"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by beebs
Schrödinger intended them to be real physical 3D waves in space. WAVE mechanics. Particles DO NOT form such geometrical (cymatical) 'structures'.

They just don't.

How do you know this?

This video is showing particles in "geometrical (cymatical) 'structures'":

Cymatics

If it weren't for the particles, you couldn't see the waves. (you can hear them however). What you actually see is particles. You can see particles being added repeatedly in the video.

The waves are something else.

I'm not trying to say this video either is or is not a model of what happens on the atomic scale, I'm only showing it as an example that your generalizations are wrong. Particles can indeed appear in densities shaped like waves, even if the particles themselves aren't waves. This video proves that doesn't it?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


And we're back to the beginning, with what is sodium made of on the subatomic level?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


This just looks cooler in my opinion...

Originally posted by beebs
They just don't.

Thanks, I had to write that one down. I wonder if I've ever used this argument before to support my point? If so, I apologize. It's not exactly the most convincing supporting statement.

Originally posted by Americanist
And we're back to the beginning, with what is sodium made of on the subatomic level?

When people seek mainstream answers, I usually say "Google is your friend".

However would I be correct in guessing you have an anti-mainstream stance, so that the answers you'd find on Google don't help, so Google isn't your friend?

If you're just going to make up answers that appear nowhere else but inside your imagination, it doesn't really matter how I respond, hence, this.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by squandered

 

Intuition trumps that by virtue of the fact it is unbridled, however, I'll leave you with this quote: "Facts become real because something you 'knew' was real, happened"

"Facts become real because something you perceived was real, happened."

Your quote isn't wrong at all, but it's not a rebuttal.

Originally posted by squandered
I believe in infinite smallness. You can drill down into something and keep going forever.

I believe in it, too, and I think infinity is a big problem for physicists. They don't know what to do with it.

Instead of focusing on the smaller and smaller when we see it's not getting us anywhere, we should stop, and focus on the nature of the whole.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Instead of focusing on the smaller and smaller when we see it's not getting us anywhere, we should stop, and focus on the nature of the whole.

No "we" should not. "We" should look at whatever gives us a better understanding of nature. Looking at smaller and smaller parts does get us somewhere, and resulted in the development of computers, medicine etc. We should not stop looking just because it displeases someone on a forum for some unknown reason.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It is up to YOU to read statements within context and not cherry-pick something to obsess over.

Originally posted by -PLB-
development of computers, medicine etc.

Medicine is a mess today. The holistic approach is needed there, too.

Yes, we have a bunch of gadgets that we like and mainstream science got us there.

But it's time to move on to bigger and better things and it's not going to be done by looking for smaller particles to try to isolate. The Copenhagen interpretation, almost a century old now, is the wrong interpretation and that's the point. Interpretation.

Originally posted by squandered
What happened to meditation?
Do you know the significance of thought (in relation to Buddhism)?

Yeah, BS, what about meditation?

From the "Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program" thread, page 40:

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I used to practice meditation for quite a while, on a regular basis, first myself, than in a Buddhist temple under the guidance of a monk. So I'm sort of speaking from experience.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

It is up to YOU to read statements within context and not cherry-pick something to obsess over.

Didn't I prove it was false in context?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I hear you saying that the particles of sand are forming the shapes; therefore, the fundamental part of the whole is a particle. (When I say "whole" here, I don't mean whole as in the experiment observed in the video. I mean whole as in Mother Nature, in general. Not just physics. All of it.)

Is that what you're saying?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I hear you saying that the particles of sand are forming the shapes

I said something like that.

therefore, the fundamental part of the whole is a particle. Is that what you're saying?

I didn't say anything like that, I just proved beebs' statement false, in context:

Originally posted by beebs
Schrödinger intended them to be real physical 3D waves in space. WAVE mechanics. Particles DO NOT form such geometrical (cymatical) 'structures'.

They just don't.

"To which I replied: How do you know this?

This video is showing particles in "geometrical (cymatical) 'structures'""

I thought I was pretty clear, and I proved beebs' statement was false in context.

Then you missed the point in my second post: It doesn't really matter WHAT the context is, even if beebs had been right (he wasn't), saying the phrase "they just don't" really adds no support to the argument in a discussion.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
This video is showing particles in "geometrical (cymatical) 'structures'""

You're talking about particles of sand, aren't you?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
This video is showing particles in "geometrical (cymatical) 'structures'""

You're talking about particles of sand, aren't you?

The video caption says it's sand. I see no reason to doubt that.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The video caption says it's sand. I see no reason to doubt that.

The point is, the discussion that Beebs raised was on the wave/particle duality.

Would you agree that the definition of "particle" for a particle of sand and the wave/particle duality is different?

Do you remember this:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

He also says there are no particles, only waves. Then he goes on to talk about particles.
He can't seem to make up his mind, he contradicts himself.

Clearly this person had said that he was using the word "particle," for lack of a better word, to refer to what is observed at each end of a wave.

Words have to be read in context.

Originally posted by squandered
I believe in infinite smallness.

Well then I could say that you are trying to portray this world as "more philosophically pleasing".

That's why I'm not attached to observable, repeatable phenomenon.

Too bad, because we call this thing "reality".

What happened to meditation?
Do you know the significance of thought (in relation to Buddhism)?

I'm not claiming a good knowledge of Buddhism, although it's probably better than that of many people. In any case, "thought" is quite important, as science it obviously founded on application of thought.

Meditation can help bring about better understanding of the world around us. But it doesn't supplant real verifiable phenomena used to gauge the validity of "thoughts".

There are a few crackpot "theories" presented in Mary's threads, some more laughable than others. They are most definitely based on thought, in this case mainly fantasy (which is a kind of thought and meditation, come think of it). How do you know which of these thought constructs are correct which are not? You can dream up a few alternative realities, sure, but that has nothing to do with physics.

reply to post by metalshredmetal

that conscious observation collapses the wave function into a "particle" function.

No...

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature." (Heisenberg, p. 111)

Its just an observing apparatus that operates in the same order of magnitude as the atom that is to be observed. Nothing really to do with the human mind. Where the human mind is coming into this, is in the interpretation of the observations and in the presupposed world views that are used to make the data intelligible.

And I might have misspoken in my earlier reply. What I meant to say was that the 'particles' ARE considered to be evolving in nature uncertainly and statistically. The probability cloud represents the probability of observing a quanta.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Pour some sand on your table at home and wait.

I guarantee they will not start behaving uncertainly and statistically, interfering with one another to produce interference patterns etc. They will not form the cymatics patterns without the wave in the medium. If you really want to go down this road you are currently arguing from, then I urge you to revisit our lengthy conversations on ZPE/VD and cymatics etc.

If you want to call the particles separate from the waves and REAL, but the waves are actually representing something REAL also - then you are taking the position that there is like a 'guiding wave' or 'pilot wave'. That would say that there could be the particles, but their actual wave behavior is due to some objectively real and deterministic 'hidden variable' (the 'pilot wave').