[guest39538]

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=m

m=E

[Bogie_smiles]

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=m

m=E

I think you know that this topic is one of my favorites. Your explanation is true as far as it goes, but I do like to go into my musings about the wave mechanics of the Wave-particle, which is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

Do you remember? The particle is composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, and its presence takes the form of a complex standing wave pattern, which is maintained by two components; 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.

The entire complex standing wave pattern of the particular wave-particle is active throughout, and full of those convergences; not just at the boundary of the particle’s space, but all throughout the particle space.

Each high energy density wave peak that represents a convergence is referred to as a “hint” of mass, and the whole mass of the particle is the sum of all of those tiny wave convergence peaks. For talking purposes, if we were to consider the wave-particle to be at rest, then the inflowing and outflowing gravitational wave energy would be equal.

If the particle has relative motion, it moves in the direction of the highest net inflowing directional vector from the surrounding gravitational wave energy density profile of space because there are more wave convergences occurring in and surrounding the standing wave pattern from the direction of the highest inflowing gravitational wave energy source. The particle location is continually being refreshed as the inflow and outflow occur, and so the new location is in the direction of the highest wave energy density in the surrounding gravitational wave energy profile of space.

The presence of the wave-particle thus has two states at the same time; the standing wave pattern is always present, and represents the particle state, while the spherically outflowing gravitational wave energy is continually being emitted out into the surrounding gravitational wave energy density profile of space, and represents the wave presence of the wave-particle.

Comment freely,

[guest39538]

Do you remember?

Yes of course I remember your notion sir, it is closely related to my own thinking.  I like some points you make a lot where  other points just lack that ''bite''. 

You say

The particle is composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments

I of course consider the ''particle'' to be made of static charge energy ,  two opposite polarity static charges that give the ''perception'' of a physical particle.
Each particle oscillating :
(  2.PHYSICS vary in magnitude or position in a regular manner about a central point.)  volume contraction and expansion, due to the inflow and outflow of ''photons'' causing the particle to emanate ''pulsing'' waves (as if breathing in and out).
Imagine a ball underwater inflating a mm then deflating a mm at the speed of c  in a continuous action, consider the ''wave'' affect from this.

You explain this:

inflowing and outflowing gravitational waves.

Not too different in our thoughts.

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.

Again on the right path of thought and similar to my thinking. It is 3 am here , I will comment further on this and the rest of your post  tomorrow.

Thanks for the post to think about.

P.s I am still normal 

[guest39538]

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.

I think this needs way more explanation, it is a bit ''weak'.  Can you please add further explanation to this before I comment fully?

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

I think this needs way more explanation, it is a bit ''weak'.  Can you please add further explanation to this before I comment fully?

You are right, and I did leave out a lot of the details of the wave mechanics that I speculate are involved. I'll try to add a few paragraphs here before you have a go at it.

[Bogie_smiles]

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. The result of waves passing through the same space from different directions is the formation of wave convergences. If we say that the wave front carries energy, and two or more converging wave fronts will cause a meaningful peak of energy at the point of convergence, then we can say that each peak of energy is surrounded by a valley in the energy profile; the space is filled with peaks at the points of convergence and valleys surrounding each peak.

We know that the total energy contained in the particle space equates to the total mass of the particle; as you put it, E=m, and m=E. Therefore, if we say that each high energy density spot includes a peak at the convergence, and the valley surrounding it, then the sum of the peaks and valleys equals the total mass.

That scenario leads to the concept of quantized wave energy within the particle space. Therefore, to calculate the energy value of a quantum, the total energy of the wave-particle is divided by the total number of wave convergences within the particle space. The concept is that each quantum averages out to the same amount of energy, and so we can say that wave-particles are composed of wave energy in whole quantum increments.

That brings us to the quantization process, and in regard to quantized wave-particles, it is best explained by what is taking place at the particle boundary, i.e., around the entire surface of the particle where the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components converge.

