New Theory of Matter – profound implications on the perception of reality, space & time.

A much simpler modification on this theorim would be to accept both standing waves implosive inner and expanding outer waves.
However the expanding outer standing waves are electro strong as in expanding spacetime fabric.This then implies ,spacetime expanding standing wave is tenser,molding matter as it passes outward.
Now consider the implosive inner standing wave as weaker,electroweak(gravity)composing matter to waveform duality into orbs,clumps, worlds inbetween these two wave functions.
However because the expanding electro strong outer spacetime wave is so much stronger at greater distances all matter forms along a horizontal plane ,disc.Hence the reality of our observations.
To conclude standing wave functions could be used as a interwieving theorim but what about coralis interactions.
Coralis interactions must therefore be the visible interaction of both the waveforms meeting as in,DNA,worlds ,galaxies, black holes Etc.and explains the simplest of natures qualities ,like lightining as a reaction to passing waveforms.
In conclusion then waveforms are part of the structure of reality but relativalistic to fractal sizes at the quantum or universal scales(meaning they vary at distance and magnitude in mass energy ratios to each other).Our sun exudes waves as reaction of shared waveforms in spurts because of this too.
This then includes the realism of larger standing waves from multiverses causing a disparity of the field forces, paradoxs of symetry within quantum wave and particle observations because of multiverse energy transferance.
I leave it with you all.Read carefully and it seems apparent to a degree.
There is no one conclusive answer and like anything once you start to get into complex multiple waveforms and multiple coralis interactions a equation becomes difficult to make.Maybe thats just it,questions remain.
even I`m confused

Originally posted by Phractal Phil

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Electrons and quarks don't have a diameter.

We can't measure their diameter, but we can establish upper limits. Here are some estimates. We also have a formula to calculate the Lorentz radius. For the electron, it is 2.8179402894 x 10^-15m. Hans Dehmelt, in a Physica Scripta article, claims to have established an upper bound less than 10^-20 m.

My point is that at this juncture, we can't postulate a finite radius for the electron.

From the website in the OP:

What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrödinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics.)

I love the true physicists.

reply to post by gringoboy


There are some papers available from his own site: www.quantummatter.com... including a couple of downloadable pdfs.

Einstein's Last Question is an interesting read. It begins with this Abstract:

Einstein was queried about the huge numbers of short-lived heavy particles found using
high-energy accelerators. Those physicists were seeking basic matter and wanted to know
Einstein’s thoughts. Einstein was a careful thinker not given to theatrics and was very
serious when he replied, I would just like to know what an electron is. Why did he say
this? His answer implied that the pedestrian electron, was more important to science than
billions of dollars spent on accelerators. Little attention was paid to his remark.
But Einstein saw the electron as the leading player in the universe, as could any
careful scientist because most activity of the Universe is e-m wave energy transfers
involving the electron. At the time, neither Einstein nor others understood the wave mechanisms
of the electron. Although the force between ‘electrons’ can be calculated
using rules of Physics I, the rules did not always match Nature. The electron did not
appear to be a discrete particle. Something was wrong and Einstein knew it.

and concludes...

The proposals of Clifford and Schroedinger were correct that an electron is a continuous
wave structure in space not a material particle, and our observation of point particles and
electromagnetic waves are merely appearances (schaumkommen). The Schroedinger
wave functions must be interpreted as the electron itself, not as probability numbers, as
seen at the Dean Dauger (UCLA) animation site above. Many classic paradoxes,
including, ‘renormalization’, wave-particle duality, and Copenhagen uncertainty, no
longer occur because they were caused by the notion of a material particle that does not
exist. There is no causality violation because the in-waves are real and do not run
backwards in time.

Very interesting stuff.

Originally posted by beebs
I love the true physicists.

You love them only as long as you don't have to do actual physics. Philosophizing at a cocktail party does not make one an expert.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Your point is bitter and moot. You can't stand it that our model is backed up by the best physicists.

At least I am making sure I first know the theoretical basis for future experiments. You, on the other hand, have based your entire career on faulty presuppositions and an incomplete model.

That sucks.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Your point is bitter and moot. You can't stand it that our model is backed up by the best physicists.

