Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Vern on 17/11/2009 14:15:44
-
I have some ideas about what is the true nature of the universe. Others here have other notions. I wonder if we can start with a few postulates and create a new vision of reality. Can we find that principal that John Wheeler talked about when he said, "Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."
As a first postulate I suggest Maxwell's idea.
Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html)
-
I have some ideas about what is the true nature of the universe. Others here have other notions. I wonder if we can start with a few postulates and create a new vision of reality. Can we find that principal that John Wheeler talked about when he said, "Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."
As a first postulate I suggest Maxwell's idea.
Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
I have a theory that can explain cause of Bang !
-
I have some ideas about what is the true nature of the universe. Others here have other notions. I wonder if we can start with a few postulates and create a new vision of reality. Can we find that principal that John Wheeler talked about when he said, "Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."
As a first postulate I suggest Maxwell's idea.
Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
I have a theory that can explain cause of Bang !
So have I, Lino Lil at No. 18!!!
-
What do you mean Mr.don_1_2_page no.18 ??
-
R u making fun of me ?
When I will publish than I need to look at your face LOL.
-
Now boys; behave. Let's be diplmatic and reasnable within ourselves when considering each others theories.
:)
-
Now boys; behave. Let's be diplmatic and reasnable within ourselves when considering each others theories.
:)
sir, why don't you use physics Journals to publish ??
http://journals.aip.org/
-
Let me attempt this on a logical path.
Vern and myself a photon-theory only enthusiasts. Many have been following luxon theory and how Verns vision incurs with mine very admirably, after all that complicated imaginary stuff to reconcile within my cranium.
He has shown that the irreducible singularity is an electromagnetic force. I agree.
He believe there is no Higgs Boson. I set it down to an energy gradient in the potential gravitational vector, whilst vern internally and forensically illustrates a geometry-occurrance within the structure of a photon.
Then i had to involve vortex's in my math as to ''compress'' all the essential ingredients together, so i was trying to answer verns qoutation ''it all happens by magic,'' but obviously not so :)
So let's debate this stuff first.
Myself and Vern are considering in writing a thesis between us on a new reality proposal, and a whole new ensemble of math to decribe it. By removing the gravitational singularity, many current quantum problems can inexorably be solved.
[8D] 777th post. Two days ago i had 666 and freaked out a little. No girly screams though... [::)]
-
Now boys; behave. Let's be diplmatic and reasnable within ourselves when considering each others theories.
:)
sir, why don't you use physics Journals to publish ??
http://journals.aip.org/
Simply down to money.
-
By your theory vern magnetic charge inside a photon i effected by a curvature, or it dissipated until it follows a linear path again. The is a prediction well-worth noting.
-
May be we can begin with the one reality we have postulated. That only photons comprise the universe. We can see how far we can get with that notion and still remain self consistent.
Given the postulate, we might wonder why the electromagnetic field always presents itself in quantum chunks. I have proposed that it is because empty space can support only so much electric and magnetic amplitude. I suspect that is true because electric and magnetic amplitude is not part of the equation for quantum energy.
hv describes quantum energy. It contains only a constant and the rate of electromagnetic change over time. If the electric and magnetic amplitude reached during the change were variable it would need be in the equation.
Now, is that reasoning valid?
-
By your theory vern magnetic charge inside a photon i effected by a curvature, or it dissipated until it follows a linear path again. The is a prediction well-worth noting.
In the hypothetical universe under consideration nothing exists except electric and magnetic amplitude change. This change is equal and opposite in a photon, so a photon is charge neutral.
However when the path of a photon is bent, the electric and magnetic change can not be equal and opposite on both sides of the path. There is less area on the inside of the curve. This imbalance shows up as charge and mass.
When there is no entrapment mechanism to hold the bent path, the path straightens and continues on as a massless photon.
-
hv describes quantum energy. It contains only a constant and the rate of electromagnetic change over time. If the electric and magnetic amplitude reached during the change were variable it would need be in the equation.
Now, is that reasoning valid?
If that reasoning is valid, we immediately see that there are some obvious realities that have not yet been stated in physics. The numerical value of the electric and magnetic amplitude limit that empty space can sustain is one. This number should be significant. It would be a primary constant from which Planck's constant derives. It would be the primary cause of the quantum nature of the universe. It would be the originating factor in the mental affliction we call Quantamania.(newly coined word) It should free us from the need to identify everything in terms of quanta.
-
May be we can begin with the one reality we have postulated. That only photons comprise the universe. We can see how far we can get with that notion and still remain self consistent.
