisenberg Cut):
great resource here

---

OP, thanks much for this thread. Going to be taking some time to go through this WSM stuff. I have come to a similar conclusion based on my research in the history and philosophy of science.

It just makes sense, and more and more people are coming to the same theory because we are at that time in history again, where science will be measured in 'before' and 'after' terms.

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.

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.

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 have tried over and over again to get you to think about your presuppositions and how they bias the way you interpret observations... but ALAS! To no avail...

Did you review the sections I referred to in the link?

We may find subquarks or sub-electron charges in the future. Who knows... Keely had them in his diagrams.

----

A quote from de Broglie in the source from OP(with the emphasis from that source):

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.

Well look, here is one phrase of yours:

Everything below the atom is just subharmonic wave structures, the 'factors' if you will of the harmonic ratios of the stable atom.

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 use those words because I don't know how else to illustrate what I am saying.

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.

You either get it or you don't.

I obviously don't and so won't anyone who has at least a modicum of understanding of the subject. The rest will be overwhelmed by this jargon you use and will assume it means something, which it doesn't. Emperor's new clothes.

Bravo Beebs, thankyou for bringing your thought into the 21st Century!

reply to post by beebs


You are simply using your own conceptualization on what is already here and happening There are many methods of this (everything from mathematics to brain storming), none are more than mere representations of what is already happening all around us, within us, and beyond us.

You will find, that most will disregard such things, even when made clear that one is simply trying to put ideas forward. Such a process has been a part of science for quite some time. In a way, such thinking allows us to learn more about the conceptualizations we already have. So, it is exploratory as long as it doesnt get caught up in semantics (common problem) or get obsessed with disregarding new information (for a variety of reasons) before it is tested (also common). You will find such minds more interested in stifling new concepts than they are in even exploring present ones, much less new ones. It does, at a certain point, also become profitable to not come up with anything new, relevant, or the big daddy, "contradictory."

However, it is through such creative thought processes, and their further exploration (with scientific means) that we come up with anything "new" at all! Keep on keepin on!

While others are concerned with proving what they know is right, others will be taking the kinds of risks that change everything. To anyone interested in these things, but with no formal scientific training...

Have you ever thought about the learning/education that is needed to explore these arenas in areas other than your minds? This one strongly encourages you to learn more Even making visual representations of your ideas can help you to move forward in your exploration. When one translates "it" into the conceptualization of math, things become open for others to explore your conceptualizations as well, but through a more objective format. Even when that occurs though, keep in mind what was said above. Most are more interested in proving what they know as "right" than they are with entertaining ideas about a universe none of us fully understand. In its way, it brings balance to the process

reply to post by buddhasystem

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.

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.

Yes, perhaps the correct term should be 'multiple harmonics'... although I think the other terms are more appropriate. Thanks for joining the discussion.

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.

They can be termed 'sub-atomic' 'sub-harmonics'. Couldn't they? If not, why not?

And as for the subject of frequencies in 'particle' interpretations, I refer you to de Broglie's quote above.

Unstable nuclei are unstable wave functions... unstable cymatical structures.

Regarding the black hole, I am not sure it is appropriate for this thread... but I would prefer(after much deliberation) that instead the term 'asymptotic vortex in a toroid wave function' be used regarding that theory. I am not Haramein, after all.

reply to post by chocise




...Woke up this mornin'

reply to post by sinohptik


Thank you for the kind words.

It does seem to be the case, and probably will always be until(and if) we can ever really 'know' the true nature of things.

I will repost these brilliant quotes:

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

A lot of theoretical physics is just critical thinking(and intuition) while studying the philosophy and history of science.

Your post resonates with Kuhn's work also.

reply to post by beebs


You are welcome, and thank you for the quotes

The history of science is an interesting one, surely. It is pretty easy to see the consistent sociological constructs that take place within it. And also affecting those people who take everything said by current day science as the inexorable "truth." such as the earth being flat... took a while for those "fringe wackos" theory to take hold. the pattern repeats itself over and over and over again, but i feel it has its benefits as well, at least at its core.

I believe kuhn postulated that it takes large shifts to start pushing science in new directions, correct? Something like that anyway Its hard to deny such things when the process is so consistent and repeatable. Mainstream science does a good job of continuously exploring what is already known, in the right context. it will likely always be the fringe mad scientists that actually change what mainstream science is currently exploring.

As far as every knowing the true nature of things? Well, the true nature of things runs uninhibited all around us, and within us. What we discover changes nothing outside of our own perspectives. Now, when it comes to quantifying such things... We can focus on individual facets, and sometimes even multiple facets at once. But truly comprehending the totality of what happens every moment, on such large and small perspective based scales? Impossible by human quantification. and yet, we are an intrinsic part of "it." same "math" running through it all.

Well, anyway, my point was that many will scoff at any ideas presented simply because they dont coincide with what people have spent so much effort proving "right." And this one simply wanted to encourage you, beebs, as well as anyone reading to keep learning and exploring. Try to learn how to better quantify your conceptualizations. Not only will that allow one to better explore them, but will help others try to explore them as well. The ones who laugh will continue to do so until mainstream science says its "right," just like when the earth was thought to be flat. It shouldnt be a discouragement, as that mindset isnt exclusive to just science, and can be a fantastic hurdle to overcome. So dont mind them, just keep babbling

i just felt the need to say something because i know people who are not able to verbalize things very well that have already written off forums in general as a complete waste of time. Not only is it difficult for said people to whittle down their concepts into words, but they are simply made fun of and put down when they take the time and effort to do it. So, they dont bother. My opinion differs, but not by a great amount. So just wanted to encourage creativity, especially within science. Maybe get some of those lurkers to start posting their own ideas too

Will your ideas be laughed at? most certainly by some!

but not everyone..

reply to post by chocise


And where is the experiment to back the theory up?

