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.

# The Infinite Spongy Universe and my ATS disclaimer

page: 7
5
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 04:45 PM

Point particles are sooo classical physics. We have quantum physics now...electrons are probability wavefunctions.

Eventually, you're going to have to come to some sort of most-basic fundamental particle. Classically, it will have to be considered a point-like particle (otherwise, you're left asking, "Well, what's this one made of?").

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by BogieSmiles

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.

Regardless, your theory must be more observationally powerful than the Standard Model to be taken seriously.

... 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.

Is this process mathematically consistent with observed gravitation?

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.

To get beyond "delusions," you need more than just "could." Does your theory of gravitation account for protons and neutrons being held together in the nucleus? Does this same "inflow and outflow" of wave energy account for large-scale gravitation? If you can't do the math yourself, hire/bribe/coerce someone to do it for you, because it needs to be done. Otherwise, your "internally consistent" claim has nothing to support it. And, if you can support your theory, then you can finally stop calling it your delusion. They don't give Nobel Prizes for delusions...and I, for one, would love to see you get a Nobel Prize for turning the physics world upside-down with your tested and proven theory.

edit on 18-9-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:17 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Point particles are sooo classical physics. We have quantum physics now...electrons are probability wavefunctions.

what then is the talk of wave/particle duality?

do particles only exist for a short moment when a wave function is collapsed and energy is transfered? this interaction must take place with calculable, quantifiable quanta?

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

do particles only exist for a short moment when a wave function is collapsed and energy is transfered?

That's essentially right.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by ImaFungi

do particles only exist for a short moment when a wave function is collapsed and energy is transfered?

That's essentially right.

ok,,, but now,,,, there are no such thing as subatomic particles.,,.,. only subatomic wave functions? and these subatomic waves,, happen to create an atom,,, which is somewhat of a particle?

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:35 PM

No, an atom is not somewhat of a particle. It is a collection of wavefunctions. That's why the quantum atom has a bunch of balloon shapes sticking out of it...those are electron probability clouds.
edit on 18-9-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:49 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

No, an atom is not somewhat of a particle. It is a collection of wavefunctions. That's why the quantum atom has a bunch of balloon shapes sticking out of it...those are electron probability clouds.
edit on 18-9-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

but the atom is a singular, quantifiable,, "part" of as itself,, or part of a whole,..,., it is stable as one..or can be..,.

arent there a semi specific number/type of atoms that make up an individual rock.,.., arent those atoms somewhat particles in that,, the rock is solid,,, is the rock itself somewhat of a particle? ( a point of whole),,., or is a rock a wave function?

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:54 PM
CLP re disclaimer

Originally posted by CLPrime
Regardless, your theory must be more observationally powerful than the Standard Model to be taken seriously.
Being taken seriously isn't an option. My feeling is that if there was any observational evidence of the foundational medium of my model, or of the mechanisms that I discuss related to particles being composed of standing wave energy in quantum increments, then science would be on top of it and I wouldn't be hypothesizing. Or more likely I would be hypothesizing about different things, lol.

Is this process mathematically consistent with observed gravitation?
I believe it is, but that is not of any importance. I have simply come up with ideas of how gravity could work if particles were composed of standing wave energy patterns in a foundational medium. Since we can't detect the medium, and can't observe particles in enough resolution to describe how their presence is maintained or how gravity works, I don't think that even perfect mathematics would elevate it beyond delusions :shrug:.

To get beyond "delusions," you need more than just "could." Does your theory of gravitation account for protons and neutrons being held together in the nucleus? Does this same "inflow and outflow" of wave energy account for large-scale gravitation? If you can't do the math yourself, hire/bribe/coerce someone to do it for you, because it needs to be done. Otherwise, your "internally consistent" claim has nothing to support it. And, if you can support your theory, then you can finally stop calling it your delusion. They don't give Nobel Prizes for delusions...and I, for one, would love to see you get a Nobel Prize for turning the physics world upside-down with your tested and proven theory.

edit on 18-9-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

You are kind to say that. My response is to refer people who might think I have ambitions in that regard to the disclaimer in my opening post. I am doing this because I want to have a personal view of how the universe might work in the absence of a complete and consistent scientific description from the scientific community. It is openly acknowledged that there are things going on that we cannot observe, and the limitations on our ability to observe means that there cannot yet be answers to many of the imponderables of the universe. I refer to my model as my deluded answers to what cannot be answered, and it gives me a so called internally consistent view of cosmology that is not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. That is all I ask of it, because then I have a personal view of physical reality from which I can derive my personal philosophy of life.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:55 PM