Given the postulate, we might wonder why the electromagnetic field always presents itself in quantum chunks. I have proposed that it is because empty space can support only so much electric and magnetic amplitude. I suspect that is true because electric and magnetic amplitude is not part of the equation for quantum energy.
hv describes quantum energy. It contains only a constant and the rate of electromagnetic change over time. If the electric and magnetic amplitude reached during the change were variable it would need be in the equation.
Now, is that reasoning valid?
Mm... deep. Too early in the morning. I will think about this hard though.
Thnks Vern
-
hv describes quantum energy. It contains only a constant and the rate of electromagnetic change over time. If the electric and magnetic amplitude reached during the change were variable it would need be in the equation.
Now, is that reasoning valid?
If that reasoning is valid, we immediately see that there are some obvious realities that have not yet been stated in physics. The numerical value of the electric and magnetic amplitude limit that empty space can sustain is one. This number should be significant. It would be a primary constant from which Planck's constant derives. It would be the primary cause of the quantum nature of the universe. It would be the originating factor in the mental affliction we call Quantamania.(newly coined word) It should free us from the need to identify everything in terms of quanta.
my thoughts ineditely after reading the post above
-
Let me start by saying,
Perhaps there was no such thing as big-bang, that life itself existed FOREVER, we are applying Human concepts that something MUST start from somewhere, by implying it starts - gives it an implication it must end, life starts and ends. But the universe never started, it was just THERE to begin with (Or rather to not-begin with...), perhaps the earth was made via big-bang, but not the universe. Could be just a giant contradiction :)
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang is about the creation of the UNIVERSE - not the earth?
This being said, reality is such a bore :P I have discovered my truth, I make my reality the way I want it - and to me, existance is just is. (Intened wording)
Everything is just in a state of energy, it is knowlegde that shapes what our perspective of things are.
Though, I seem to be lacking energy to go on my ramble :) Back to violin practice.
-
Then maybe we can add another postulate, since we forbid the magic that could have produced a Big Bang.
Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
Postulate: Space and time are invariable. Space is empty nothingness. Time marches on from past to future and does not vary the rate of its progress.
Now with just these two postulates, we already see that any universe that can exist within that scenario will exhibit relativity phenomena. And if we were as mathematically adapt as Henri Poincare, we could create the equations that describe how any object existing there must distort in order to gain spatial movement. We would be able to write out the Lorentz Transforms just as Poincare and Lorentz did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9)
-
Let me start by saying,
Perhaps there was no such thing as big-bang, that life itself existed FOREVER, we are applying Human concepts that something MUST start from somewhere, by implying it starts - gives it an implication it must end, life starts and ends. But the universe never started, it was just THERE to begin with (Or rather to not-begin with...), perhaps the earth was made via big-bang, but not the universe. Could be just a giant contradiction :)
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang is about the creation of the UNIVERSE - not the earth? ***
This being said, reality is such a bore :P I have discovered my truth, I make my reality the way I want it - and to me, existance is just is. (Intened wording)
Everything is just in a state of energy, it is knowlegde that shapes what our perspective of things are.
Though, I seem to be lacking energy to go on my ramble :) Back to violin practice.
Indeed there are many other contending theories. One off the top of my head is the Ekpyrotic Theory or Steady state, but i would almost hunch there was almost certainly a beginning of time, and therefor space as well, and since math is very strict, it seems the most plausible theory to entertain for many reasons.
Very true. I once made a similar verbal deduction of logic that something cannot simply come from nothing, which possibly means this ''nothingness'' was actually the ''everything-ness'' that was ever really required.
So what was it? A potential sea of information, because i myself would tend towards this.
Edit: *** ANSWER: ''Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang is about the creation of the UNIVERSE - not the earth?''
Actually, the universe is what is called ''self-contained'' and since the universe encompasses everything then earth itself is also an ingredient of the big bang, no matter how miniscule :)
-
Edit: *** ANSWER: ''Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang is about the creation of the UNIVERSE - not the earth?''
When the Catholic Priest first proposed The Primevial Atom (http://photontheory.com/lamitre.html) the idea was that the material universe sprang from one point and swelled into empty space. Now, the notion seems to have developed to have space and time being created in the event. It takes a magical religious mind to conceive a nothingness even more void of stuff than empty space. Yet, that is what is advocated; astonishingly some folks actually believe that.
-
Edit: *** ANSWER: ''Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang is about the creation of the UNIVERSE - not the earth?''
