It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Help ATS via PayPal:

# The Infinite Spongy Universe and my ATS disclaimer

page: 6
5
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:21 PM

" to separate these particle-antiparticle pairs so that they don't annihilate each other. Only then, when we force them to become real particles, can they be measured. "

so the uncertainty principle is only in effect,.., when we sloppily separate a particle and antiparticle from annihilating and attempt to calculate details about these separate particles in nano nano seconds? and the cause of our uncertainty every every detail, is physical limitations of measurement,, and interrupting the reality we are measuring with measurement?

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

so the uncertainty principle is only in effect,.., when we sloppily separate a particle and antiparticle from annihilating and attempt to calculate details about these separate particles in nano nano seconds?

No...Uncertainty applies to the particles when they form, before we separate them (and who said we do so sloppily?). And it would also apply to their self-annihilation if we didn't interfere. But we can interfere, and when we do we separate the pair of particles and can detect them. We keep them from annihilating. Uncertainty applies before we ever enter the picture.

and the cause of our uncertainty every every detail, is physical limitations of measurement,, and interrupting the reality we are measuring with measurement?

It's not our uncertainty, it's a fundamental uncertainty in the wavefunction of the particles. It has nothing at all to do with us or our limitations.

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:13 PM

"it's a fundamental uncertainty in the wavefunction of the particles."

if we are not uncertain about anything,,, why is there an uncertainty in the wave function?

i know you explained uncertainty,, but it sounded like it was describing a situation in which we are unsure of a particles location or momentum by measuring one or the other?

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:20 PM

There's uncertainty because it's a wavefunction. A wave, for example, isn't in any one location at a given point in time.

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:31 PM

"There's uncertainty because it's a wavefunction. A wave, for example, isn't in any one location at a given point in time. "

its in a relative location ? or if a photon shoots out form the sun,,, even when it is detected here on earth, it is still from where it started wave wize?

does this have anything to do with what we are speaking about?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:38 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

its in a relative location ? or if a photon shoots out form the sun,,, even when it is detected here on earth, it is still from where it started wave wize?

A wavefunction is confined to your standard particle-sized region. But even the tiniest wave isn't located at one single location.

does this have anything to do with what we are speaking about?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It has to do with the Uncertainty Principle, but it's not exactly relevant.

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:53 PM

"A wavefunction is confined to your standard particle-sized region. But even the tiniest wave isn't located at one single location. "

in what way? the same way your finger is not located in the same location because it takes up space and moves through time?

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:55 PM

Because it takes up space, not because it moves through time.

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:26 AM

Is there an equation for probability waves? I am curious to take a look to it.

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:00 AM

The equation is the wavefunction itself, symbolized by ψ.

In a non-relativistic treatment of the wavefunction, the Schrodinger equation is used to solve them:

iħ(δ/δt)ψ(r,t) = (-ħ²/2m)∇²ψ(r,t) + V(r,t)ψ(r,t)

When relativity is considered, you get the Dirac equation:

iħγ°(δ/δt)ψ(r,t) = (cγ · p + mc²)ψ(r,t)

Have fun

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:16 AM

Thanks, but can I have the legend, please? I assume V means velocity, m means mass, all that, but the other symbols I don't know.

I can wait to know this equation inside out. It is one of the only equations I am really interrested in and the reason why I try, sometimes, to learn a bit more of the mathematical side...

EDIT: hasn't this equation been used to successfully predict electron position probability around an atom's nucleus in Bohr's model?
edit on 8-9-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:26 AM

Schrodinger's equation first:

V(r,t) is the potential energy of the particle
m is the mass of the particle

i is the imaginary number, √(-1)
ħ is h-bar, the reduced Planck constant (h/2π)
(δ/δt)ψ(r,t) is the partial derivative of the wavefunction with respect to time
∇² is the Laplacian operator (a double partial derivative with respect to each space coordinate)
(r,t) is the space,time coordinate of the particle

EDIT: hasn't this equation been used to successfully predict electron position probability around an atom's nucleus in Bohr's model?

The atom formed from the Schrodinger equation (specifically, the 3-dimensional Schrodinger equation) supersedes the Bohr model. But, yes, it predicts electron probability around (and at) the nucleus.
edit on 8-9-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:45 AM

Okay, thank you!

posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by swan001

What is your stand on quarks and gluons.
edit on 6-9-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)
Hope the storm wasn't too bad.

