Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 359

Thread: The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle; definitely Against the Mainstream

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669

    The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle; definitely Against the Mainstream

    This is a work-in-progress and I could use some constructive input ...

    Background: Particle physicists are at work back engineering the structure of matter. From their work they theorize the existence of certain particles and reactions, and as they push back the veil, they either confirm or deny the predictions.

    Observation: Back engineering of particles and theoretical physics is likely to lead to the eventual discovery of a unifying force and an elemental particle from which everything else is constructed. I will refer to this future discovery as the Elemental Energy Wave/Particle (EEw/P or EEP for short).

    Part of the reason that there is disagreement about the nature of black holes (or are they gravastars) is because we don’t yet fully understand particles and forces. My theory of how ultimate black holes solve the problem of increasing entropy in the greater universe predicts an elemental energy wave/particle (EEP).

    Such a wave/particle will have to be simple and have characteristics that allow it to build the quantum particles and to carry out physics as we know it today. Here is a proposal for such a particle.

    Proposed particle: The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle will have to be the tiniest particle and smallest unit of energy with infinitesimal mass. I can imagine it pulsing between a particle state and a wave state in such a way that at one instant this tiniest patch of energy can be expressed as a particle and at the next instant that particle transforms into wave movement of that particle in a pulsing sequence.

    If one could follow that specific tiny patch of energy it would appear to be a particle at point A, then wave movement of that particle, and back to a particle at point B. Thus the EEP takes the form of a particle at point A and point B and it takes the form of wave movement between point A and point B as it moves with angular momentum.

    The EEP can carry various amounts of energy and can transmit that energy to objects that it interacts with. The amount of energy is expressed by the length of the wave state. It seems backwards, but the amount of energy carried is inversely related to the length of the wave phase.

    The change in wave phase (energy level) occurs only when particles interact. They can interact in several ways. Two particles can be “in phase” so that they express their particle state in the same place at the same time, i.e. “coincident expression”. When this occurs, those particles are “fused” (probably another bad choice of word) and the next wave phase expresses the energy and mass of both particles, energy value = 2 (EEP2), and the direction of movement is altered into forward movement that bisects the angle between the paths of the two former particles. In this interaction there is no net loss of energy, and there is no emission from the interaction. It is not a collision, but coincident expression of the particle state in the same space. The resulting wave/particle is an EEP2 with twice the energy and mass and a shorter wave phase.

    The “coincident expression” is just one way these particles can interact. If they cross each others path in the wave state, the path of both particles is altered in an equal exchange of angular momentum caused by the interference.

    If one EEP1 expresses its particle state in the path (in the wave state) of another EEP1, it gains or loses energy (shortens or lengthens its wave state) and it takes or gives energy to the other EEP. This type of interaction averages out so that on average the EEP with the lowest energy and longest wave state gains and the EEP with the most energy and shortest wave state gives energy in a particular environment. Both remain EEP1s but at different energy levels. Their value would be EEP1 + or – the exchanged (gained/lost) energy, i.e., EEP0.99 or EEP1.01 or something like that. This type of interaction insures that the average energy state in a particular EEP environment is maintained.

    Fusing endures while the energy exchange due to passing interactions is very dynamic, i.e. it is “ever-changing” with each interaction always tending towards equalization if the energy of the EEPs in the environment and therefore towards stabilization of the EEP environment.

    It would be impossible for an EEP to be reduced to EEP0.0 even after an unlikely sequence of losing interactions. If the energy of an EEP were to be able to go to zero, all of its energy having been transferred to other EEPs, it would not be able to express a particle state after that and so is impossible. The minimum amount of energy that an EEP can carry is a constant.

    At absolute zero EEPs are “frozen” and condense in their wave state but have not become EEP0.0. When temperature returns they go on to express their particle state and continue to pulse again.

    Particles can grow by fusing, i.e. coincident expression, but they are limited by their environment. Particles in the same environment are all interactive and the average of their energies is predominant throughout the environment. One EEP will not gain mass or energy disproportionately while the others in its environment give up their mass through “coincident expression” or give up their energy by “losing” interactions disproportionately. At least it is highly improbable.

    One characteristic of an EEP2, EEP3, …EEPN (the 2, 3, …N is a way to characterize the average energy level of the environment that they are fused in or are interacting in), is that the fused particles are almost impossible to separate once they are fused.

    One way to “un-fuse” them is to apply near infinite heat and pressure (compression like in the core of a black hole). By the time they find themselves in such an environment they will have participated in nucleosyntheisis and would have been incorporated in much larger and less stable atomic particles. The near infinite heat and pressure of a black hole would break any such atomic bonds and negate all quantum bonds leaving only EEPs in the core.

    To negate a quantum bond is to apply highly excited EEPs to the quantum environment, “flooding” the bond which releases the EEPs that make up the quantum particle. Quantum particles come from the union of stabilized EEPs in low excitement environments and in nature are rarely exposed to highly excited EEPs. When that occurs though, there is a strong release of energy and the creation of high energy particles that escape the negation. The portion of the quantum particle that does not escape as a high energy particle is negated into EEPs.