When the Catholic Priest first proposed The Primevial Atom (http://photontheory.com/lamitre.html) the idea was that the material universe sprang from one point and swelled into empty space. Now, the notion seems to have developed to have space and time being created in the event. It takes a magical religious mind to conceive a nothingness even more void of stuff than empty space. Yet, that is what is advocated; astonishingly some folks actually believe that.
why don't people use physics Journals to publish ??
http://journals.aip.org/
-
Edit: *** ANSWER: ''Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang is about the creation of the UNIVERSE - not the earth?''
When the Catholic Priest first proposed The Primevial Atom (http://photontheory.com/lamitre.html) the idea was that the material universe sprang from one point and swelled into empty space. Now, the notion seems to have developed to have space and time being created in the event. It takes a magical religious mind to conceive a nothingness even more void of stuff than empty space. Yet, that is what is advocated; astonishingly some folks actually believe that.
why don't people use physics Journals to publish ??
http://journals.aip.org/
Costly in time and also because dogma has now plauged the unversatility of the academic trained mind.
-
But hopefully when myself and Vern finalize a theory we can agree on, academic publishing will not be a problem.
-
But hopefully when myself and Vern finalize a theory we can agree on, academic publishing will not be a problem.
What ?
you both are working together ?
If I were to be a Physicist I would never work with other LOL.
I don't like to share the ideas esp. Physics !
don't take it personal.
but I am talking about myself !
-
Mr. Scientist and I have different views. However we can contribute to a combined effort. Schrodinger hated Quantum theory and thought it was completely irrational, but he contributed much to it.
-
Mr. Scientist and I have different views. However we can contribute to a combined effort. Schrodinger hated Quantum theory and thought it was completely irrational, but he contributed much to it.
Well, I love team work too..
But it might suit for you guys but Not me .. I always remain lonely.
Good luck Bro's of Physics !
-
When you contribute so as to advance the state of the art of physics, you will always be contributing to someone else's work. We still stand on the shoulders of giants like Newton, Maxwell, Poincare, Lorentz, and even Einstein, though his assumption of variable space-time was wrong. His arithmetic correctly describes material distortions in flat space-time.
-
When you contribute so as to advance the state of the art of physics, you will always be contributing to someone else's work. We still stand on the shoulders of giants like Newton, Maxwell, Poincare, Lorentz, and even Einstein, though his assumption of variable space-time was wrong. His arithmetic correctly describes material distortions in flat space-time.
I always looked by standing on the shoulder of giants.WOW these giants really give me a clear view of how cool the world of physics really is ..!!
-
The neat thing is that when we study these giants of physical reality and understand their discoveries, we can then advance the understanding a little further. But we are on the fringes. There is an unlimited variety of paths to the future. One of those represents reality; the unlimited amount of others represent false starts.
We plod along making mostly false starts. Then we back up and try another path. After thousands of such we gain insight into what is real in nature.
-
But hopefully when myself and Vern finalize a theory we can agree on, academic publishing will not be a problem.
What ?
you both are working together ?
If I were to be a Physicist I would never work with other LOL.
I don't like to share the ideas esp. Physics !
don't take it personal.
but I am talking about myself !
We differ in some of our views, but this could be cleverly orchestrated when written down, as point where we agree and where we have suspicions on each others contentions, whether mathematical or not.
-
Mr. Scientist and I have different views. However we can contribute to a combined effort. Schrodinger hated Quantum theory and thought it was completely irrational, but he contributed much to it.
Well, I love team work too..
But it might suit for you guys but Not me .. I always remain lonely.
Good luck Bro's of Physics !
Thnks.
-
The neat thing is that when we study these giants of physical reality and understand their discoveries, we can then advance the understanding a little further. But we are on the fringes. There is an unlimited variety of paths to the future. One of those represents reality; the unlimited amount of others represent false starts.
We plod along making mostly false starts. Then we back up and try another path. After thousands of such we gain insight into what is real in nature.
Have you guys met each other in real ?
How can you trust a person from online ?
I know its subject but How do you know each other ?
Just asking !!
-
What is to trust? I suspect there is no secret knowledge that one might stumble upon like finding a bag of gold so that it must be secreted lest it be stolen. Discovery, in physics, is open; there is no secret. We all openly discuss how we see nature's rules. Most of the time we are wrong. Sometimes we make enough sense that others agree for a while; usually even the agreed upon ideas must be abandoned for newer ones that make more sense.