I've met some of these, they don't back up that cr@p. And, experimental data does not either, which seals it.

reply to post by buddhasystem

I've met some of these, they don't back up that cr@p.

Which ones, and what specifically don't they back up?

To me, the quotes by physicists at the link in the OP are pretty damning for your interpretation of reality...

The development during the present century is characterized by two theoretical systems essentially independent of each other: the theory of relativity and the quantum theory. The two systems do not directly contradict each other; but they seem little adapted to fusion into one unified theory.
Experiments on interference made with particle rays have given brilliant proof that the wave character of the phenomena of motion as assumed by the theory do, really, correspond to the facts.
de Broglie conceived an electron revolving about the atomic nucleus as being connected with a hypothetical wave train, and made intelligible to some extent the discrete character of Bohr's 'permitted' paths by the stationary (standing) character of the corresponding waves. (Albert Einstein, 1940)

I personally like to regard a probability wave as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations. ... how could we rely on probability predictions if we do not refer to something real and objective? (Max Born on Quantum Theory)

On the basis of quantum theory there was obtained a surprisingly good representation of an immense variety of facts which otherwise appeared entirely incomprehensible. But on one point, curiously enough, there was failure: it proved impossible to associate with these Schrodinger waves definite motions of the mass points - and that, after all, had been the original purpose of the whole construction. The difficulty appeared insurmountable until it was overcome by Born in a way as simple as it was unexpected. The de Broglie-Schrodinger wave fields were not to be interpreted as a mathematical description of how an event actually takes place in time and space, though, of course, they have reference to such an event. Rather they are a mathematical description of what we can actually know about the system. They serve only to make statistical statements and predictions of the results of all measurements which we can carry out upon the system. (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Physics, 1940)

Faraday came from no learned academy; his mind was not burdened with traditional ideas and theories. (Max Born, 1924)

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I've met some of these, they don't back up that cr@p.

Which ones, and what specifically don't they back up?

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by buddhasystem


Pretty neat, looks like they were good people.

What would their criticism's be of the wave structure of matter as an extension of space?

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Pretty neat, looks like they were good people.

What would their criticism's be of the wave structure of matter as an extension of space?

I don't know. What I know is that in physics there is no tolerance for fantasies that have to relation to scientific method. "No experimental evidence" would be hard to ignore, for starters.

reply to post by buddhasystem

I don't know. What I know is that in physics there is no tolerance for fantasies that have to relation to scientific method. "No experimental evidence" would be hard to ignore, for starters.

Yes, I know... which is why we have arrived at the wave structure of matter model. It is the logical conclusion for our experimental evidence.

I just wonder why you are so hostile towards it. I presume you believe in classical atoms, separation, etc?

I have held with this theory for a few years now - although I have not encountered these guys before, and there are only a few who consider this to be reasonable.

Bu I think the vacuum is discreet - it is foam, what we call electrons and positrons simply tiny standing waves at the plank length. All matter in my view is composed of these ripples - we create the concept of charge because some waves will be destructive, some constructive and some subsumed into a more complex harmonic.

Originally posted by Amagnon
All matter in my view is composed of these ripples - we create the concept of charge because some waves will be destructive, some constructive and some subsumed into a more complex harmonic.

What does charge have to do with "destructive waves"? By the way, what the heck is that?

Word soup.

Originally posted by chocise

The origins of truth and reality - about how you and everything around you exist in space is presented in a lucid and ground breaking piece of work put forward by Dr Milo Wolff . . .

I'm reading Dr Wolff's book, published by Outskirts Press, Schrodinger's Universe - Einstein, Waves & the Origin of the Natural Laws.

I think what he says on page 26 is important and relevant:

The search for the structure of the electron was halted at the end of Word War II when a vast government community of high-energy scientists was formed to search the streets of physics for new weapons. The path followed was the use of expensive high-energy accelerators. These were increasingly larger machines modeled after the cyclotron of Ernst O. Lawrence that is now used as an antique display . . . Government funding has made the Berkeley National laboratories larger than the educational campus.

When high-energy weapons did not materialize, the science-community instead promised new energy sources to maintain their financial backing. No sources have been found. The US Congress wisely cancelled funding for the most ambitious ten billion dollar machine in Texas. The latest promise request high-energy funding to find quarks in the cosmos.