    At that point and in that environment EEPs would reach “maximum excitement” and begin to force their energy beyond their immediate environment, i.e. they annex the nearest lower energy level environment and if at maximum compression they repulse energy trying to enter their immediate environment; they begin to overcome the compression by eroding the matter that is containing them by this forcing and repulsing action at the boundary of the core where negation takes place.

    They can also be un-fused by moving them to a lower energy environment that is not under unusual compression. They will give up their energy to surrounding lower energy EEPs through interaction and move down from EEPN to EEPN-x where N is the energy level before the interaction, and x is the reduction in energy given up to the other lower level EEP in the interaction. The lower energy level EEPs will gain by such a mixing and the environment will begin to stabilize. This is not a chemical reaction that takes place at the atomic level; these interactions are sub-atomic, sub-quantum particle interactions, only in environments made up of unstabilized EEPs. The un-fusing in this type of environment occurs when the average energy of the higher energy EEPs is reduced by one energy level. This process is primarily important during the early instants of a big bang and allows for unique levels of EEPs to form and reform before stabilizing, adding to the diversity of stabilized EEP environments and therefore to the ability to form diverse quantum particles.

    The fusing and growing of EEPs is also environmentally dependant. Their E level (energy level as in EEP1, EEP2, …EEPN) stabilizes across the immediate environment at lower excitement levels. Higher excitement levels are not as conducive to stabilization.

    As two different stabilized environments are mixed, instead of fusing and un-fusing, unique particles are formed as two different types of stabilized EEPN particles combine. It is the interaction of stabilized EEPNs that result in or “grow” various quantum particles. The type of quantum particle is determined by the environments in which the constituent EEPs were stabilized.

    Quantum particles will bond in different ways and as they do they gain atomic particle status. This is the subject if investigation in quantum physics and Nucleosynthesis which goes on to describe how heavier elements are formed. Ultimately, these heavy elements will be drawn into a black hole.

    The core of the black hole consists of high energy EEPs under extreme pressure and heat. The type of black hole determines that amount of compression. A collapsed star or a black hole at the center of a galaxy will generate a core of EEPs but the compression will not be sufficient to raise them to maximum excitement, or to lock them and repress their wave state.

    If a black hole continues to grow via an accretive disk, the size of the EEP core grows under such extreme pressure that eventually the EEPs are “compression locked” in their particle phase and cannot move to express their wave phase. Gravity drives the in-flow from the accretive disk, and kinetic energy drives the gamma chaos that destroys atoms freeing their quantum particles. The boundary between the core and the event horizon is the “refinery” where EEPs are un-fused from quantum particles through negation and the EEPs join the core at maximum excitement.

    The repressed wave phase of the locked EEPs is a growing time bomb. Through the erosion of the boundary between the core and the surface containing the core due to maximum excitement, as the surface area of the core grows, the erosion accelerates. When the rate of erosion overcomes the accretive growth of the UBH, the UBH has reached critical capacity and the eventual big bang becomes determinate; nothing can reverse the process.

    We are not talking about a micro black hole, or a collapsed star, or even a black hole at the center of a galaxy; we are talking about an ultimate black hole (UBH) of proportions large enough to contain the “stuff” of our entire known universe.

    The EEPs are the wave/particles that are released at the instant of a big bang.

    They go from being extremely compressed (locked) at the last instant of the big crunch, to exponential expansion at the first instant of the big bang. Their environment abruptly changes, EEP interactions (slowly at first due to high excitement) begin to occur and EEPs begin to fuse through coincident expression of the particle state, and the expansion quickly sorts them into a variety of environments where various forms of EEPs are stabilized. These stabilized environments begin to mix and different types of stabilized EEPs begin to combine into quantum particles. Particle clouds form, stars are born, and Nucleosynthesis beings the process all over again.

    Conclusion: There is an as yet undiscovered Elemental Energy Wave/Particle (EEP) that solves problems of particle physics, explains the sub-quantum environment, offers an explanation of gravity, defeats increasing entropy in the grander universe, explains the nature of the early moments of the big bang, allows for ultimate black holes (big crunches), and orchestrates the formation and destruction of quantum and atomic particles.

    Here are some EEP characteristics:

