[Kartazion (OP)]

Invariant transformation between vector and scalar interpretation of the mass-energy equivalence of the particle through the oscillator.

The scalar interpretation of the particle represents the entropy/perturbation of a very high frequency oscillation of the particle by its energy density occurring through the principle of mass-energy equivalence [1]. But during a weak or almost non-existent oscillation, the particle is then represented by a vectorial direction during its movement.

For example, a point mass object in the space-time reference frame is then represented by an orbital state vector during its movement around a star (conventional interpretation). But in the same proportion the particle in its dizzying oscillation can only be detected and measured by its energy density, and depending on the type of anharmonic oscillation its flow of entropy/perturbation of the particle can be represented by an point mass object through a static value by a scalar value.



In conclusion, this leads to moving a scalar value of the same density vectorially. The goal being the invariance of mass-energy bound by the particle.

This interpretation appears to be Einstein's Stress Energy Tensor version 2.0 in addition to the anharmonic inflation represented by the internuclear distance levels up to energy dissociation. The flux therefore represents the maximum quantity of movement (momentum) through mass-energy equivalence during inflation until its energy dissociation.




[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

[Bored chemist]

Invariant transformation

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

[Kartazion (OP)]

Invariant transformation

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

I confess. But that's what we can say in French "Invariant d'une transformation" vs "Invariant of a transformation".

[Kartazion (OP)]

The transformation is from mass to energy or from energy to mass through the mass-energy equivalence. Its invariance lies in the identification of the particle either by a scalar value or by a vector value having the same energy density in both cases.

[Kartazion (OP)]

This transformation is only possible in the case of an oscillator. Because the scalar value is confined along the x-axis which is of determined value through a density-energy. During a very high frequency oscillation, the entropy of the vector which points to the barycenter of the particle determines the scalar density not by the uncertainty principle, but with that of the vector at a time t which determines the exact position of the particle in relation to x-axis and y-axis ratio.

[Origin]

identification of the particle either by a scalar value or by a vector value

How could a particle be a vector?  That makes no sense.

During a very high frequency oscillation, the entropy of the vector which points to the barycenter of the particle determines the scalar density not by the uncertainty principle

This is word salad.
The phrase "entropy of a vector" makes no sense.
The "barycenter of the particle" makes no sense.

[Kartazion (OP)]

How could a particle be a vector?  That makes no sense.

But during a weak or almost non-existent oscillation, the particle is then represented by a vectorial direction during its movement along x-axis.

After that by acceleration of the oscillation of the particle by jamming of the vector becomes chaotic in its punctual interpretation. That's why I talked about entropy of a vector hence the following answering to this rhetoric:

The phrase "entropy of a vector" makes no sense.

The "barycenter of the particle" makes no sense.

yes I admit. I meant the center of the particle.

[Origin]

But during a weak or almost non-existent oscillation, the particle is then represented by a vectorial direction during its movement along x-axis.

The particles velocity is a vector, that does make sense.

After that by acceleration of the oscillation of the particle by jamming of the vector becomes chaotic in its punctual interpretation. That's why I talked about entropy of a vector hence the following answering to this rhetoric:

Unfortunately that is just more word salad.

[Kartazion (OP)]

But during a weak or almost non-existent oscillation, the particle is then represented by a vectorial direction during its movement along x-axis.

The particles velocity is a vector, that does make sense.

After that by acceleration of the oscillation of the particle by jamming of the vector becomes chaotic in its punctual interpretation. That's why I talked about entropy of a vector hence the following answering to this rhetoric:

Unfortunately that is just more word salad.

You have to learn harder. Afterwards, as you know and see, there is the language barrier through what I am trying to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_vector

[Origin]

This is still word salad:
"After that by acceleration of the oscillation of the particle by jamming of the vector becomes chaotic in its punctual interpretation. That's why I talked about entropy of a vector hence the following answering to this rhetoric"

It may indeed simply be because English is not your first language.  I hope you can find a better translator.  It isn't worth my time to try and guess what you are attempting to say.  Perhaps you should try your ideas out on forums in your native language.