I think this quote highlights the reality of how acceptance of knowledge in the mainstream scientific community is limited by the funds that are put forth to do the experiments or to interpret and apply the data derived from experimentation.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think what he says on page 26 is important and relevant:

The search for the structure of the electron was halted at the end of Word War II when a vast government community of high-energy scientists was formed to search the streets of physics for new weapons. The path followed was the use of expensive high-energy accelerators. These were increasingly larger machines modeled after the cyclotron of Ernst O. Lawrence that is now used as an antique display . . . Government funding has made the Berkeley National laboratories larger than the educational campus.

When high-energy weapons did not materialize, the science-community instead promised new energy sources to maintain their financial backing. No sources have been found. The US Congress wisely cancelled funding for the most ambitious ten billion dollar machine in Texas. The latest promise request high-energy funding to find quarks in the cosmos.

And I think (partially from actual experience in the field) that what he says on page 26 is full of falsehoods and inaccuracies. If anything, use of high-energy accelerators aids in study of subatomic structure, and not halts it. At the end of WWII, the race was on to create thermonuclear weapons and that does not necessarily include the field of high-energy physics, that didn't really exist at this time.

What "high-energy weapons" the author meant is a mystery to me. "New energy sources", it would seem, were limited to thermonuclear energy generation, which did see progress in the past 40 years and still is being worked on, so again it's an incorrect statement in that paragraph.

Decision to cancel the SSC was not wise but rather stupid, since it prevented the US to being the location of an important international research center, which is now effectively at CERN, Switzerland, and is making progress in the next generation of physics experiment. The amount of money saved was truly negligible on today's scale, while the SSC had a number of important advantages over the LHC. We do contribute hardware and expertise to CERN but we can't claim ownership and we didn't create hi-tech jobs here, which would be great and conducive to education of a new generation of engineers and scientists that this nation needs. Strangely, the LHC is missing from that piece of writing and instead it conclude with an absolutely laughable suggestion to "find quarks in the cosmos".

The author is an ignorant hack and it's sad that some ATS members are reading this cr@p, only to become more misguided than they already are.

reply to post by Phractal Phil


Sorry dude but to add currently M theory will explain the expansion from dark energy /dark flow in and from another universe with a higher degree of gravity than ours and in consequence mean a whole other dimension of universes with differing lower and higher density gravity fields leaking to and from each other ,and well foam ?Yep,I know its still theory but will be factual soon !Waves man,well waves are also quantized (got gaps in them)and therein lays the foundation for investigation into where dark matter can be found inbetween the quantizied waves,I say no more.When thereis expansion of the quantas in the waveforms gravity and lightwaves change as the equalibrium between the normal visible observations and the ellusive dark field (energy)expands in the medium.
Deep thought and peace,gringo

reply to post by buddhasystem


Buddhasystem - you are bitter and out of touch.

You equate knowledge and progress with anything connected to your own personal specialization and career.

Frankly, your internet opinion pales in comparison to Dr. Milo Wolff's real world opinion.

I dare say that your entire paradigm is a facade.

Classical ideas of particles in space are false.

What we call an atom is a discrete wave structure of space.

I guess this is what you would call the ultimate showdown of 21st century physics.

Looking forward to winning...

Originally posted by beebs
Frankly, your internet opinion pales in comparison to Dr. Milo Wolff's real world opinion.

My opinion is at least as "real world" as Milo's. He wasn't on either SSC or LHC projects and I was.

What's more, in that particular case, it only takes a few hours of reading on history of science to see that his opus is crock. Of course, it's up to you whether you want to actually learn or not.

Looking forward to winning...

We've heard that from Charlie Sheen... A lot!

reply to post by chocise

This is true and not negated,but the reason the double slit experimint revealed the anomalis multiple bands can be explained in quantazized waveform and particle form ,but what if the particle instead of going straight was infact curling towards the slits and on exit ,curled along existing curling magnetic waveform field lines ,reduplicatin itself in curling quantazized waveforms,with the ellusive hidden dark energy in that quanta.
Do ya get that picture,its pretty big yeah,so electrons exist as part of the function of adding particles in a feedback loop equalibrium of dispaired (unequal)quantities ,visible and invisible(dark),between multiuniverse in quanta !