Quarks and gluons ... you know something, I think quarks have internal composition, which would make them work as if there were glouns involved, lol. But I don't know the details of the the particles and forces of the Standard Particle Model well enough to make a stand. Here's my delusions though: If you smash protons and keep track of the scatter data there will appear some consistent patterns that are identifiable and repeatable. These patterns have given us evidence of quarks, and many varieties of quarks. Now is where I get to the deluded part. If you smash enough coke bottles, the various fragments will begin to show patterns, like the bottoms and tops may survive as common pieces, and if you know the grove patterns on a coke bottle you know that there would be many common but not identical fragments that would appear repeatedly.

Now to relate that to my model, a proton is composed of a standing wave pattern of high and low density crests and troughs that establish the presence of the proton. This large patten is billions of tiny waves the continually intersect and overlap within the particle space and that are maintained by the inflowing and out flowing standing wave energy.

Now if you can picture the disturbed particle space while the inflowing and out flowing wave energy enters it from specific directions and leaves it spherically or equally in all directions, then you get the big picture of the stable structure of a proton. But the interior structure of the standing wave pattern is "jittery", meaning that the high density crests or high density spots as I call them are of very short duration. As the tiny internal wave overlaps take place, peaks and troughs form and play out; the high density spot has the briefest meaningful existence and that duration is the shortest meaningful duration of time in my model. "Jittery" simply refers how the pattern looks over time as the particular spots form, disburse and reform as the wave energy traverses the particle space. So you see, a proton at a point in time has a finite number of high density spots that give it mass, and each spot is surrounded by low density troughs as the internal standing wave pattern is sustained. Each high density spot represents a quantum of wave energy and a proton at rest in a stable energy density environment is composed of billions and billions of quanta. I'll eventually post my delusions on how there might be hundreds of billions of high density spots in a single proton at any instant.

Now let's accelerate protons and smash them together. The wave energy is extreme and the protons have many more high density spots because they have increased energy (kinetic energy translates to more spots within the particle space for various reasons). All of the energy goes into the scatter data that is collected, and though the patterns will be similar from one collision to the next, like smashing coke bottles, the real story is that once you interrupt the inflowing and out flowing wave energy of the protons by colliding them together, the nature of the scattered energy is to quickly group into smaller clumps of wave energy with new unstable patterns of high and low density spots and different standing wave patterns from one collision to the next. But in a large sample there will be repeated patterns that we might identify as quarks, i.e. particles that repeatedly form from the scattered or smashed standing wave patterns of the collided protons.
edit on 17-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: spelling

posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 02:35 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

When a particle spins it has an orientation that allows it to be approached perpendicular to the spin, i.e. in line with the axis of the spin. The effect is the origin of electromagnetism because approaching particles are guided to the axis of the spin and away from the direction of the spin.

Electromagnetism doesn't cause particles to head for the poles of other particles. A positive particle will attract a negative particle (even at the "equator") and repel a positive particle. This only manifests as poles when you get a bunch of particles together and create a magnet. Can you explain how a solid collection of spinning particles will cause another solid collection of spinning particles to head for a certain end while being repelled from the opposite end?
Going back to this post, I don't really try to be scientific and am far from qualified to answer the question of particles aligning within a nucleus or atoms aligning within a substance, but my delusion is that there is resonance between particles and they align in various ways at different energy densities, but at a given frequency or given wave energy density the alignment would be the same because of the amount of energy in the particle, the inflowing and out flowing standing wave energy and how that affects and is affected by surrounding particles. I haven't given the topic of the reality of partilce interactions much thought and have to trust the professional, but I have contemplated about how "fundamental" particles have internal composition, and when you approach the question form that perspective, though not much brainstorming has come to my attention, I'm sure there has been much brainstorming about it.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:07 AM
CLPrime

Originally posted by CLPrime
You got so close to answering my question, and then just stopped. Can you support your cliffhanger here? Because it would seem that the "urge" for the energy density to equalize would lessen as the energy density inside nears the energy density outside. That's how it works in real-world diffusion.

I didn't give this post enough consideration before I left for my trip to Spain, being rushed for time and all
.

I would like to go back to it now and address the two options and your concern about internal energy density relative to external energy density of an individual arena, and how the external energy density could decline during the period that the internal maturation of our "child" arena is occurring. This external decline could fuel the continued differential required to allow acceleration to be observed in the mature arena.