Your particle hierarchy won't get you anywhere. A rock can philosophically be thought of as a particle, but it has very few applications in physics.
Things typically stop invoking quantum physics above the molecular level.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Your particle hierarchy won't get you anywhere. A rock can philosophically be thought of as a particle, but it has very few applications in physics.
Things typically stop invoking quantum physics above the molecular level.

i have no particle hierarchy,, just trying to understand these things.,.,,. trying to understand why the term particle is ever evoked if,, according to you it does not fundamentally exist?

are "things" mainly considered waves,, because the existence of time? in the way that if particles existed,, if everything was composed of point particles,,,, these particles traveling through space in time,, could be plotted as a wavefunction?

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:07 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

i have no particle hierarchy

I was referring to your jump from particle atoms to particle rocks (just a little deadpan humour).

Particles are wavefunctions because they are waves. Not over time, but at a given instant...and, at any given instant, those waves generally represent the probability that a particle will be in a certain location.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:16 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by ImaFungi

i have no particle hierarchy

I was referring to your jump from particle atoms to particle rocks (just a little deadpan humour).

Particles are wavefunctions because they are waves. Not over time, but at a given instant...and, at any given instant, those waves generally represent the probability that a particle will be in a certain location.

okok,,

so in that example you gave,,,, what does the word particle mean?

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:17 PM

Well...I respect your limitations, as well as your humility in recognizing your limitations. A lot of people don't think they have any.
I told you before that I would consider your theory and, if possible, I might see if I could work out the math of the expanding energy density area thing (my reservoir of scientific jargon is dry tonight). I may still do that at some point before I die...assuming I'm on my death bed with a calculator in my hand.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:18 PM

What example would that be?

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

What example would that be?

not example,,, but,,, explanation.,,,.

"Particles are wavefunctions because they are waves. Not over time, but at a given instant...and, at any given instant, those waves generally represent the probability that a particle will be in a certain location."

you say,,, particles and waves exist,..,,.,.,.,.,. particles are waves.,.,.,,.,.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:23 PM

In quantum physics, "particle" would typically mean the wavefunction itself. "Particle" could also be the point-like blip of energy that's observed when a wavefunction is measured.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:46 PM

Lol, I can envision you, like Albert, working on the math until the lights go out. Hopefully you will be working of something more important than my explanation for accelerating expansion. And if there is any justice, I will be long gone by then, being your senior by much of a lifetime.

The funny part is that I can envision myself spinning delusions up until the lights go out. Maybe by then the unification of the micro and macro realms that I expound upon will be a characteristic of some reputable alternative to the consensus view of cosmology. That would be something of a personal claim to fame for my obituary, lol.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:49 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

In quantum physics, "particle" would typically mean the wavefunction itself. "Particle" could also be the point-like blip of energy that's observed when a wavefunction is measured.

ok,,, so really,,, reality is like an all encompassing 4 -d "sea",,,.,, except every plancks length of the universe is also the top of a sea we are familiar with.,,.,. and then the size, duration, intensity, interference, harmony, resonance,, of these waves in the sea,,, create "more then just waves",, is this kind of the idea of string theory? which is kind of related to all the other theories anyway, because they are all inciting tiny wave-functions as the main creator and foundation of reality?

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:01 PM

Originally posted by BogieSmiles

The funny part is that I can envision myself spinning delusions up until the lights go out. Maybe by then the unification of the micro and macro realms that I expound upon will be a characteristic of some reputable alternative to the consensus view of cosmology. That would be something of a personal claim to fame for my obituary, lol.

Hopefully you will be working of something more important than my explanation for accelerating expansion.

Honestly, I'll probably either die behind a bullet-riddled pulpit or on some street corner at the hands of an angry mob. Or perhaps both, if I move the pulpit outside.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:05 PM

For the most part (as far as I could understand your analogy), I think you've got it.
The main difference with String Theory is that it requires multiple extra dimensions in order to get enough string vibrational modes to account for all observed particles.

new topics

top topics

5