    Pulsing between a wave state and a particle state.
    Distance of wave phase movement depends inversely on the energy level of the wave/particle.
    Ability to “fuse” through “coincident expression” of the particle state.
    Number of fused EEP particles making up an EEPN is variable and limited by their environment which tends to average out their mass and energy across the immediate environment, i.e., after a big bang, inside a “dust” cloud (pre-quantum particles) or at the birth of a star.
    Each EEP has angular momentum.
    Each EEP has an Energy level that can vary between a low limit and a high limit.
    EEPs at absolute zero cannot express their particle state, i.e. are frozen in their wave state and condense or fall together (but I don’t think this ever happens in the natural universe due to the average density and temperature of the universe that defies absolute zero).
    Beyond the low limit the EEP theoretically would fail to express its next particle state, and disappear by interaction, but it is impossible for it cannot give up its last level of energy by interaction.
    At interaction the EEP with the longer wave phase (less energy) gains at interaction with another EEP with a shorter wave phase (more energy) and the EEP with the shorter wave phase (more energy) loses.
    Continuity: many interactions are taking place in close proximity at all times resulting in a continuum that keeps all EEPs connected across any distance and interactions are translated over short distances instantly and over long distances rapidly.
    Diminishment limit; smallest energy possible in an EEP; this could be a constant.
    Excitement limit; There is a limit, the most energy that an EEP can carry (also a constant), beyond which its wave phase becomes infinitely short. These particles are forced to give energy to lower energy EEPs until all EEPs in the immediate environment are at the maximum excitement level, i.e. in the core of a black hole.
    Negation is the destruction of quantum particles caused by flooding the quantum particle with highly excited EEPs. Negation results in various cosmic rays and the ultimate release of EEPs from former quantum particles.
    Compression locked EEPs have maximum potential energy.
    Gravity is the change in angular momentum (curving) as EEPs interact.
    EEPs fuse and grow through interaction into quantum particles, and quantum particles grow to atomic particles; Nucleosynthesis.
    If all of the EEPs were at identical energy levels and if they were separate and in their own space, i.e., fully disbursed throughout the universe in a fully disbursed state (no interaction with other EEPs) they would be in a state of equilibrium (impossible in nature but philosophically this state would represent the average density of the universe at an average temperature above absolute zero and at a density of one EEP1 per cubic bogie-meter).
    Last edited by Bogie; 2006-Oct-02 at 12:33 AM. Reason: This update to remove "jump" to #73

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie
    Conclusion: There is an as yet undiscovered Elemental Energy Wave/Particle (EEP) that solves problems of particle physics, explains the sub-quantum environment, offers an explanation of gravity, defeats increasing entropy in the grander universe, explains the nature of the early moments of the big bang, allows for ultimate black holes (big crunches), and orchestrates the formation and destruction of quantum and atomic particles.
    OK, the original post was too long (15,000 characters) and too much against the mainstream; I admit it!

    What about the most important characteristic of this particle, i.e. the pulsing between a particle state and a wave state. It would be little packets of energy that “want” to interact with other such wave/particles. Interaction takes three forms, fusing, getting in the way of, and crossing paths.

    Fusing occurs when two such particles express their particle phase in the same place at the same time. The fused particles combine in a forward momentum that “curves” the angular path of the two former wave/particles.

    “Getting in the way of” occurs when one particle expresses its particle phase in the path of, i.e. in the wave phase of another wave/particle. There is a transfer of energy and the path of both particles is “curved” by the interaction.

    “Crossing paths occurs when two particles cross paths in their wave state, “curving” the path of both particles.

    These particles emerge from a big bang. They combine and stabilize under certain conditions that allow for various types of stabilized particles. These stabilized particles become the quantum particles which then form atomic particles, atoms, and through nucleosynthesis form heavier elements that eventually will themselves end up in a future black hole somewhere.

    I know this is speculation about things that can’t be tested or proven yet. I’m just wondering if there are any comments or if there is anything about known physics that says no such wave particle is possible below the quantum particle level. Don’t hold back; rip it apart with good science. No personal attacks please, .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie
    Don’t hold back; rip it apart with good science. No personal attacks please, .
    I read it all, but the reservation I have relates to the wave-particle duality issue. I see this as a bit of kludge really; an expression of how little we understand about what is going on with so many 'particles'.

    The problem for me is that your ideas cite the same thing as a solution. Your smaller particles also demonstrate this, er, behaviour -- wave-particle dulaity? That is if I understand you right?

    My hunch is that electrons, for example, will turn out to comprise smaller particles circling within the radius of the classical electron, as per Ralph Sansbury's ideas. These subtrons, as Sansbury calls them, won't necessarily have wave like properties, I don't think.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Bogie;

    Your synopsis is much closer to reality than anyone knows, including you!

    Did you come up with this whole thing yourself, or is it taken in part from something else?

    It is, more or less, string theory like in its basic form, but there is an important difference. I find your posts insightful.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by 111Celt
    I read it all, but the reservation I have relates to the wave-particle duality issue. I see this as a bit of kludge really; an expression of how little we understand about what is going on with so many 'particles'.

    The problem for me is that your ideas cite the same thing as a solution. Your smaller particles also demonstrate this, er, behaviour -- wave-particle dulaity? That is if I understand you right?
    I am really envisioning only one sub-quantum wave/particle. It has a duality like you say, along with the other characteristics that I mentioned. It does form various stable levels across environments that set up like the layers of an onion, and when different stabilized levels inevitable mix, I'm asking them to remain stable and form themselves into various quantum particles. I know it is a lot to ask .

    My view is that there is a natural duality in almost everything. There are two ends to every spectrum. In nature there is positive and negative, hot and cold, strong and weak, and probably an endless list. The same goes for politics with liberal and conservative, and religion with fundamental and permissive, and with love or hate, and even DNA splits in two.
    I guess my point is that it seems perfectly fitting that the elemental particle would have a dual nature.

    My hunch is that electrons, for example, will turn out to comprise smaller particles circling within the radius of the classical electron, as per Ralph Sansbury's ideas. These subtrons, as Sansbury calls them, won't necessarily have wave like properties, I don't think.
    I did check out some of Sansbury’s work. He has some exciting ideas and I will enjoy following up on them. He does seem to think of nature as a closely connected continuum and I like that, though the mechanism of the connection is over my head at least until I have time to do some reading on it.