-
What is to trust? I suspect there is no secret knowledge that one might stumble upon like finding a bag of gold so that it must be secreted lest it be stolen. Discovery, in physics, is open; there is no secret. We all openly discuss how we see nature's rules. Most of the time we are wrong. Sometimes we make enough sense that others agree for a while; usually even the agreed upon ideas must be abandoned for newer ones that make more sense.
All the time I am talking about me .. PLEASE don't take it personal.
Ok !
so,
What do you think about real life of Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn ?
Hahn copied ! meitner's theories and got credit to Hahn !!
Both worked as a team ! but, due to Hitler Meitner got to leave German.
All the data than copied by Hahn !!
in fact all work was done and discovered by Meitner. She used to send all calculations to Hahn through letters.
so, finally Hahn cheated and gave credit to himself for all team work.
Ok I am not talking about you guys I am talking about my self.
History thought me !
In 1944, Hahn received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for the discovery of nuclear fission. Some historians who have documented the history of the discovery of nuclear fission believe Meitner should have been awarded the Nobel Prize with Hahn
-
Mr. Scientist and I have different views. However we can contribute to a combined effort. Schrodinger hated Quantum theory and thought it was completely irrational, but he contributed much to it.
Well, I love team work too..
But it might suit for you guys but Not me .. I always remain lonely.
Good luck Bro's of Physics !
Thnks.
Mr.scientist don't take it too personal what I said but it was always about me.
Have you met each other ?
-
After the war, Meitner, while acknowledging her own moral failing in staying in Germany from 1933 to 1938, was bitterly critical of Hahn and other German scientists who had collaborated with the Nazis and done nothing to protest against the crimes of Hitler's regime. Referring to the leading German scientist Werner Heisenberg, she said: "Heisenberg and many millions with him should be forced to see these camps and the martyred people." She wrote to Hahn:
Meitner's Grave in Bramley
"You all worked for Nazi Germany. And you tried to offer only a passive resistance. Certainly, to buy off your conscience you helped here and there a persecuted person, but millions of innocent human beings were allowed to be murdered without any kind of protest being uttered ... [it is said that] first you betrayed your friends, then your children in that you let them stake their lives on a criminal war – and finally that you betrayed Germany itself, because when the war was already quite hopeless, you did not once arm yourselves against the senseless destruction of Germany."[16]
Meitner and Hahn were lifelong friends.[17]
Meitner became a Swedish citizen in 1949, but moved to Britain in 1960 and died in Cambridge in 1968, shortly before her 90th birthday.[1] As was her wish, she was buried in the village of Bramley in Hampshire, at St. James parish church, close to her younger brother Walter, who had died in 1964. Her nephew Otto Robert Frisch composed the inscription on her headstone. It reads "Lise Meitner: a physicist who never lost her humanity."
According to the psychologist David Keirsey, she was an intj[18], a set of people who have the least emotional, most rational personalities.
-
Vern and mr.scientist I know only you guys in this forum.
could you guys plz help me in choosing my physics career ??
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26830.0;topicseen
-
By now you must know of my distaste for Quantum theory, including M and String. I consider them to be ridiculously stupid at their foundation. However you will have to study them; you can only avoid reaching the same conclusion as I by accepting magic as reality. Energy transforms to mass by magic, for example. The magic of virtual particles pops up and saves the theory, for example. Observation magically causes wave function collapse to bring a superimposed state into reality, for example.
So I would say, learn it well, but know that it is not what is real in the universe. But we welcome you to contribute to what can possibly be real in the universe. So far we have:
Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
and
Postulate: Space and time are invariant.
Now, you can add a contender for another postulate, or you can speculate about nature within the two postulates. We have so far, that these two postulates alone demand all relativity phenomena including time dilation. (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html)
-
Mr. Scientist and I have different views. However we can contribute to a combined effort. Schrodinger hated Quantum theory and thought it was completely irrational, but he contributed much to it.
Well, I love team work too..
But it might suit for you guys but Not me .. I always remain lonely.
Good luck Bro's of Physics !
Thnks.
Mr.scientist don't take it too personal what I said but it was always about me.
Have you met each other ?
Personal? I think you're a sound guy.
Don't get paranoid friend :L)
-
Would you like to be part of this? I know you could create the diagrams for both my own and verns contentions...
...Oh God, i do hope me and vern see eye to concerning the gravitational charge-need in this theory he has advocated for many years :) He's a good guy too. Very patient.
-
Vern and mr.scientist I know only you guys in this forum.
could you guys plz help me in choosing my physics career ??
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26830.0;topicseen
This is a choice that depends soley on what your own preferences are. If you know you have excelled in area's where you think devolopment is required, then you have made a more wiser choice, than to base it on ideologies from other who's methods and understandings maybe antiquated and synonymously weak.