The details are part of what I call the process of quantum action at the quantum level. That is the level where the presence of wave-particles are maintained. The scenario is that wave convergences are continually occurring at the particle boundary, and each convergence has a momentary existence. That existence concludes in the formation of a third wave; for example, there are the two parent gravitational waves that are in the process of converging, and the momentary convergence results in the peak of energy that forms at that spot, and then the energy in the peak at that spot is distributed spherically (in all directions) in the form of a wave front (the third wave) expanding away from that spot.

The result of the third wave disbursal of energy is that half of the energy of the third wave is being contributed from within the particle space, and half of the energy is coming from the directionally inflowing gravitational wave from the wave energy density profile of the surrounding space. Likewise, half of the energy of the third wave is directed back into the particle space, and half is directed back out into the energy density profile of the surrounding space, an equal exchange of energy in whole quanta.

This is a crucial point, and to get into more detail requires a discussion of how we are assured that each convergence at the particle surface will be quantized, because the amount of energy in each wave convergence has to add up to a whole quantum. That is accomplished in this model by the presence in space of an oscillating gravitational wave energy background that governs the advance of wave energy across space. The presence of the oscillating foundational wave energy background of space is maintained over time and space, and is characterized as the interface between the processes of quantum action on the micro level, with the full cooperation of big bang arena action at the macro level; together there is a continual process of matter to energy and energy to matter that maintains the universal oscillating foundational gravitation wave energy background of space; that is a whole other story 

[guest39538]

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.

 

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[guest39538]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

I never realised until now how great your whole notion is.  Your diagram you provided sort of did it for me in understanding your thoughts further.  I have considered your triangle of answers and I interwove your choices into what I believe is the absolute answer. 

It is great because now you have given the first step of your notion and I like to start at the beginning and work outwards. 

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) Nothing
2)God
3)Always existed

Now 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→t

Or  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.

Mathematically

Δ k₀-space = space-time

and

space-time = E

E=M

M= 

[Bogie_smiles]

The three choices are meant to be mutually exclusive; if one, then neither of the others. However, because there are three possibilities, and a reasonable number of advocates for each possibility, none of the three can have the status of an absolute answer. If you derive an absolute, it means that you didn’t make a choice from among the possibilities, you invoked a predetermined idea, probably based on your personal philosophical imperative, i.e., you have concluded that you have the absolute explanation for the existence of the universe, at the exclusion of any other possibility. I support your decision to take that perspective, but then I have comments.

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?

You may then fall back on the premise that the God/Creator has always existed. You can see that begs the question of, if God has always existed, how is that more logical than to say instead that the universe has always existed, and cut out the middle man, lol.

The “God did it scenario” is presented as one side of the triangle because in the total population, there is a large segment who attribute the existence of the universe to a Supernatural Creator. I am including that in the possibilities, but it doesn’t work for me, except to the extent that there are many “as yet” unknowns in regard to the invariant natural laws of the universe. Anything is possible until all science is known, and that is why I support your decision to go with your own scenario.

However, I wouldn’t include anything Supernatural in my own speculations because the Supernatural is excluded from the scientific method, and I am posting in a science forum where the scientific method is considered tried and true by most members. It is the ultimate up hill battle to convince science enthusiasts that the scientific method should be amended to reverse the ban on the Supernatural.

[guest39538]

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?

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?

[Colin2B]

God 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.

[Bogie_smiles]

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.   

Now I see that.

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?

I like that. Pre-big bang is right at the seat of the beginnings of our investigation into great discoveries of the 19th century. Hubble really stirred things up.

My own choice, “Always Existed”, is based on the facts of science, and the curious mind contemplating what you just called pre-big bang. Since there is good evidence of an expanding universe which leads to the big bang scenario, and a scientific method that requires us to go beyond the “God did it” explanation, I faced the choice between “Something from nothing” and “Always existed”. I am in good company, and the pre-big bang acknowledgement sends us into speculating about preconditions to the big bang.





][][][][

God 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.

