Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by mzungu
Please explain your statement Energy Density as well as Material Density.
energy density is a hypothetical measurement of the compression of space, represented by current standards as atomic diameter vs. atomic mass. our current model of measuring energy pressure/density is limited to observations of the material manifestations, (particles/waves, atoms etc.) or 'material density' created by this compression, at this time. what we can tell from the current model is that atomic structure appears to be an harmonic pattern (periodic table).
Which Material and since Energy is either Electrons, Photons or Kinetic Transfer...and kinetic Transfer includes Particle Bombardment....I am not seeing where this applies to the UFT.
the word 'material' is just a way to differentiate between the scale of energy and the scale of matter. the argument made by this model is that energy is not limited to the 'visually/mathematically descriptive models' of electrons, photons and kinetic transfer, rather these effects are the 'material' traces/byproducts of the interaction of 'vibrational energy density' shells, not unlike lightning being the byproduct of energy transfer between shells of spinning energy, it can be described as electricity but only at the moment of energy transference between pressure shells, when the 'electrons' become apparent, i.e. scale.
Also as far as Material...how are you quantifying Density as it applies to the Quantum?
i am not attempting to conclusively quantify the density of the hypothetical field of quantum energy, i am only suggesting an alternative approach to investigating its behaviour, rather than from the traditional standpoint of charge, this model suggests interpreting the field from the basis of spin, as polarisation is a characteristic of spin, not charge.
Most people do not realize that when I slam my fist down on a table...the Materials and Atoms Nucleuses of that material never actually comes in contact with one another. The Electron Orbits prevent any particle of Mass from touching as the Electrons Orbits of the Atoms nucleus repel one anothers Electron Orbits and thus Protons and Netrons never collide unless we are using a Particle Accellerator or using Fusion or Fission.
the model does not dispute this.
The Density of a Material in conventional sense is which ever Element has a Higher Relative Mass....will be denser based on temp. as well as in the case of Gases...temp and pressure. There is also things like Bucky Balls that may not have the density Gold Has but are Structuraly Perfect and are virtually indestructable in their Matrix.
the model does not dispute this either.
Still...I do not see how this relates to the UFT as how does this relate to the Quantum aspect?
Split Infinity
i suggest you read through it again and let it digest. i offer the example of the human brain as an example of 'quantum energy density' far greater than its physical mass. the workings of the brain can only be explained so far by the chemical interactions and electrical impulses, but this does not explain how it came to be on a subatomic level. if it is the result of 'quantum energy compression' over "time", as this model suggests, then the chemical interactions we can observe are only the byproduct of far more subtle interactions of energy/force/quantum stuff, which can only become more complex/energy dense over time.
the argument this model makes is that multiple universes are not necessary for the creation nor behaviour of these quantum particles, they are a byproduct of forces similar to those which drive larger, stable energy structures, only on a much smaller scale. if you scale an ant up to size of a human, it wouldn't still be able to carry several times its own body weight, in fact its legs would buckle from its body weight alone. in a similar fashion, if you scale down the known forces of interacting energy pressures, the results will differ according to relative scale of observation.
the atom proposed in this model would, in theory, comfortably fill the shoes of our current atomic model, only without the restrictions implied by a model dominated by charge rather than spin.
edit on 13/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)