    Thanks for reading my post and contributing the Sansbury ideas.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    Bogie;

    Your synopsis is much closer to reality than anyone knows, including you!

    Did you come up with this whole thing yourself, or is it taken in part from something else?

    It is, more or less, string theory like in its basic form, but there is an important difference. I find your posts insightful.
    Thank you RussT, you are very kind.

    I surf the web and get answers to my questions, but when I write theory it is mine. That doesn’t mean it is original, but I come up with this stuff on my own, so I can’t really blame anyone else, lol.

    I’m always sure that if I get too far off base there will be people to help set me straight. Admitting that my stuff is speculation, that it can’t be tested or proven usually reduces the number of comments that would point that out.

    If you think anything I write is insightful I would be happy to get into more depth with you on what that might be, but my ignorance is epic.
    .
    I am preparing another post for this thread to help clarify how I think the particle would have to work inside a black hole in order to come out like a big bang. Hopefully I will get some laughs along with the remote possibility of some insight.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    You are doing the same thing the String/"M" theory folks have done, "ASSUMING" that the radiation was first and got here all at once.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    You are doing the same thing the String/"M" theory folks have done, "ASSUMING" that the radiation was first and got here all at once.
    I'm still writing a post about the core of an ultimate black hole and how it shapes up into layers of EEPs at sequential energy levels like the layers of an onion. But more on that soon.

    For now, I came across an article that seems to confirm that neutrinos have mass. Since my concept that everything is composed of EEPs and EEPs all have (infinitesimal) mass, I am happy about the finding.

    http://www.physorg.com/news62941548.html

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    You are doing the same thing the String/"M" theory folks have done, "ASSUMING" that the radiation was first and got here all at once.
    Thanks for your interest and I feel bad that not very many BAUTs have expressed an opinion on my EEP thread. Like I said, it is a work in process and I need assistance.

    The existence and characteristics of the elementary energy wave/particle (EEP) is crucial to my theory of how the entropy problem is solved in the greater universe.

    EEP interactions (pre-quantum environments) are predominant during the formation of an ultimate black hole. As I said, we are not talking about a micro black hole, or a collapsed star, or even a black hole at the center of a galaxy; we are talking about an ultimate black hole (UBH) of proportions large enough to contain the “stuff” of our entire known universe.

    EEP interactions (pre-quantum environments) are also predominant immediately after the big bang that is sparked by a UBH.

    But unless you are in the vicinity of a black hole (especially one that is in the process of becoming a UBH), or unless you find yourself in the hot expansion of a big bang, EEP interactions are relegated to the quantum framework of the universe (interaction of quantum and atomic particles) and the progression of nucleosynthesis. In other words, at all other times EEP environments have stabilized and stable EEP environments form quantum particles which make up atomic particles, therefore quantum and atomic environments have become predominant.

    Though EEPs influence all particle interaction, the real work of the EEP takes place between the event horizon of an ultimate black hole and the minutes immediately following a big bang.

    Before I post my thoughts about what makes a big bang go “bang”, I would like to get a better understand of reference frames so that I can use the right language.

    Is it proper to say that the universe exists in one potentially infinite reference frame, but within it, it is possible for different (individual) reference frames to exist?

    Is it proper to say that any individual reference frame, when viewed from the universal reference frame, will appear different to an observer in the universal reference frame than it appears to an observer in that particular reference frame if that particular reference frame is accelerating relative to the universal reference frame?

    Would it be correct that the apparent difference would be the effect of general relativity?

    From the universal reference frame, is it correct that an individual reference frame that is accelerating will appear to be getting more massive as it accelerates and it will appear that time is passing slower and slower as it accelerates, while from within the accelerating reference frame everything will seem normal?

    Now if acceleration of the particular reference frame stops, but it is now traveling fast relative to the universal reference frame:

    When acceleration of the particular accelerating reference frame stops, but that particular reference frame is traveling at some particular speed (high speed) relative to the universal reference frame, is there still an apparent difference in mass and time based on which reference frame you are viewing from?

    In that situation, would the mass of the speeding reference frame still appear to be greater (but no longer increasing) when viewed from the universal reference frame than it appears to be when viewed from a perspective within the speeding reference frame? Would time now be moving at the same pace in both reference frames because there is no more acceleration? Would a clock in the speeding reference frame be running consistently behind (but at the same pace) relative to a clock in the universal reference frame, assuming that both clocks were in sync before the speeding reference frame began its acceleration and assuming that the acceleration of the speeding reference frame as stopped relative to the universal reference frame?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    281

    All particles are theoretical.

    Quoted from long post at top:

    "Proposed particle: The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle will have to be the tiniest particle and smallest unit of energy with infinitesimal mass. I can imagine it pulsing between a particle state and a wave state in such a way that at one instant this tiniest patch of energy can be expressed as a particle and at the next instant that particle transforms into wave movement of that particle in a pulsing sequence."