So - dependance and help can have a fine blue line. This is my advice :) Do what feels right, not what necesserily others may contend.
-
Would you like to be part of this? I know you could create the diagrams for both my own and verns contentions...
...Oh God, i do hope me and vern see eye to concerning the gravitational charge-need in this theory he has advocated for many years :) He's a good guy too. Very patient.
It is difficult for me to get a clear view of the gravity charge you propose. It was about twenty years into searching for what could possibly cause the phenomena of gravity that I realized that the extended fields of a photon would be too weak to react with matter.
Then I realized that if this were so, and the electric and magnetic amplitude of photons is a constant, the diminished photon fields would contribute to that saturation amplitude. The result would be gravitational phenomena.
Now, although the arithmetic demands it, I have yet to see anyone offer confirmation of my contention that photons exist as saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude.
-
Would you like to be part of this? I know you could create the diagrams for both my own and verns contentions...
...Oh God, i do hope me and vern see eye to concerning the gravitational charge-need in this theory he has advocated for many years :) He's a good guy too. Very patient.
It is difficult for me to get a clear view of the gravity charge you propose. It was about twenty years into searching for what could possibly cause the phenomena of gravity that I realized that the extended fields of a photon would be too weak to react with matter.
Then I realized that if this were so, and the electric and magnetic amplitude of photons is a constant, the diminished photon fields would contribute to that saturation amplitude. The result would be gravitational phenomena.
Now, although the arithmetic demands it, I have yet to see anyone offer confirmation of my contention that photons exist as saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude.
If you could vern, could you amplify the things which make it difficult so i may answer them as honestly as possible, because there is nothing worse than being confused.
Quick example/ it took me a year top comprehend your electromagnetical cycle componants of the photon... :)
-
I guess I have trouble keeping pieces of the puzzle in mind while going through long paragraphs that don't directly contribute to the puzzle.
We need the notion condensed to a concise paragraph. I can search back through your postings and see if I can do that, or you might try. [:)]
-
Well, straight off the top of my mind the bolded parts can be given an explanation to hopefully satisfy this:
It was about twenty years into searching for what could possibly cause the phenomena of gravity that I realized that the extended fields of a photon would be too weak to react with matter
Not if it has a gravitational couping, which was why, inexorably, i invited it into your interesting curved hypothesis.
-
I couldn't connect the bolded text with your gravity charge notion. As I recall, you proposed a magnetic monopole as the gravitational charge. That part did not sink in for me.
-
I couldn't connect the bolded text with your gravity charge notion. As I recall, you proposed a magnetic monopole as the gravitational charge. That part did not sink in for me.
HGi vern again_ lol
Basically you agree a photon produces a gravitational field?
-
photon produces a gravitational field?
guys where are you >?<
What light got to do with gravity ?
-
I couldn't connect the bolded text with your gravity charge notion. As I recall, you proposed a magnetic monopole as the gravitational charge. That part did not sink in for me.
HGi vern again_ lol
Basically you agree a photon produces a gravitational field?
Yes; and I proposed the mechanism for that.
-
What light got to do with gravity ?
Light, as in the electromagnetic field, is the only source of gravity in a photon-only universe.
Light is one of multiple different sources of gravity in currently accepted theory.
-
I couldn't connect the bolded text with your gravity charge notion. As I recall, you proposed a magnetic monopole as the gravitational charge. That part did not sink in for me.
Basically you agree a photon produces a gravitational field?
Yes; and I proposed the mechanism for that.
Cool - because that means in an elementary-sense that we actually do agree on the use of gravito-EM relationships. We have very little idea's actually which clash. :)
HGi vern again_ lol
-
I couldn't connect the bolded text with your gravity charge notion. As I recall, you proposed a magnetic monopole as the gravitational charge. That part did not sink in for me.
Because for your model to aquire a 50-50 concordance (those cycles) any time a photon crosses into a curvature and a charge is released, you said an absence of magnetic charge is valuable. So in concordance with this, i proposed this can be removed where gravitons (that stuff which creates and is the same as curvature) gobbles up that magnetic side of the photon. The two charges which inexorably remain, is the magneminity of the photon travelling a geodesic path..
-
Do we understand each other now?
:)
-
In fact, i add another modification/explaination. A magnetic monopole above are gobbled by gravitons which makes the graviton field weak. The reason why the permeability between the absorption of the monopole is due to having only one pole.
