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.

 

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

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You are using math that describes a wave structure of space, while interpreting it through classical particle physics.

You are using quantum math that describes a wave structure of space, while interpreting it as 'the probability wave of a particle'.

The mathematical descriptions are based on waves, as were the theoretical premises of the physicists who came up with them. The physics community has, however, failed to implement the theoretical premises successfully, yet the math keeps becoming more and more abstract and built upon itself and it gives us all these crazy ideas about how complex nature is and paradigm anomalies etc.

If we had kept the theoretical context of quantum waves at the forefront of the institution, rather than particles behaving like waves, we would not be building 'epicycles upon epicycles'. There would be no paradigm anomalies(yes, there are significant ones for those of us not brainwashed) because we would understand more thoroughly what the math is describing.




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You are using math that describes a wave structure of space, while interpreting it through classical particle physics.


No I'm not. First of all, just speaking of classical quantum mechanics, we don't "describe wave structure of space" -- leave that gibberish to yourself along the cymatic fractal structure which defines the resonance in the toroidal dynamics of space time. Enough of word soup.


You are using quantum math that describes a wave structure of space, while interpreting it as 'the probability wave of a particle'.


Since you don't know math, you should refrain from describing any part of it as "quantum math", it just sounds silly.


The mathematical descriptions are based on waves, as were the theoretical premises of the physicists who came up with them.


There are layers in physics way deeper than can possible fit in your "this wave that wave" mantra.


The physics community has, however, failed to implement the theoretical premises successfully


Yeah well, look, we make lasers, accelerators, holograms and God knows what else. Couch "scientists" like yourself make exactly zero, nada, zelch.


yet the math keeps becoming more and more abstract and built upon itself and it gives us all these crazy ideas about how complex nature is and paradigm anomalies etc.


Speaking of simplicity vs complexity, Richard Feynman said it the best:




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Hells yeah - that's always been the way my mind visualizes the universe - nothing but wave forms, varying in magnitude, wavelength, concentration, orientation, and rotation ; forming various base mediums, energetic densities, and resonant interaction characteristics. Me thinks I'm forgetting a component or two...but it's boogie time.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nefarious
forming various base mediums, energetic densities, and resonant interaction characteristics. Me thinks I'm forgetting a component or two...but it's boogie time.


Boogie sounds great. But what is "base medium" and "resonant interaction characteristics"?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I just simply think you are wrong. Enough evidence in support of that standpoint has been quite well established. The argument in favor of this conclusion is significantly more clear and comprehensive than any counter-argument, ridicule, or doubting you have attempted.

I also think you are full of yourself and conflate the institution you are part of with your own Self. A symptom of this, is the implicit appeal to esoteric institutional authority that all of your arguments are based upon. Thus, you think your arguments are more sufficient than they actually are.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I just simply think you are wrong.


How's that for a solid argument! Wow. Impressive.


Enough evidence in support of that standpoint has been quite well established.


No Beebs, the fact that we do observe wave properties of matter does not indicate that the electron is a spherical wave. It only works this way in your world where logic is not a prerequisite and where you derive pleasure of producing long winded sentences filled with jargon (however devoid of sense) because this allows you to feel important and educated. Cheap thrills. Something like "Space-time wave structure has fractal nature defined by the vortex and resonance inherent in the topology of toroidal dynamics, with harmonics propagating from big to small, from macro to micro, all the way down to the black hole type of structure".


The argument in favor of this conclusion is significantly more clear and comprehensive than any counter-argument, ridicule, or doubting you have attempted.


There is not even argument of any sort. You did not (and could not) produce any experimental evidence that the electron is, in and by itself, some kind of spherical wave with finite dimensions. The pictures you posted, of electron density distributions in an atom are completely unrelated. That's not the essence of the "theory" presented in this thread -- you confuse the state of a complex system which is atom, with properties of a single particle. Your "logic" here does remind me of the famous Dan Quayle quote:


Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.



I also think you are full of yourself and conflate the institution you are part of with your own Self. A symptom of this, is the implicit appeal to esoteric institutional authority that all of your arguments are based upon. Thus, you think your arguments are more sufficient than they actually are.


What the heck are you talking about? What does any institution have to do with obvious and sad lack of any substance in what you are saying? All you do is throw around important-sounding words, like cymatic, fractal, resonance etc, often to comic effect. What "implicit appeal"? You really are making things up. The only thing I'm appealing to is a modicum of common sense. Apparently, that's not how you operate.


edit on 26-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: typo



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I am sorry, but I feel that my response would not be appropriate in this thread. Our ongoing conversation has hijacked this thread, partly of my fault. This thread has to do with the work of Milo Wolff, Geoff Haselhurst, Schrodinger, Einstein, Dirac, Clifford, and others involved in the pioneering of 21st century physics.

I regret that we see nature in two different ways.

I respect your opinion, but I will never accept that it has any validity on the real world that I experience and am familiar with.




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


...
I respect your opinion, but I will never accept that it has any validity on the real world that I experience and am familiar with.