    For kicks, I'll conjecture that all particles are theoretical.
    There is no such thing as the tiniest particle and smallest unit. When you think you've really found it someone will find (or invent) one smaller.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,512
    Bogie,

    I have personally explored many of the concepts you are discussing. They are contained on my website (link below). Also, I have recently explored some concepts about light, relativity, and black holes. They are in the thread, SR, ether, and Doppler shift. Let me know if any of this interests you.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    Bogie,

    I have personally explored many of the concepts you are discussing. They are contained on my website (link below). Also, I have recently explored some concepts about light, relativity, and black holes. They are in the thread, SR, ether, and Doppler shift. Let me know if any of this interests you.
    Thanks Grav. I visited your website and tried to email you from there. My anti-virus software alerted me to a trojan horse; just thought I would let you know. I also followed your topic on PhysOrg forums.

    There are some interesting aspects to the neutrino pressure concept.

    The motion and forces that are at work cause what we observe so if we can't explain what we observe, we don't understand the physics yet. Your concept could very well explain some of the observations, and if so, could add “physics" to the concepts of dark matter, dark energy, and vacuum energy. Is that a fair statement of am I in left field?

    I have been comfortable with the concept of vacuum energy density (VED) (cosmological constant) in imagining the nature of the universe, but have not yet found anyone knowledgeable who can educate me on VED.

    It seems to me that VED and neutrino pressure would serve the same function, i.e. define/explain the movement of objects in space. The curvature (warping) of space around an object with mass and momentum is the general relativistic representation of VED and of neutrino pressures, if I am on the right track. What can you tell me to help me along here?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,512
    Well, I haven't detected any trojan horse myself, but that doesn't sound good. I'm sure the website service has appropriate security to protect against that sort of thing. It does favor pop-up ads, however.

    I don't know what else I can tell you at this point, unless you have some specific questions about any of it. Most everything I have come up with so far is either on the website or in this forum. I'm not an expert, however, but more of an independent researcher and theorist, as it seems you are as well. I am still just trying to put it all together, piece by piece.

    I guess neutrino pressure probably would serve the same fuction as a vacuum energy density. It sounds like the same definition. I believe all particles and mass may be made up of the energy of neutrinos and/or light and move through the neutrino medium as waves. Their large energies allows them to be seen as particles. This is similar to string theory, since the energy of the waves is simply turned in upon itself, "trapped" if you will. This might be viewed as extra dimensions. The neutrinos themselves (or neutrino-like particles) that make up the vacuum are therefore just curled-up dimensions at the planck length. This doesn't mean I believe in extra dimensions, however. On the contrary. But I am trying to figure out how all of the different fields of physics can be related.

    Quantum physics, for example, is said to be inconsistent with relativity. But QM is the physics of the motions of the individual neutrinos that make up free space. In other words, it applies as one approaches the Planck length, about the size of an individual neutrino. Relativity, however, applies to very large regions of space, where the random motions of neutrinos cancel out, and space appears very smooth.

    I could probably go on, but I'd just be repeating much of which I have already stated before. If there is anything in particular you would like to discuss in detail, please let me know.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,733

    Cool electrons are point-like

    Bogie. Welcome to the forum.There are no experiments that I have seen, or heard of that have ever suggested that electrons have any type of internal structure. The decay of a tau, or muon, to electrons has always seemed to stop there. Along the way neutrinos are emitted, of the correct family type.
    No scattering experiment involving electrons has ever suggested that there is an internal structure. They are point-like.
    Even the decay of muons and taus is inappropriately viewed as being a "complex" electron. Those particles are not composites of electrons, muons, and neutrinos traveling in a troupe.....the disintegration is mediated by a weak force carrier. If the electron decayed to a smaller simpler particle, the charge would have to show up on it, or you would violate Conservation of Electric Charge....a Law that has never been seen to be broken in any cloud chamber, bubble chamber, wire chamber, or spark chamber anywhere. You will have to search the archived photos to find one, or program a UA1 detector to search for one, or look for one in DUMAND, or some such....Pete.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post
    I guess neutrino pressure probably would serve the same fuction as a vacuum energy density. It sounds like the same definition.

    I could probably go on, but I'd just be repeating much of which I have already stated before. If there is anything in particular you would like to discuss in detail, please let me know.
    OK, let’s look at three explanations of gravity:

    General Relativity: there is warped space that “follows” objects around where ever they go, and the warp is proportional to the mass of the object, and diminishes in magnitude as the warp extends out into space away from the object.

    Vacuum energy density; the vacuum energy is proportional to the movement and mass of objects in space. This concept works best in a universe filled infinitely with mass and energy, where the vacuum energy density is in balance with the matter/energy in the universe, i.e. cosmologically “flat” and infinite in size and content. In a finite universe, it means that a flat or open universe will expand forever and complete entropy will result. In a closed universe it means that the entire universe will collapse.

    When an object moves through space, vacuum energy results in the void it leaves behind. A big crunch would be surrounded by a huge amount of vacuum energy in the arena from which the matter/energy that formed the big crunch was attracted from. If the big crunch results in a big bang, the expanding bang universe would expand and even accelerate into the relative void of the arena due to the bang itself, and due to the vacuum energy in the arena.