-
I have not yet seen the need to name the residual fields that I visualize as gravitons. They would be changing electric and magnetic amplitude potential, but would be too weak to directly interact with anything. Photons moving through these weak fields would find their points of saturation at a slight offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields.
-
I have not yet seen the need to name the residual fields that I visualize as gravitons. They would be changing electric and magnetic amplitude potential, but would be too weak to directly interact with anything. Photons moving through these weak fields would find their points of saturation at a slight offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields.
guys can I join you ?
I mean only if I have time.
do I need to fill the agreement form ?
-
No form required; just think, and show us your thoughts. This is speculation, so don't be restrained in your thinking. [;D]
Feel free to use any ideas you find here; when you go for your Nobel, just give us honourable mention.
-
No form required; just think, and show us your thoughts. This is speculation, so don't be restrained in your thinking. [;D]
Feel free to use any ideas you find here; when you go for your Nobel, just give us honourable mention.
Did you say speculation ??
WOW I am really good at it LOL ..
Ok I need some time for this ..
-
Remember that our quest is to discover that principle that John Wheeler wrote about. From the Opening Paragraph it is:
"Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise." (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html)
Then if you know anything about probability theory, and you see that relativity alone provides so much phenomena that exactly matches to the extended decimal, you see that the odds in favour of the reality advocated in the link are many millions to one.
-
More than millions. We are talking around 10^10^123!!
Wild eh?
-
Good bye all !!
-
WHERE TOO
-
More than millions. We are talking around 10^10^123!!
Wild eh?
I wonder why it is that although we have known this for about 200 years and there is not even one piece of experimental evidence that it is not what is real; we still cling to magical ideas of reality.
-
More than millions. We are talking around 10^10^123!!
Wild eh?
I wonder why it is that although we have known this for about 200 years and there is not even one piece of experimental evidence that it is not what is real; we still cling to magical ideas of reality.
We cling to them, not because of irrationality, or even mental capacity, but because we seem to see this unchanging pattern in our observations of the world. This pattern in a system in which a complexity continues to move (ordered systems of particles) all down to entropy.
It seems as though, that the complexity had to be designed, and have meaning, choice... because without any meaning, we would have no choice to make the speculations we make today, nor could we actually analyze the mind-blowing statistics of such a thing to be true. This is reality at its finest and damn hardest :)
-
Those are deep philosophical concepts. But back to our plan, can we add a postulate or a prediction to the realities we have thus far described?
Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
Postulate: Space and time are invariant.
Then those two postulates led us to understand that if that is reality, this must also be true. (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html) And then we have a notion that not only predicts the unification of all the forces. (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) but demands it.
The most obvious thing that comes out of it is a clear understanding of just exactly why the universe appears to have a quantum nature and why it possesses the uncertainty we see. Our misunderstanding of those two things led us down the false path of Quantum theory that Shrodinger and Einstein warned us about.
-
Good points made vern.
-
I think we need to add to the postulates. It seems that the speed of light is invariant and that notion is needed so that logic demands the conclusions we have suspected so far. So we have:
Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
Postulate: Space and time are invariant.
Postulate: The speed of light in empty space is invariant.
So given this we can dispense with some foolish notions. We immediately know that space and time do not vary to accommodate material things in motion; material things must vary to accommodate motion because of their construct in accord with our first postulate.
-
If we reduce it even further, there may be no motion at all.
-
If we reduce it even further, there may be no motion at all.
Are you saying that motion does'nt exist? This reminds me of Einstein's world line where every change is not movement but a totally new existence for every Planck unit of time.
-
Vern if you could mess. me, it would be appreciated. I have a few things to discuss with you. Thnks :)
-
If we reduce it even further, there may be no motion at all.
Are you saying that motion does'nt exist? This reminds me of Einstein's world line where every change is not movement but a totally new existence for every Planck unit of time.
Yeh.... yeh, I can see that.
-
Vern if you could mess. me, it would be appreciated. I have a few things to discuss with you. Thnks :)
I try to respond to my all messages; I like open forums for idea development. [:)]
-
I suspect we should be careful of Planck units. We can only logically deduce one Planck unit. That is the constant whose energy is E = hv; we can deduce from that simple equation that the amplitude of electric and magnetic potential is a constant in photons. This is an absolute deduction as real as 1 + 1 = 2. Planck's constant is the energy content of the rate of change of electric and magnetic amplitude over time. If the amplitude reached by this change were variable, it would need be part of the equation. It is not part of the equation. It is a constant.
We would then suspect; since we never see a greater amplitude value; that this constant electric and magnetic amplitude for empty space is the maximum that empty space can support.
