0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
How can a particle act as a wave and a particle? Because the particle is a wave and a particle at the same time. E=mm=E
Do you remember?
The particle is composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments
inflowing and outflowing gravitational waves.
As the waves that are about to become the inflowing component approach the standing wave pattern, they intersect with the outflowing gravitational waves leaving the pattern, and when they intersect at the wave-particle boundary, there is a high energy density peak that forms at the convergence of the two (or more) “parent” waves.
QuoteAs the waves that are about to become the inflowing component approach the standing wave pattern, they intersect with the outflowing gravitational waves leaving the pattern, and when they intersect at the wave-particle boundary, there is a high energy density peak that forms at the convergence of the two (or more) “parent” waves. I think this needs way more explanation, it is a bit ''weak'. Can you please add further explanation to this before I comment fully?
The main point we are both making about wave-particle duality, is that the energy of the particle equals the mass of the particle. The way the energy is structured within the particle is by gravitational waves passing through the particle’s space.
As always a great read , I did not thoroughly understand it all, but I understood the main context of your post. I feel you are something missing, the explanation of how, where and why did your elementary particle ''manifest'' from/come into existence?You know it is a bit like saying here is a red car, the red car is this, it does this, but I am not telling where the red car come from. So again, I need your version of the existence of the ''red car'' before I can comment properly.
We are in total agreement that energy of the particle equals the mass of the particle, only though if you can accept that mass does not exist without entanglement. I.e A single particle in a void has no external forces acting on it, therefore mass-less in the sense of kg.Could you agree with this ? added- In the void example , there is no gravity, only an electrostatic strong force between the particle components.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/06/2018 22:08:10As always a great read , I did not thoroughly understand it all, but I understood the main context of your post. I feel you are something missing, the explanation of how, where and why did your elementary particle ''manifest'' from/come into existence?You know it is a bit like saying here is a red car, the red car is this, it does this, but I am not telling where the red car come from. So again, I need your version of the existence of the ''red car'' before I can comment properly.Yes, agreed. The red car would equate to where the energy and mass comes from to “fuel” the perpetual big bang arena process at the macro level, and the corresponding quantum process at the micro level of the model. The explanation leads to a scenario that I always try to include when I discuss my ideas with someone. Every model should have a starting point, and equate that to making a choice by picking a side from the triangle of the possible explanations for the existence of the universe: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_06_18_10_41_14.jpeg The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model begins with choosing the side labeled “Always Existed”. It is restricted to only models in which there was no beginning; the universe was not created, and didn’t spontaneously generate itself out of nothingness. I’ll short cut you through that whole scenario by saying that my model is an infinite and eternal steady state model that features the dynamic multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, where entropy is defeated by the joint processes of arena action at the macro level and quantum action at the micro level.Taking that shortcut, every big bang generates an expanding big bang arena, and the expansion starts out form the collapse/bang of a preceding big crunch. The matter and energy in each big crunch is sufficient to produce all of the galactic structure and all of the content in the growing volume of space that the arena occupies. The collapse/bang produces a huge ball of hot dense-state wave energy that expands and cools, and as it does so, there is a decay process involved. The decay occurs between the emergence of the hot dense-state energy ball from the collapse of the big crunch, and the resulting wave-particles that we have been discussing, in regard to their wave-particle duality.The big bang arena process is perpetual, and is the means of defeating entropy, arena by arena, across the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. That explains that the source of matter and energy in each arena is a big crunch and big crunches are always forming and playing out across the landscape of the greater universe, bringing us to our current discussion of wave-particle duality. Hence the red car is always the result of the formation of wave-particles in each new expanding arena.QuoteWe are in total agreement that energy of the particle equals the mass of the particle, only though if you can accept that mass does not exist without entanglement. I.e A single particle in a void has no external forces acting on it, therefore mass-less in the sense of kg.Could you agree with this ? added- In the void example , there is no gravity, only an electrostatic strong force between the particle components. My response is that each model has its own means of doing what we obviously know it must do. The universe is as it is, and could be no other way, regardless of the details of the particular cosmological model that you use to explain it. So no, I’m not in agreement with your stipulations, but I grant you that if your model invokes them, and at the same time accounts for the universe as we know it to be, then I would concede that there is more than one way to keep an eternal flame going.
The problem with that perspective is that it suffers from what is called infinite regression. That means that if the universe was created Supernaturally, then who or what created the Supernatural being or entity?
God was the original name for space, it was at least what they was considering when they thought about creation.
To be clear , there is nothing supernatural in my theory. My theory is basically saying , religion was early psuedo science, God was the original name for space, it was at least what they was considering when they thought about creation. When I said Gods name is really k, k is representative of space.
Zero point pressure is a weak explanation but nether less a scientific theory and explanation. A miracle in a sense but not impossible. My theory of the beginning is pre-big bang, the only existing theory that I know of?
Quote from: Thebox on 02/06/2018 06:10:50God was the original name for space, it was at least what they was considering when they thought about creation. I think it went beyond a name for space and included what was called nature, which became “natural processes” and once you start thinking about that you start to develop a science.
My own choice, “Always Existed”
To me, that depends on what you assume always existed.
Indeed, I also presume at some point of the timeline , ''science'' reached a dead end so then it turned into story's rather than science. Meaning of course early science became religion , then actual science branched off religion .
So if you don't mind, can we please discuss your options of the triangle and hopefully you may understand my 'version' and interwoven triangle. Now I will use a ''style'' and discuss your options.1) Nothing2)God3)Always existedNow Gods name is k , and k has always existed. Covering 2 and 3 of your triangle. k has no physicality and is an infinite entity whole with 0 properties other than n-dimensions. Covering your number 1. So that is all 3 of the triangle choices in an interwoven set now, however we are still missing a piece of information and the map is 0→tOr A → B if you like. In simple terms you are still missing the ''key'' that opened the ''door''. I do not feel you are explaining the red car , the red car is still popping into existence with no real explanation in your notion. I explain in the beginning there was k0-space, which is a n-dimensional volume of geometrical points. A void that is synonymous to the word God. I then explain that a miracle of zero point pressure manifests the first static ''spark'' that disperses into k0-space. This a prequel to the big bang. The part I feel you are still missing.MathematicallyΔ k0-space = space-timeandspace-time = EE=MM=
What caused the miracle of zero point pressure to occur? Was it simply a miracle without a cause? Was it an act of the God of the void?
That is an event that marks the beginning of time and serves as a spark that spreads throughout the n-dimensional space, and brings it to a new state called a “prequel to the big bang”.
The first ''spark'' from any given geometrical point is one of many 'first sparks'' popping into and out of existence by dispersion.
These ''sparks'' being opposite mono-pole electrostatic charges that disperse and start to ''fill' the void.
Then of course once A+B manifests simultaneously at the same geometrical point, all these mono-pole dispersed ''sparks'' come rushing back in to create an almost instant inflation of A + B .
As for the miracle of ZpP , I am still considering that, it is the absolute of long line 'backwards''. Any given point is under an infinite amount of ZpP, that is all I can explain so far. That nothing pressured nothing with 0 force to manifest point static charge.
I have the odds at 1 / infinite , not impossible .