    Neutrino pressure: Give me a quick description of how this would work in comparison.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,512
    Well, as far as GR is concerned, it seems the effects must follow closely. The gravitational field itself moves with the body, and continues to move in a straight line, even if the body has changed directions. Of course, the cause is different. GR is attributed to the warping of space-time, where time and space are actually distorted. With neutrino pressure, the distortion is attributed to the neutrino medium only, where neutrinos are absorbed by a body, and the imbalance of inward and outward neutrino pressures causes another mass to accelerate toward it.

    It appears your definition of a vacuum energy density is still identical to that of neutrino pressure as well. The only difference is that it does not predict an expansion or collapse of space-time, but rather that the Hubble constant is created by a loss of energy of light over some distance travelled through the neutrino pressure.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by grav View Post

    It appears your definition of a vacuum energy density is still identical to that of neutrino pressure as well. The only difference is that it does not predict an expansion or collapse of space-time, but rather that the Hubble constant is created by a loss of energy of light over some distance travelled through the neutrino pressure.
    Good comparison. So the red shift seems to show accelerated expansion of the universe, while under "neutrino ether" theory, the observed red shift is due to "tired" light as the light photons struggle through the ether?

    Does your theory account for all of the supposed expansion? Or is it only the accelerated expansion that results from light traveling through the neutrino ether.

    Is the nature of the ether similar to diffused photons of light with neutrinos flowing in all directions and from all directions everywhere in space?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie
    Does your theory account for all of the supposed expansion? Or is it only the accelerated expansion that results from light traveling through the neutrino ether.
    The apparent accelerated expansion would come from light losing energy in proportion to its current energy as it travels through the neutrino medium. Instead of being a linear equation, where the velocity of galaxies is directly proportional to the distance (v/c=Hd/c), it becomes exponential with fobserved=femitted/[e(Hd/c)]. This would make galaxies appear to be travelling away slower at large distances than they should normally be according to their redshifts.

    [EDIT-faster to slower]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie
    Is the nature of the ether similar to diffused photons of light with neutrinos flowing in all directions and from all directions everywhere in space?
    That is right. This diffusion would amount to that of the CMB, although my thinking about it is rather unsophisticated. I tend to imagine it as random neutrinos punching holes in light rays like swiss cheese, and carrying away some of the energy in the process. Light might even be the concentrated energy waves of neutrinos themselves.
    Last edited by grav; 2006-Sep-18 at 01:03 AM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    [QUOTE=Bogie;714980]This is a work-in-progress and I could use some constructive input form those of you who have been particle curious for long enough to have proposed characteristics of a basic particle and a unifying force.

    Background: Particle physicists are at work back engineering the structure of matter. From their work they theorize the existence of certain particles and reactions, and as they push back the veil, they either confirm or deny the predictions.

    Observation: Back engineering of particles and theoretical physics is likely to lead to the eventual discovery of a unifying force and an elemental particle from which everything else is constructed. I will refer to this future discovery as the Elemental Energy Wave/Particle (EEw/P or EEP for short).

    Part of the reason that there is disagreement about the nature of black holes (or are they gravastars) is because we don’t yet fully understand particles and forces. My theory of how ultimate black holes solve the problem of increasing entropy in the greater universe predicts an elemental energy wave/particle (EEP).

    Such a wave/particle will have to be simple and have characteristics that allow it to build the quantum particles and to carry out physics as we know it today. Here is a proposal for such a particle.

    Proposed particle: The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle will have to be the tiniest particle and smallest unit of energy with infinitesimal mass. I can imagine it pulsing between a particle state and a wave state in such a way that at one instant this tiniest patch of energy can be expressed as a particle and at the next instant that particle transforms into wave movement of that particle in a pulsing sequence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    If one could follow that specific tiny patch of energy it would appear to be a particle at point A, then wave movement of that particle, and back to a particle at point B. Thus the EEP takes the form of a particle at point A and point B and it takes the form of wave movement between point A and point B as it moves with angular momentum.
    first, what though would cause this? why would this happen?



    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    The EEP can carry various amounts of energy and can transmit that energy to objects that it interacts with.
    define "objects".

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by north View Post
    ... pulsing between a particle state and a wave state in such a way that at one instant this tiniest patch of energy can be expressed as a particle and at the next instant that particle transforms into wave movement of that particle in a pulsing sequence.

    first, what though would cause this? why would this happen?
    Such a particle is speculated to contract due to its own extreme curvature (warping) of space, and it can only contract toward the limit of zero volume, but cannot achieve zero volume. It bounces off zero volume and expands. But it can only expand to the limit where its curvature (warping of space) stops the expansion (a closed space) and starts the contraction again, over and over. It pulses as it bounces off of its upper and lower limits.

    Since it has mass and it moves, probably at the speed of light, its space time is closed but it can interact with like particles by connecting together (merging) or by orbiting other particles (orbiting each other) or by changing the angular momentum of particles that intersect its curved space.

    I referred to it as nearly infinitely small, i.e. infinitesimal in size.

    Now the density of it, D=M/V, comes out nearly infinitely dense if it has any volume at all.

    Density expressed mathematically is the ratio of mass to volume ==> D = M/V; M = DV; V=M/D.

