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.
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.
... 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.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by swan001
Point particles are sooo classical physics. We have quantum physics now...electrons are probability wavefunctions.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
do particles only exist for a short moment when a wave function is collapsed and energy is transfered?
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.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi
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)
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.
Originally posted by CLPrime
Regardless, your theory must be more observationally powerful than the Standard Model to be taken seriously.
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:.
Is this process mathematically consistent with observed gravitation?
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)
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi
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.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
i have no particle hierarchy
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.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi
What example would that be?
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi
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.
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.