OK, what experience in the real world that you have had, qualifies as evidence that the electron is a spherical wave? In addition, if it were such, what defines the scale factor for it's size?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   


I would also like to say that quantum physics does NOT disagree with light wave theory. it actually supports it in many ways and is somewhat found upon the idea itself. "particles" are quite literally a cloud of potential being .. . it is charge with energy, but is a non physical cloud of charge and probability


That final sentence describes the principle of yin/yang chi energy almost exactly to a "t" Western brains have taken sooooooooo long to catch up with eastern understanding it is astounding how slow those brains can be. It doesn't take alot of expensive lab experiments to perceive these wave forms or translation of energy waves into material form. Just go out, find yourself a very good taoist master and actually DO tai chi, ba gua, chi gung and kung fu. It's all there already. Westerners just want to jump up and down and twist their own knickers when they think they've thought up something all brand new.
edit on 27/3/11 by starwisdom because: needed quote

edit on 27/3/11 by starwisdom because: elaboration



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Buckminster Fuller was, IMO, one of the finest thinkers ever. If you really want to understand how Universe works, take the time to go through his Synergetics book.

525.01 If subvisibly modulated spiraling wave lines cannot go through the same
point at the same time, there can be no continuous, perfectly level planes. Planes
are not experimentally demonstrable. Solids are not experimentally demonstrable.
Physical experiment has never discovered any phenomena other than
discontinuous discrete-energy events, each uniquely identifiable amongst the
gamut of frequencies of cyclic discontinuity of all the physical phenomena, as
comprehensively and overlappingly arrayed in the vast frequency ranges of the
electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic spectrum "reality" has been found
experimentally to embrace all known physical phenomena: visible, subvisible, or
ultravisible thus far detected as present in Universe. There are no solids. The
synergetic behavior of structures satisfactorily explains as discontinuous that
which we have in the past superficially misidentified as "solid."



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


To me, and others, it is the simplest and most logical conclusion considering the circumstances.




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


To me, and others, it is the simplest and most logical conclusion considering the circumstances.



Here is the Original Abstract for this publication.


This technique has enabled us to image the coherent electron scattering that takes place when the IR field is sufficiently strong to reverse the initial direction of the electron motion causing it to rescatter from its parent ion


Recatter from ion

So this is an experiment in the same vein as double slit experiment, or any similar scattering experiments essentially demonstrating a diffraction pattern. In no way it demonstrates that the electron is some kind of a spherical wave. It's not dissimilar to these, much older optical images:



or



So there.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Ok... so tell me then what is the electron, in your opinion?

What position are you arguing for?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Food for thought.....Super heavy stable elements are being developed by the military for space based applications.Top Nuclear Scientists are using honeycombed matrix with plutonium and other elements to create nuclear reactions which yield trace amounts of super heavy stable elements that exceed element 113. Theorists are predicting that Island of stable for super heavy elements is just around corner.


Remember UFO speculators were saying that Roswell incident involved ETs monitoring nuclear reactions for stable super heavy elements because these elements could be used to bend space time. They probably thought that we were going to elements for space flight and not for crude atomic weapon....giving mankind too much credit.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

Ok... so tell me then what is the electron, in your opinion?


Beebs, if you do want to know, the Wikipedia article would be a good start.


What position are you arguing for?


I'm arguing for application of Scientific Method.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Neat thread! One thing that's always bugged me about particles v waves is this...

If you imagine a star pushing out light that's visible say 10 light years away, then that light would have to be visible at every point in a sphere 10 light years in radius. That's a hell of a lot of photons.

The volume is approx 1994182595188849215825231906756926797951733.76kM cubed
Surface area 112418808869972572689569335971.84kM cubed
Now, if the observer moves back further, to say 100 light years...the same is still true, but if photons were distinct particles, then there would be blank patches at places in this 100 LY sphere, wouldn't there?

This volume is 1994182595188849215825231906756926797951733760kM cubed
Surface area 11241880886997257268956933597184kM cubed
The point I'm making is that no matter how densely packed the photons are when they leave the star, they have to spread out and that would leave a space between each photon at some distance...wouldn't it?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


Yeah, good point. Instead of interpreting this as solely the characteristic of wave behavior, we make up complex quantum particle explanations as to how each position of space has the probability of a photon being there, and all probabilities of the photons exist in superposition in all points of space until they are observed. Then, when we observe them, we 'collapse the wave function' into a single realization of the probability potential.

Rather, if we drop the entire notion of particles, it is not nearly so mysterious. Entanglement is easily explainable, because the 'connected particles' are not anything of the sort - but are rather observed energy densities at different points along a single shared quantum wave structure of space.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


There should be a joint smoking smiley for this!



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Beebs, if you do want to know, the Wikipedia article would be a good start.


Thanks.

But I am curious as to what your own personal opinion of what the electron is, in your own words?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


I wonder if there isn't one hidden away somewhere... I have seen many people use smileys that I never knew worked on ATS! I guess I am just a slacker, and only use the ones right next to the text box.. >>




new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join