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.

That's rich of you.

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.

Definition

Subharmonic frequencies are frequencies below the fundamental frequency of an oscillator in a ratio of 1/n, with n a positive integer number

Did you get it? "Below" frequency. Smaller wave = higher frequency. I.e. opposite of what you are saying. See, things like that betray your love of piles of science-sounding terms which when combined don't make sense. 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.

These structures are quarks, mesons, hadrons, gluons, fermions, positrons, electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc.

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".

The only difference is how you interpret what those 'particles' actually are before you observe them/smash them into oblivion.

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.

Unstable nuclei are unstable wave functions... unstable cymatical structures.

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". It's like saying that the formula of corn syrup is sweet, or the mass of a sack of salt is salty. I know kids in kindergarten can conduct discussion on that level.

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.

Instead, a correct analogy for a quark would perhaps be something like "one note in a chord". I don't know how to make it simpler, if you still don't get it...

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.

That is ridiculous. I have tried again and again to get you to see your presuppositions, and to point you toward some good resources regarding interpretation of observations. You seem to think your interpretation is the right one. I am sorry it is not. Notice in your sentence that you separate interpreting from observables... but that implies an objective observable, and an isolated interpretation from the observable. Again, I refer you to my post before about contextualist-realists and objective-realists, and specifically the 'Heisenberg Cut'.

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.

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.

...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.

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).

Care to provide a link to the math?

The asymptotic vortex is what you would call the 'black hole', and there is still subharmonics for the wave function.

no, I wouldn't call that black hole any more than I would call my cat 'black hole'. 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).

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.

Triplets? In what variable of dimension?

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.

Wait, first you said particles were wave functions, now you are saying every particle is 'fluid dynamics'. You hovercraft is full of eels, buddy.

reply to post by buddhasystem

...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.

I would appreciate a bit of elaboration on that point, because it appears you mean to say wavelength, not frequency.

The wavelengths for the quarks will be smaller than the nucleon which contains them, but why would the frequency be higher?

Care to provide a link to the math?

Well, I am sure we have math for toroid wave functions and cymatics.here
here

It looks pretty obvious to me that a toroid field such as magnetism has an asymptotic center. If you disagree, I think it is perhaps only language which you disagree with.

This in 3D is a torus:


From the bottom of the wiki on wave function:

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'.

That last statement in bold above is what I mean when speaking about fluid dynamics. Waves are part of fluid dynamics, no? I guess I meant more generally fluid mechanics, or continuum mechanics is even better. My bad.

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).

You brought 'em up... And also, I am speaking for myself, not necessarily for the source in the OP... although I guess they are closely related. (perhaps not the BH/asymptotic toroid stuff though)

Triplets?

Subharmonic triplets would be more precise, I think. Together the quarks make the nucleon.

You don't have to agree with me, but I daresay you better go back to the contextualist-realist and objective-realist discussion I posted a while ago before you continue arguing... It is annoying that I continue to bolster my argument while you continue to throw eels in my elegant hovercraft.

But in all seriousness, I hope we can get this sorted out sooner rather than later. I will continue to refine my jargon.

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?

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. Some mysterious process, perhaps associated with the Higgs field, manages to squeeze the photon's energy into that tiny space.

In my model, a photon is an ethereal shear wave, and a fundamental particle is an orbiting pair of shear waves. Evidently, not all shear waves obey the rule of E = hc/lambda. The shear waves that orbit one another to form particles have a tiny fraction of the enegy that their wavelenght suggests.

reply to post by chocise


So why do you think that your teacher had told you of "light particles" being true and only true. i have a feeling that the way schools work now is to.. well its to dumb down children so only certain people have the proper knowledge of what existance really is and how that back in the day( romans, myans..) when they had seen "God" decend down to them in crafts that made much light, a wheel within a wheel kinda thing. i truley belive that it was a misconception of extra terrestrials being an all creator. EVEN THOUGH!!!! the name of them might have actually been GOD, we might be mistaken as to what the meaning really is and who god really is.

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.

Diameter of what particle? Electrons and quarks don't have a diameter.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Electrons and quarks don't have a diameter.

We can't measure their diameter, but we can establish upper limits. Here are some estimates. We also have a formula to calculate the Lorentz radius. For the electron, it is 2.8179402894 x 10^-15m. Hans Dehmelt, in a Physica Scripta article, claims to have established an upper bound less than 10^-20 m. (Discussion at Physics Forums.)

My point is that the upper limit on the size of an electron or quark is much smaller than the wavelength of a photon whose energy matches the mass of the particle. The mass of an electron is 9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg.

E = mc^2 = hc/lambda
lambda mc^2 = hc
lambda = hc/mc^2 = h/mc = 2.42631×10^-12 meters

That's nearly 1000 times the Lorentz radius of an electron and 10^8 times Dehmelt's upper bound.

The charge radius of a proton is 0.877 x 10^-15 m, and its mass is 1.672621637(83)×10−27 kg. The wavelength of a photon with the energy equivalent of that mass is 1.32141×10^-15 meters. That's nearly equal to the diameter of the proton.

A quark can't be larger than a proton. For all we know, a quark might be as small compared to the proton as the nucleus is to an atom.

The name, Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), could just as easily describe my model, thought the two are very different. Both the standing waves of WSM and the orbiting waves of my model have wavelengths shorter than photons of the same energy.