But just because this is real for electromagnetic amplitudes in empty space, it does not even suggest that it may have any meaning at all for other things like time and spatial area.
-
I suspect we should be careful of Planck units. We can only logically deduce one Planck unit. That is the constant whose energy is E = hv; we can deduce from that simple equation that the amplitude of electric and magnetic potential is a constant in photons. This is an absolute deduction as real as 1 + 1 = 2. Planck's constant is the energy content of the rate of change of electric and magnetic amplitude over time. If the amplitude reached by this change were variable, it would need be part of the equation. It is not part of the equation. It is a constant.
We would then suspect; since we never see a greater amplitude value; that this constant electric and magnetic amplitude for empty space is the maximum that empty space can support.
But just because this is real for electromagnetic amplitudes in empty space, it does not even suggest that it may have any meaning at all for other things like time and spatial area.
the Plank unit is the quantization of the spacetime it's not a continuous thing
http://www.albertwasright.com/ (http://www.albertwasright.com/)
-
What are the fundamental factors that demand the quantization of space-time? We have those with the electromagnetic field; we don't hove those with spatial or temporal dimensions.
-
What are the fundamental factors that demand the quantization of space-time? We have those with the electromagnetic field; we don't hove those with spatial or temporal dimensions.
but if you try to introduce a quantization in the space time a lot of things like fine structure constant, gravity and atom electrons orbit jumps will be has a clear explanation
The base of the theory is here:
http://www.albertavevaragione.com/index.php?id=28&lang=en
I'm glad to hear your opinion about them
-
It is known from relativity that an absolute frame of reference does not exist. It is therefore obvious that the rest of the maximass can exist only in comparison with other observers.
I find lots of things in your paper that I can agree with. However, the above statement in chapter 14 does not fit well. If by relativity you mean Einstein's theories, about relativity, you could not use it as a logical argument that we know because of Einstein's theory. Theories cannot be the cause of things; at best they can only explain and predict.
If you mean relativity phenomena there is much evidence that this is not so. (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html) In that scenario, flat space-time is required in order to produce relativity phenomena.
The physical meaning of the formula derives from the ratio of the velocity c of the wavefronts moving in the orbit and the velocity ve of the wave source-electron in the same orbit.
We must remember that we are referring to those wavefronts moving along the ideal tube whose axis is the orbit on which the closed path of the electron-wave source lies.
Figure 95 shows that "137" wavefronts of wavelength le move in the orbit in a resonance state, and that for each revolution made by the wave source the wavefronts coming from it make "137" revolutions.
Also, this from Chapter 24 does not sit well. We have pretty much discounted the notion that electrons orbit atomic nuclei. QM has it as a cloud of probability functions, which I find unnecessary. I would rather consider the Fine Structure Constant to be the ratio of the bend radius of the electron's comprising energy wave to the electron's charge value. In this case we find the cause of electric charge. It is the bend in the path of the energy wave.
Then, knowing this we can predict the value of electric charge that a tighter bend would produce. We can calculate the value of the strong nuclear forces. The force is two times shell 2 plus two times shell 3 electrons worth of force. And then we see that observations agree with predictions. And then we see that the dynamics of the strong force would be as observed. (http://photontheory.com/strongdynamics.html) The predicted dynamics are exactly as is observed.
Calculator Source Code in C (http://photontheory.com/mevs.c)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fmevs.jpg&hash=f8666195b5b4d739f2527429c6cf40a1)
-
But just because this is real for electromagnetic amplitudes in empty space, it does not even suggest that it may have any meaning at all for other things like time and spatial area.
Interesting; For existence to be digital, every quantum action must be in synchronous order. If we can observe one unit of Planck time intersecting another out of sync. then our total existence can not be digital. Maybe it's true that Planck time is a reality but only in terms of our ability to observe it? I think I'll start using my analog watch again, this digital world they're pushing on us dosen't fit my kind of reality.
-
I didn't mean to suggest that space and time can not exist as quantized chunks. They may very well be. It is just that Planck's constant is a completely different animal with an easily discovered cause which would be different for space and time.
Cause of Planck's constant: The maximum electric and magnetic amplitude of electromagnetic waves is a constant.
This can be derived from E = hv. It says that photon energy is Planck's constant times the rate of change of the electromagnetic field. The change of the electromagnetic field must go to some amplitude. This amplitude is not part of the equation. It must therefore be a constant.
-
I didn't mean to suggest that space and time can not exist as quantized chunks. They may very well be. It is just that Planck's constant is a completely different animal with an easily discovered cause which would be different for space and time.