[Kartazion (OP)]

This is still word salad:
"After that by acceleration of the oscillation of the particle by jamming of the vector becomes chaotic in its punctual interpretation. That's why I talked about entropy of a vector hence the following answering to this rhetoric"

It may indeed simply be because English is not your first language.  I hope you can find a better translator.  It isn't worth my time to try and guess what you are attempting to say.  Perhaps you should try your ideas out on forums in your native language.

The vector that points to the center of the particle becomes chaotic in its visual interpretation because it oscillates so fast that it takes on a form of scalar entropy. The vector indicates the two dimensions namely a horizontal x-axis indication and a vertical y-axis indication. In no way do my words awkwardly use put in peril the mechanism that I am describing.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Somewhere the word salad is a form of entropy.

[Origin]

The vector that points to the center of the particle

What specific vector are you talking about?

[Kartazion (OP)]

The vector that points to the center of the particle

What specific vector are you talking about?

This vector corresponds in some way to the amplitude/magnitude in relation to x=0. IOW the base of the matrix is ​​at x=0 and its linear vector in relation to x-axis determines by its length the position of the particle always following x-axis.

[Deecart]

This is still word salad:

All linguistic expressions of physical phenomenon that are usually expressed with mathematic are word salads.
Everyone know that.
Why do you think "this one" is "a bad one" ?

A physicist saying "this is word salad" do itself word salad.
Dont agree ?

Now, if you do some description, you can use vectors, quaternions, scalars etc, etc, and no physicist would be upset if these terms would be attributed to some or other "physical entity".
This is the basic of epistemology.
A physical entity is not "the reality", it is something that can be hypothetised or measured by physicists, accordingly to some coherent quantitativ "logical system".
The proof of "the system" is done by measuring accordingly to the system prediction (and you dont need to give a good result everytime : You can specify the domain of validity of your system).

[Kartazion (OP)]

The second vector points along y-axis and its magnitude represents the momentum by a density-energy value.

[Origin]

This vector corresponds in some way to the amplitude/magnitude in relation to x=0. IOW the base of the matrix is ​​at x=0 and its linear vector in relation to x-axis determines by its length the position of the particle always following x-axis.

Why do you you always refuse to answer simple direct questions.  It is really frustrating.

I don't care that the "vector corresponds in some way"!  I asked what is the specific vector you are talking about!  Is it the particles velocity?  Is it some force?  I am simply asking what vector you are talking about.

Can you please just answer this one question?

Edit: grammar

[Kartazion (OP)]

All linguistic expressions of physical phenomenon that are usually expressed with mathematic are word salads.
Everyone know that.
Why do you think "this one" is "a bad one" ?

A physicist saying "this is word salad" do itself word salad.
Dont agree ?

Now, if you do some description, you can use vectors, quaternions, scalars etc, etc, and no physicist would be upset if these terms would be attributed to some or other "physical entity".
This is the basic of epistemology.
A physical entity is not "the reality", it is something that can be hypothetised or measured by physicists, accordingly to some coherent quantitativ "logical system".
The proof of "the system" is done by measuring accordingly to the system prediction.

Hello.

Yes I understand. Thanks for your contribution. I learn my my mistakes and this forum allows me to improve for a conventional description. At present I am only able to make graphs. So on this while I find the right words, I will create a GIF to easily explain what I want you to understand.

[Kartazion (OP)]

This vector corresponds in some way to the amplitude/magnitude in relation to x=0. IOW the base of the matrix is ​​at x=0 and its linear vector in relation to x-axis determines by its length the position of the particle always following x-axis.

Why do you you always refuse to answer simple direct questions.  It is really frustrating.

I don't care that the "vector corresponds in some way"!  I asked what is the specific vector you are talking about!  Is it the particles velocity?  Is it some force?  I am simply asking what vector you are talking about.

Can you please just answer this one question?

Edit: grammar

The specific vector interprets along x-axis:

1. the exact position of the particle
2. the velocity
3. the pressure

[Origin]

The specific vector interprets along x-axis:

I see the problem, you don't know what vector you are talking about.  You have some half thought out idea and you are arbitrarily calling this vague idea a vector.

1. the exact postion of the particle
2. the velocity
3. the pressure

1.  That in itself has nothing to do with a vector.
2.  Velocity is a vector.  But I don't think this is the vector you are talking or you'd have said so.
3.  Pressure is not a vector, it is a scalar.

So if you don't know what vector you are talking about there is no need to pursue that line of inquiry.