    Any substance that is infinitely dense with finite volume would have infinite mass; M = DV.

    Any substance that is infinitely dense with finite mass would have no volume; V=M/D.

    The particle I speculate has infinitesimal volume and infinitesimal mass which I speculate leads to a particle that is infinitesimal in size, infinitesimal in mass, and of near infinite density. Thus it pulses between its own severe limits of volume and density.



    define "objects".
    Anything composed of matter.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Bogie. Welcome to the forum.There are no experiments that I have seen, or heard of that have ever suggested that electrons have any type of internal structure. The decay of a tau, or muon, to electrons has always seemed to stop there. Along the way neutrinos are emitted, of the correct family type.
    No scattering experiment involving electrons has ever suggested that there is an internal structure. They are point-like.
    Even the decay of muons and taus is inappropriately viewed as being a "complex" electron. Those particles are not composites of electrons, muons, and neutrinos traveling in a troupe.....the disintegration is mediated by a weak force carrier. If the electron decayed to a smaller simpler particle, the charge would have to show up on it, or you would violate Conservation of Electric Charge....a Law that has never been seen to be broken in any cloud chamber, bubble chamber, wire chamber, or spark chamber anywhere. You will have to search the archived photos to find one, or program a UA1 detector to search for one, or look for one in DUMAND, or some such....Pete.
    I know, alas. We are speculating about an elementary unifying particle, not yet discovered. Anything I say about it is pure speculation. But I speculate that it has to be orders of magnitude smaller that the particles now being examined as you describe. And I speculate that it has to permeate space.

    Relative to an electron that can be characterized as very small, the particle I speculate is infinitesimal such that an electron could be composed of a large swarm of EEPs.

    Sorry if I give the impression that I think I am on to something. Really just speculating in hopes great minds will discover something like the EEP and make me look soooo smart,

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivertree View Post
    Quoted from long post at top:

    "Proposed particle: The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle will have to be the tiniest particle and smallest unit of energy with infinitesimal mass. I can imagine it pulsing between a particle state and a wave state in such a way that at one instant this tiniest patch of energy can be expressed as a particle and at the next instant that particle transforms into wave movement of that particle in a pulsing sequence."

    For kicks, I'll conjecture that all particles are theoretical.
    There is no such thing as the tiniest particle and smallest unit. When you think you've really found it someone will find (or invent) one smaller.
    I have long thought of the search for answers about the tiniest particle and the great orders of magnitude to which our minds can take the structure of the greater universe. Infinite and infinitesimal, both journeys without end.

    But in my old age I have concluded that the source of energy in our particular universal environment has to exist. It may well be that the EEP I speculate about is itself composed of great universes that cannot be detected by massive objects like humans; each EEP pulse being like a big bang and a big crunch within each individual EEP, lol.

    Come to think of it, that may be a good yard stick to the separation of "orders of magnitude" in the great search to define our universe. The single pulse of an EEP being equal to the billions and billions of years one might imagine such a cycle would take for our known universe to crunch and bang.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    Originally Posted by north
    ... pulsing between a particle state and a wave state in such a way that at one instant this tiniest patch of energy can be expressed as a particle and at the next instant that particle transforms into wave movement of that particle in a pulsing sequence.

    first, what though would cause this? why would this happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    Such a particle is speculated to contract due to its own extreme curvature (warping) of space,
    since this particle can "warp" space. define the physical properties of this "fabric" of space its self.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by north View Post
    since this particle can "warp" space. define the physical properties of this "fabric" of space its self.
    What are you getting at?

    Space either contains matter/energy or vacuum energy, and the relationship between the two defines the value of the cosmological constant.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by north
    Originally Posted by north
    since this particle can "warp" space. define the physical properties of this "fabric" of space its self.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    What are you getting at?

    Space either contains matter/energy or vacuum energy, and the relationship between the two defines the value of the cosmological constant.

    what I'm getting at is this;

    if you are saying that the energy/matter IN space is warped I have no problem with this.

    if however you are saying that space its self is warped, then this I have a problem with.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by north View Post
    what I'm getting at is this;

    if you are saying that the energy/matter IN space is warped I have no problem with this.

    if however you are saying that space its self is warped, then this I have a problem with.
    Let's explore this a little.

    What I am speculating is that this infinitesimal EEP is its own little perpetual motion machine. Call it gravity, call it curved/closed space, call it warped space, it has two limits. One limit is the volume/density that it reaches as it contracts under its own gravity, or curvature, or warp. This limit is imposed because the particle cannot achieve zero volume/infinite density. It bounces off the zero volume/infinite density point and expands.

    The second limit is the extent to which it can expand before its gravity or curvature or warp causes it to contract again. The particle has its own closed space and extreme cosmological constant.

    I am speculating that each individual unifying elemental energy wave/particle exists in its own infinitesimal closed universe, contacting and expanding endlessly as it bounces between its two limits.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    What are you getting at?

    Space either contains matter/energy or vacuum energy, and the relationship between the two defines the value of the cosmological constant.
    There is a third factor here according to current thinking...DM.

    So space is made up of DM and DE and the baryonic matter/energy 'warps' that DM/DE field.