Cause of Planck's constant: The maximum electric and magnetic amplitude of electromagnetic waves is a constant.
This can be derived from E = hv. It says that photon energy is Planck's constant times the rate of change of the electromagnetic field. The change of the electromagnetic field must go to some amplitude. This amplitude is not part of the equation. It must therefore be a constant.
I'm afraid vern, that perhaps this is all quantum mechanics is saying right now.
Oh how i would love one which incorporates two models: One which suffices the description of this world, but one equally which suffices our existences.
-
That last one was a little over my head; I didn't quite grasp the meaning of it. [:)]
-
That last one was a little over my head; I didn't quite grasp the meaning of it. [:)]
Sometimes vern, it even goes past mine :)
-
We should forget Quantum theory in any quest to develop a Reality theory. Quantum theory is philosophically unsound at its foundation. It corrupts the mind making it unable to recognize reality. Keep all observations; forget all theories; develop new hypothesis to explain the observations.
-
Hi, sorry to barge in in your dialog thread here. I just wanna vent an opinion, stupid or not...
Higher up in the thread I read that gravity comes from bent photon paths and thus 'deforming' the EM fields.
Could it be that gravity is arising from the bending as heat is arising from (mechanical) friction?
I have this picture in my head, of gravity fitting in your EM-fields-only universe, but these are the best words I find for the picture...
-
I think you may have misread the mechanism for gravity.
Gravity develops from the property of space that limits the amount of electric and magnetic amplitude that any point in space can support. All photons naturally contain two points at this electric and magnetic amplitude. The two points are caused by and are supported and are driven through space by the changing amplitude of electric and magnetic fields that surround the points and extend outward forever through space.
Photon points moving through the fields of other photons reach their maximum amplitude with the help of the the fields of other photons. The result is that maximum amplitude occurs at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields of other photons.
It is hard to get your mind around it. But once you see it, it is obvious that it must happen given the postulates we have so far proposed.
-
Photon points moving through the fields of other photons reach their maximum amplitude with the help of the the fields of other photons. The result is that maximum amplitude occurs at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields of other photons.
Please help me understand Vern [:)]
So a photon exists of two points of field saturation (1 electrical and 1 magnetic, coupled and moving together).
When these two points move through a field of another photon (with relative amplitude somewhere between -1 and 1 i guess??), the sum of the field strength at this location exceeds the maximum allowed amplitude for a satured photon point, and the excess EM amplitude translates to gravity?
Or what exactly do you mean with maximum amplitude occurs at an offset ... ?
Do you mean a spatial offset, like an angle change?
-
It's not one point magnetic and one point electric. The electric and magnetic fields occupy planes situated ninety degrees apart. The two planes cross at the centre line of the photon's path. Saturation of both fields occur at two places in a photon wave. Each half cycle of the wave has a point of maximum amplitude. Two half cycles make a whole photon.
Electric and magnetic fields extend outward forever from the points. The fields diminish as the square of distance from their points of origin. However weak the fields, they still contribute toward the saturation amplitude of photon points moving through them. This contribution toward saturation makes the point of saturation happen at an offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fphoton-01.jpg&hash=fdb8df20e4b0531ffc4c59573374c8c0)
This is the action of gravity. It is the only cause of gravity. There is not two mysterious kinds of gravity such that one applies to photons and one applies to massive objects. All gravity is of this photon flavour.
-
Can I join in? Instead of a light-only view of the universe I've been proposing a different view using subspace (OK I'm a Star Trek fan). A subspace is a dark matter particle that exists in two dimension, smaller on the outside and larger on the inside. A particle of matter is made out of two subspaces perpendicular to each other. They create space between them with the perpendicular feature shown in the diagram provided above.
On your model building you forgot to list the givens: You are thinking that space exists even if matter and light are absence from the universe. In truth without matter or light, space would not exist. They are all connected.
When given a choice Always take the theory that's easier to understand.
-
Subspace is a buzz word. Even i could use the word to describe consciousness as a dimension which is sub or hyper to those we physically-recognize and of those we consciously-experience.
-
In truth without matter or light, space would not exist. They are all connected.
I respectfully disagree my friend. And, BTW, how in heavens name can one ever prove that discription of space/time without the presence of matter and light? I personally think that is the only reason that this particular view is held by any physicist, it's called lazyness.
IMHO, space is just a place where things can be put. And the universe is just that, an infinite place, a void, where matter, energy, and information reside.
-
My view exactly Ethos.