To define "maturation of the arena", there are changes in the state of the energy within the arena. At the instant of the big bang, that state is called dense-state energy, defined as the collapsed wave energy of the big crunch when the compression due to gravity reaches the critical point. At that point I like to say that the critical capacity of the crunch (the accumulated galactic material gathered around the center of gravity of the overlap space of the parent arena waves) has been reached and the resulting gravitational compression causes the individual particles to cease to function as individual particles and they collapse as the space between them is relinquished; it is a breaking point beyond which the individual particle space cannot be maintained. This collapse of the big crunch occurs at an instant in time, the big bang, and during that instant the dense-state energy exists as the sum of the wave energy of the former particles that then share the same space instead of having  the individual space that is maintained by properly functioning particles. The ability of matter to save its own space is lost because that ability has a natural range of energy density within which it can properly function, and the opposing force of gravity is the only thing in nature that can carry out a sustainable denial of that ability.

That denial requires that the critical capacity of a big crunch be reached. The bang occurs and breaks the clinch of gravity because it is particles that have gravity and when they cannot function, gravity cannot function. Out of the collapse/bang comes the force of energy density equalization as the sum of the wave energy that was formerly contained in functioning particles is released. The matter to energy to matter to energy mechanics uses the two opposing forces of gravity and expansion to perpetuate the arena landscape of the greater universe.

Dense state energy immediately begins to equalize with the external energy density, and it is the differential between the internal energy density and the external energy density that we have to describe as we talk about the eventual acceleration of separation of the galaxies in a mature arena. That differential goes through stages as the energy density of the arena goes through changes of state.

The expansion of the arena during this initial phase of energy density equalization is what is sometimes referred to as superluminal inflation or exponential expansion in the popular science media. My view of it would be that the radius of the arena increases at its fasted rate immediately after the instant of the collapse/bang. This results in an immediate reduction of the energy density differential between the internal and external levels of energy density. To put deluded figures on it, let's call the energy density of the dense state energy 1000. That density drops quickly in the first picoseconds after the bang, say down to 100 at the point that wave energy becomes contained by particles.

The reduction of the energy density within the arena brings on the next state that is characterized by the formation of particles. The first particles in my model are briefly stable patches of standing wave energy I call dark matter that can exist at the extreme density of the arena at that stage. Once wave energy is occupied in patches of standing waves that are sustained by inflowing and out flowing components, that wave energy is removed from the equalizing base which then I pegged above at an energy density (ED) of 100.

(This word salad is just the first course. See next post for the soup of the day ...)

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:09 AM
(continued from previous post ...)

As the density declines the next state is characterized by the clumps of standing wave energy in the dark matter state to clump and form groupings that have stable configurations. My model allows for a large portion of the dark matter to remain in stable dark particles that are not configured properly to evolve into the known particles of the standard particle model. Thus there is a lot of dark matter that is harder to detect that does lurk around but does not get incorporated into stable particles and objects since it cannot interact with them other than gravitationally.

But at this stage, the arena has inflated and the known particle building blocks have formed, atoms and molecules have formed and are radiating electromagnetic radiation to equalize the energy density across the arena, and stars and galaxies are taking shape. When the clumping has proceeded to the formation of galaxies that themselves are moving apart with the conserved separation momentum of the initial particles of dark matter, we have a mature arena. It is in this mature arena that the acceleration of the separation momentum is being discussed.

Superluminal or exponential expansion is over and the arena becomes a light ball where photons emitted by oscillating dipoles leads the increase in the arena radius. Within that radius is the matter, both functioning particles in molecules and atoms, and inert gravitational particles of dark matter, all with separation momentum imparted to them because they formed in an inflating energy density environment. That separation momentum is conserved and so the resulting galaxies have the conserved separation momentum of their particles and are therefore essentially all moving away from each other, finally defeating the counter force of internal arena gravity.

In my model, the wave energy that continues to exist and that I pegged at ED 100 within the arena declines slowly now as the arena continues to intrude into the space occupied by the remnants of the parent arenas, and the ED of the parent arenas continues to decline external to the new arena as the parent arenas continue to equalize with the space formerly occupied by their parent arenas; and continuing decline in ED that only becomes refreshed as the new arena intrudes into that space from the center of gravity of the overlap in which it formed.

For this exercise I think that three generations of arenas within a greater universe that has an average energy density that requires there to be a certain ratio between matter and expanding wave energy in the greater patch of space occupied by those three generations as they jointly intrude on the low energy density space surrounding them that has been essentially equalized to a value of ED 1. Just to continue that line of thought, if we call the patch of space occupied by those three generations a typical multi-generational patch of space, then the greater universe would be composed of a potentially infinite number of typical multi-generational spaces.