    There are many theories that are trying to define the 'smallest basic quantum size' for how all subatomic particles get their mass/gravity.

    Besides String/"M" theory, there is of course Higgs boson/field and several well known others, including somehow incorperating neutinos into the picture.

    Here are a few others that might be of interest.

    Borehole: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0512/0512109.pdf

    flat orbital: http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS28.pdf

    And

    http://www.inerton.kiev.ua/links.htm

    The reality, IMHO, is realizing that (as in the Cahill papers), that 'all' of space is made up of the "EEP' as in Bogies paradygm, and so therefore DM/DE is all one gravitational field that does not interact with baryonic matter.

    Except when that 'background' gravitational field is 'influenced'.

    Now, since baryonic matter does not influence/interact with that 'background' field, what is the only thing that can influence it???

    Also, Bogie, are you aware of the Fine Structure Constant a= ~1/137, and have you done any comparisons of your EEP to it? IE, size differnces, energy differences etc.?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by north
    Originally Posted by north
    what I'm getting at is this;

    if you are saying that the energy/matter IN space is warped I have no problem with this.

    if however you are saying that space its self is warped, then this I have a problem with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    Let's explore this a little.

    What I am speculating is that this infinitesimal EEP is its own little perpetual motion machine. Call it gravity, call it curved/closed space, call it warped space, it has two limits.
    I'm not clear here yet. are you saying that the EEP's essence of perpetual motion is caused by either gravity, curved/closed space or warped space?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    One limit is the volume/density that it reaches as it contracts under its own gravity, or curvature, or warp. This limit is imposed because the particle cannot achieve zero volume/infinite density. It bounces off the zero volume/infinite density point and expands.
    is this not a contradiction;

    on one hand you have a zero volume( which has, it seems a physical aspect to its self and yet at the same time could not exist. for in my mind to exist means it has volume) and on the other you have infinte density.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    The second limit is the extent to which it can expand before its gravity or curvature or warp causes it to contract again.
    why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    The particle has its own closed space and extreme cosmological constant.
    hmmm...



    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    I am speculating that each individual unifying elemental energy wave/particle exists in its own infinitesimal closed universe, contacting and expanding endlessly as it bounces between its two limits.
    how does the particle "bounce off" a zero volume?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    There is a third factor here according to current thinking...DM.

    So space is made up of DM and DE and the baryonic matter/energy 'warps' that DM/DE field.

    There are many theories that are trying to define the 'smallest basic quantum size' for how all subatomic particles get their mass/gravity.

    Besides String/"M" theory, there is of course Higgs boson/field and several well known others, including somehow incorperating neutinos into the picture.

    Here are a few others that might be of interest.

    Borehole: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0512/0512109.pdf

    flat orbital: http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS28.pdf

    And

    http://www.inerton.kiev.ua/links.htm

    The reality, IMHO, is realizing that (as in the Cahill papers), that 'all' of space is made up of the "EEP' as in Bogies paradygm, and so therefore DM/DE is all one gravitational field that does not interact with baryonic matter.

    Except when that 'background' gravitational field is 'influenced'.

    Now, since baryonic matter does not influence/interact with that 'background' field, what is the only thing that can influence it???

    Also, Bogie, are you aware of the Fine Structure Constant a= ~1/137, and have you done any comparisons of your EEP to it? IE, size differnces, energy differences etc.?
    I chuckle a little sadly when I think about the difference between imaginative speculation (what I do), and real science.

    Now, since baryonic matter does not influence/interact with that 'background' field, what is the only thing that can influence it???
    Tell me and explain.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Well, Bogie, please don't chuckle 'sadly', just chuckle, cause I'm going to let you in on a little known secret.

    Everything that has been done in the last 100 years (pertaining to the universe as a whole) has been 'imaginative speculation' (I'm going to be admonished for this one!), which is the reason they can't figure out...

    DE/DM (96% of the universe), How SMBH's are made, what comes first the SMBH or the galaxy, how galaxies are even formed (they don't merge to form), how very massive and fully developed galaxies (and at least 10 billion years old) formed in the very early Big Bang scenario, how "NEW" galaxies have formed in the very recent (within a billion years and less) past, etc.


    Quote:RussT
    Now, since baryonic matter does not influence/interact with that 'background' field, what is the only thing that can influence it???


    Tell me and explain.

    The making of a NEW massive black hole 'warps' the background gravitational field into the shape of a galaxy, and the baryonic matter (the Hydrogen and Helium and Lithium) that is created when the radiation cools enough to do so, MUST FOLLOW the paths that were set into their motions when that space was 'warped'.

    A perfect example...

    http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/pu...mages/ngc2915/

    You didn't answer my question about the Fine Structure Constant.

Similar Threads

  1. Wave/Particle Duality
    By MattHatton in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2013-Feb-12, 09:33 PM
  2. Particle wave duality - was there ever a particle?
    By eric_marsh in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2008-Aug-06, 03:07 AM
  3. Wave-Particle Duality
    By Fazor in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-23, 10:02 PM
  4. Wave Particle Duality
    By TravisM in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Jan-01, 03:43 AM
  5. Wave Particle experiment
    By electromagneticpulse in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2004-Sep-20, 12:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •