[Kartazion (OP)]

I wish to associate the principle of CPT symmetry with the symmetrical gravitational oscillator (matter/antimatter). We can effortlessly see in it unconstrained possibilities of transformations. My question is can we associate the principle of CPT symmetry with this oscillator so easily?

[Kartazion (OP)]

We understand that the symmetry breaking is at the level of the approaches of the gravitational singularity*. Where there is the reversal between E and G; Let the kinetic energy and the gravitational energy potential. We can therefore also understand that the Hawking radiation gives the information and the charge to the particle with each passage.

*There is the avoidance by the kinetics which makes it possible not to fall into the true vacuum of the singularity. Indeed it happens at the level of the event horizon.

[Kartazion (OP)]

I guess the singularity avoidance should look like this:

[Kartazion (OP)]

Found by there on this forum:

Information cannot be lost. Stephen Hawking finally retracted his statement on the information paradox, saying that black holes in fact tunnel the energy back into our own space and time.

My statement from the OP.

... The force of gravity corresponds to the matter attracted towards this singularity, while the energy pushes it out.

[Kartazion (OP)]

If you drilled a hole through the axis of the Earth from pole to pole, and put a long thin vacuum chamber in it then dropped an object into one end of that chamber , it would fall down the hole, picking up speed.
And it would be moving very fast when it reached the centre of the Earth so it would carry on going until it reached the other pole where it would stop, and then fall back down again
It would "bounce" back and to .
If the density of the Earth was constant (rather than increasing as you go down). the body would exhibit  simple harmonic motion.
...

Hello.

The oscillation is indeed harmonic insofar as it is identical by symmetry of its movement. But in our case the particle experiences an acceleration as well as a reduction in its speed during its oscillation. In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constant. This is not the case with the oscillator that I presented, because it implies a variation of its speed.

My question is isn't it more an anharmonic rather than a harmonic oscillation? We assume In your example of the earth that the density is constant.

Thanks.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Dark energy.

I see that there is a lot of talk about dark energy on the net. In fact, in the gravitational oscillator, the incrementation of the particle, that is to say a height of radiation greater than the previous height, is produced by additional energy called dark energy; And which makes the particle advance further and further from its gravitational source. The example of a galaxy, where inside does not know an expansion of size in relation to its super massive black hole, uses a constant amount of energy E in relation to gravity G. The increase in this energy E that we have seen so far, then becomes dark energy, while it is only a quantity of energy greater than the previous energy impulse.

In other words, to move the particle further and further away from the singularity (ie big-bang / galaxy) with the gravitational oscillator, more energy is needed. This extra amount of energy is dark energy. Dark energy corresponds to the increase in the size of the potential of the well.

[Kartazion (OP)]

"Dark matter can be explained by the quantum vacuum of quantum chromodynamics" Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji, French physicist. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Cohen-Tannoudji

Here is a more subtle explanation to explain dark matter and quantum vacuum and quantum chromodynamics in relation to the oscillator.

Based on how the anharmonic oscillator mechanism works, the particle's path goes through different physical stages. First it would be fair to speak of the energy flow of the particle to express dark matter and of quantum vacuum. The particle would oscillate rapidly in the vicinity of the singularity (dark matter and more quantum vacuum) and in a second time more slowly in the vicinity of the matter (chromodynamics). In this case of large displacement, where the particle oscillate rapidly, it becomes an energy flow expressed by the quantum vacuum. The convergence of the energy flow of the quantum vacuum, in a smaller space, close to the singularity, then in turn becomes dark matter. At its opposite, there is the matter expressed by quantum chromodynamics.

Quantum chromodynamics would only be a duplication of the particle itself. To be continued.

[Kartazion (OP)]

The previous description uses the axion to simulate the Axion dark matter and the QCD Axion Dark Matter.

Quantum ChromoDynamics effects produce an effective periodic potential in which the axion field moves. The oscillations of the axion field about the minimum of the effective potential, the so-called misalignment mechanism, generate a cosmological population of cold axions with an abundance depending on the mass of the axion. With a mass above 10−11 times the electron mass, axions could account for dark matter, thus be both a dark-matter candidate and a solution to the strong CP problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion

[Kartazion (OP)]

Quantum chromodynamics, and the reality of observation.

Quantum chromodynamics is the alternation of the particle itself to constitute the different quarks.

We can consider that this experience of obvervation is rare. On the other hand, if this is not observed, then the collapse of the wave function is irrelevant. This implies that the probability of the particle being in the combination of a proton or neutron is low. It belongs to the discipline of quantum decoherence where the particle is superimposed everywhere at the same time since there is only one. During the observation, an effort is to ask the quantum system to seriously position the combination of the particle. This is the preferred expression I would use to define what has just been described here: “I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.” Albert Einstein.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.
Minor question:    Who added the poll to the top of this thread?

[Kartazion (OP)]

Hi.
Minor question:    Who added the poll to the top of this thread?

Hi.

Well it's me. Anyone can vote now.

Cordially.

[Eternal Student]

Hi again and thanks for taking the time to answer.

   One issue with this thread is that other people have stopped replying to it but you are still going.  You're still producing text and complicated diagrams etc.  It must take you hours.
    I have to ask why are you doing this?  Never mind the poll and asking people what they think.  What do you want to happen or expect to get from your time on the forum today?
   I'll answer your poll if you like, the next time I'm online.  I'll find the closest answer but at the moment I think the answer would be just Curiousity.  Why are you doing this?    I can't really comment on the content much because I don't realistically have the time to read it.  I have read only the first few posts.

Best wishes.

[Kartazion (OP)]

... What do you want to happen or expect to get from your time on the forum today?
   ... Why are you doing this?    I can't really comment on the content much because I don't realistically have the time to read it.  I have read only the first few posts.

I hope by this forum that the solution that I expose through the oscillator will be the future example of the explanation of quantum mechanics associated with relativistic physics.

I make no special effort to produce what I am describing. I demistify step by step the quantum mechanics by simple examples associated with an oscillator of level 101. The diagrams that I use are also very simple and sound only the result of the an.harmonic oscillator. The description is adapted to the reality of observation and to the measurements obtained.

The reason why I am posting in this section is simple, and is to claim an alliance of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics by the force of gravity through the oscillator.
 
Not to understand it is a fact, but come back to me when you have read it.

Regards.

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.

Thanks for your previous reply.

(i)    You obviously feel strongly about your idea.  That's great but you should try to get it published as an article or paper in some journal (or magazine).
    There are many (now famous) ideas that people struggled to get recognised.   For example, several ideas produced by famous Physicists were turned down for publication and had to be edited and re-submitted to other journals several times before they were published.  These ideas are now fully recognised and often quite revolutionary.  There is no history that I'm aware of to indicate that a forum is a short-cut to getting a paper published in a journal.
     
(ii)     You may be over-estimating the audience of this forum.  Professional scientists can and do go to actual conferences and meetings.  They struggle to find the time to read peer-reviewed articles.   They cannot read all of them.  They do not generally search through on-line forums for new ideas.   There are far too many forums and far too many people presenting new ideas.  It would be an extremely inefficient use of their time.   This forum in particular favours an audience of people with a general interest in science but not necessarily a graduate or under-graduate level of understanding.  Many of the questions answered and topics discussed on the TNS podcast do not require specialist scientific knowledge much above school level.

(iii)   Have you considered proposing a trade with existing forum users?   There are several other people presenting articles in the "New Theories" section.  Perhaps you could propose that you will read some of these and comment while asking some of those authors to read and review your work.

(iv)   Let's assume that your idea is fantastic.  Simply writing it down here won't get the world to notice it. 

(v)    I have spent some of my time reading some of your posts.   It is lacking references to other texts and the work of others.   This is a very worrying thing.   Wikipedia is not considered a high value or highly reliable reference.

Best wishes.

[Colin2B]

I hope by this forum that the solution that I expose through the oscillator will be the future example of the explanation of quantum mechanics associated with relativistic physics.

Perhaps I should expand on what @Eternal Student has said.
The main purpose of the forum is educational outreach to the general public and those interested in science. We do not expect a high level of education or deep understanding of the principles of science, our objective is to promote interest and explain things at the level of the listener.
We have a number of professional scientists here, but our time is mainly taken up with our own projects. Some of us keep an eye on this section to see if there is anything of interest, others might engage on specific problems they see. No response does not mean agreement.
If you really want your ideas to be widely known you would be better to publish a paper (in the correct format) on a site like https://arxiv.org/
It would help your ideas to be read if you have a solution to a problem not covered by existing theories and your ideas are in response to specific experiments you have performed - make sure you include full details of your experiments.

[Kartazion (OP)]

@Colin2B @Eternal Student thank you for your answers.

I do have an account on arXiv. But we must get an endorsement from another user to submit an article to category physics. Can any of you sponsor me? I just wish to begin with publishing the basis of the gravitational oscillator and not the whole theory that I have published here. Publish the gravitational oscillator adding to singularity avoidance would be great but more complicated to be accepted.

Regards.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.
   I'm not registered with arXiv and wouldn't be able to help.   Sorry.

What follows is just general discussion:
The following issues would concern me about any paper or article submitted based on this work:

(i)  I can't see any references to any other academic paper, text book or resource.   There are only some Wikipedia links. 

(ii)  The quality of explanation is poor.  Mathematics is the area I used to specialise in, not Physics, so I may not understand all of it easily.  However, I can't even begin to understand what you are trying to show here.  Writing a good paper isn't about deliberately trying to dazzle the audience.  You are trying to explain or present an idea to your peers.  This is a separate point from suggesting that the idea is wrong, so it's worth me phrasing it another way:   Regardless of whether the idea has merits or not, your article has to explain it to other people.

(iii)  You frequently re-define or re-imagine terminology that is already in use.  Early examples have been pointed out by other users of this forum -   force, energy, gravity   these all get used interchangeably.   Another example appears in reply #23  where you introduce the terms  "fermionic radiation" and "bosonic radiation".  There is a use of symbols for the uncertainity principle in the post #1 which makes me wonder if you've seen Δx   and  σx  used in some articles and failed to recognise that they are the same thing.   The uncertainty in position is the standard deviation when the position x is regarded as a random variable that can be observed.
    It's not necessarily wrong to re-imagine or attempt to completely re-explain a model or idea in Physics.  However, if you use the existing terminology then you are required to maintain the same meanings.

(iv)   What makes you certain that this idea hasn't been presented before?
Don't get me worng, it probably hasn't - but what literature suvey have you done to check that these ideas are new?  There are no references as I've already mentioned.  It is quite possible that someone else has had similar ideas on atleast a small portion of this topic  or alternatively has applied similar ideas to a different field of study.  This is part of the beauty and value of the way scientific ideas are published currently.  You don't always have to re-invent evrything from the beginning.  There may be something else out there that has already proven to be useful and already solved some of the problems you are finding with your idea.
    The Simple Harmonic Oscillator (SHO) is used in many theories.  Classical field theory often requires a potential to be specified and SHO is often used.  I'm fairly sure Black Body radiation can be explained or modelled as a group of oscillators.   Something caused you to consider an oscillator for your model, let's see the links to this (and you should also see if the existing knowledge is helpful to you).

Best wishes.

[Kartazion (OP)]

@Eternal Student Thank you. I understand everything you tell me. Now I'm on a forum called New Theories (Got a new theory on something? Post your hypotheses here) and my question is, have you ever seen an oscillator like mine that uses gravity without a spring? This uses the gravitational pull of the black hole and an expulsion of energy from the black hole. Stephen Hawking saying that black holes in fact tunnel the energy back into our own space and time.

[Eternal Student]

have you ever seen an oscillator like mine that uses gravity without a spring? This uses the gravitational pull of the black hole and an expulsion of energy from the black hole. Stephen Hawking saying that black holes in fact tunnel the energy back into our own space and time.

   No I haven't.

[Origin]

expulsion of energy from the black hole.

What exactly do you think that is?