Using three generations, and supposing that each generation has two parent arenas, the ancestry of our multi-generational space is seven arenas consisting of our "child" arena, our two parent arenas, and our four grandparent arenas. Further, we would suppose that the arena that we will intersect and overlap with is already intruding on our multi-generational space and so it is expanding toward use as we expand toward it; maybe "dark flow" is a symptom of that growing presence.

Given three generations then we can identify a number of patches of space of various declining levels of ED, and we can specific a lower ED value for each of the various regions of the multi-generational space as we move away from the space occupied by our "child" arena.

Given that scenario, the space into which our child arena is intruding is itself declining in ED value, and it is that relationship that keeps supplying the sufficient energy density differential to cause our galactic separation to accelerate, according to my model.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:02 AM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Interestingly enough, I had the thought not too long ago to attempt to describe electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force with a mechanism similar to gravity, as opposed to them being fundamentally bosonic (the opposite direction that current GUT-physics is taking). Finding such a solution would be similar to solving your problem...so, if I was willing to allow for a curved spacetime view for 3 of the fundamental forces, then I'm also more than willing to accept that there could be a solution to the electromagnetism and strong force issue in your hypothesis.

The problem, of course, is coming up with it.
I wanted to acknowledge this post and respond. It is interesting to consider the gravitational force in my model as being able to replace certain bosons. I'm not really focused on the exact science of the particles and forces of the Standard Particle Model so discussing it with me will frustrate anyone who knows what they are talking about, so I won't presume to enter a discussion on it. But I am an expert on delusions of a lower quantum level of order and how the mechanics would work at that level so I'll just offer my delusions as my expertise.

If a particle in my model functions in accordance with invariant natural laws that include a foundational medium and wave energy traversing that medium, then every observable aspect of the universe would have this same foundational level of order. Given that supposition, then gravity is simply the difference in the net directional inflowing wave energy component of a standing wave pattern, and the directionally equal (spherical) out flowing wave energy component of that pattern. It is supposed that the particle "jitters" in the direction of the net highest energy density inflow based on some internal mechanics I call quantum action.

Applying that thought to the gravitation attraction of stable protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom, gravity could hold them together and the joint gravitational inflow and out flow of wave energy that sustains the particles in the nucleus would have the same characteristics of a directional inflowing component from other nuclei and a joint spherical out flow that expands equally in all directions to be utilized by surrounding nuclei.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:45 AM

Quarks do have assumed internal structures. I am actually working on that. They are called "preons". All kind of theories are out there, some saying that quarks are made of thousands of preons. The trouble is to make a model which predict the unlogical (but observed) mass pattern: e is 0.511, u is 2.7, d is 6, and so far nobody has made a preon model that could predict That...

I seriously doubt preons and leptons are point particles. Of course we're supposed to think they are, because otherwise it'll be too complicated... But if electrons were really points, the Exclusion Principle would take a blow. How can one share the oter position when the size of both particles are infinitely small - that is, equal to 0? Of course they would exclude, there would be nothing there!
edit on 18-9-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by swan001

Quarks do have assumed internal structures. I am actually working on that. They are called "preons". All kind of theories are out there, some saying that quarks are made of thousands of preons. The trouble is to make a model which predict the unlogical (but observed) mass pattern: e is 0.511, u is 2.7, d is 6, and so far nobody has made a preon model that could predict That...

I seriously doubt preons and leptons are point particles. Of course we're supposed to think they are, because otherwise it'll be too complicated... But if electrons were really points, the Exclusion Principle would take a blow. How can one share the oter position when the size of both particles are infinitely small - that is, equal to 0? Of course they would exclude, there would be nothing there!
edit on 18-9-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)
Are e, u, and d designations for types of preons with the quantified mass values you mention? Do these designations and mass patterns come from the scatter data collected by detectors in colliders? I sometimes get the urge to study the data and the observations at the micro level but then seem to lose interest because of the gap between my delusions about the foundational level of order and the quantifiable observations that we are able to detect. I just don't know how big the gap is and whether or not things like preons would simply be stable configurations of particular standing wave patterns.

But I think we both are saying that point particles are an expediency because we are simply limited in our ability to observe any supposed foundational level of order.

top topics

5