Agreed. And the development of science is a great adventure. Being a layman without any credentials to speak of, the ISU is my attempt to fathom “always existed” in the light of strong evidence of a big bang. I contemplate science, apply my own layman logic, and have a personal nature that can’t abide “something from nothing”; so I’m in the “always existed” camp.

I speculate about the idea that there is a set of invariant natural laws. From there, I get all the fun of modeling, without the same concern about peer review that members of the professional scientific community have. With a relative free hand, I go places that members of the scientific community have to be quite cautious about going without new evidence and/or excellent mathematics.

This topic by TheBox has always motivated me to go further into places that just can’t be supported scientifically, at least not yet. Obviously my style of layman contemplation and logic is not science, but I offer disclaimers about that as I go, as I look for interesting discussions.

[guest39538]

God 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.

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 .

 

[guest39538]

My own choice, “Always Existed”

To me, that depends on what you assume always existed.   Now if you were referring to just ''empty'' space , yes I agree.  However if you are meaning and substance, then I have to disagree and with reasons.

My reason is , in imagination I can remove everything of substance from space.   I cannot remove the space. 

You may not see the reason right away and it is hard to word . 

My thought is if you can remove it, it is a creation . 

Sorry If I am a bit gibberish , I have just returned from fishing and never went to sleep last night . 

[Bogie_smiles]

To me, that depends on what you assume always existed.   

Like I said, 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.


That is what the ISU model says has always existed. It features the "sameness doctrine" which means that across all space and time, the universe, on a grand scale, appears as it does now, always has, and always will. It features life throughout, and proposes that there has always been and always will be an abundance of intelligent life forms that contemplate the explanation for the existence of the universe, infinity, life, and the premise that God, or the universe, has always existed, and maybe they are one and the same.

[Colin2B]

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 .

If you read the actual history of science you find something different to the popular perception. Many people believe that great scientists eg Einstein, Newton, etc came up with startling new ideas out of the blue that overturned what came before, the reality is very different. Most of the problems were widely recognised and discussed openly by a large group of scientists, the step eg Newton took was to listen to all the different ideas + his own and recognising how they fit together, a bit like spotting how the jigsaw goes together. Newton even acknowledged it with his ‘shoulders of giants’ comment.
In reality the new never overturns the past, it builds upon it, offering a new piece of the jigsaw. Problem is many now want to create a new theory without understanding the real detail of the current theories, so how do they know they’ve got all the pieces?

This may seem like a diversion, but it is relevant to the current discussion, for example.
Anyway, let’s leave it at that rather than divert this thread.

[Bogie_smiles]

OK, let’s go back to your recent post:

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) Nothing
2)God
3)Always existed

Now 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→t

Or  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.

Mathematically

Δ k₀-space = space-time

and

space-time = E

E=M

M= 

Let me test my understanding of 0→t . 

You portray a state of “space with n-dimensions” that is a void and where there is no time passing.

Then a miracle of zero point pressure manifests the first static ''spark'' that disperses into that n-dimensional space.

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 “prequel” state consists of n-dimensional space, throughout which the spark of time has been disbursed, and thus the n-dimensional space in the prequel state is poised to evolve into the universe as we know it today.

You feel my model is missing that part.

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?

[guest39538]

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

The chance of something from nothing 1/∞

The chance it happened P=1

To clarify, in an infinite void of geometrical points, the chance of any given point gaining dimensions of xyzt is 1/∞

[Bogie_smiles]

The first ''spark'' from any given geometrical point is one of many 'first sparks'' popping into and out of existence by dispersion.

I don’t see a cause

These ''sparks'' being opposite mono-pole electrostatic charges that disperse and start to ''fill' the void.

I see more complexity without a cause

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 .

But, but … are you avoiding the concept of cause and effect?

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.

And that is definitely what my model is missing; I can’t see that as a bad thing

I have the odds at 1 / infinite , not impossible .

Not much to stand on, but OK you odds maker, what do you put the odds of my scenario of a universe that has always existed as I described in reply #15?