New Quantum Theory Discovered "GODDESS WAVE" could prove existance of GOD/GODDESS/ONE

reply to post by r2d246


Save your energy. I've seen enough of that stuff to know that I don't put stock in it. I have my own views, thank you.

reply to post by primalfractal


I can't speak to your theory as I'm not a physicist. However, I'm a huge fan of David Bohm and believe he was a bit of a physics "prophet".

As far as the rest, the Goddess has been more active in society and in her callings. This seems to be coinciding with the rapid advancement of quantum physics and general theoretical sciences. I've felt for quite some time that this next "shift" everybody is expecting will be the old gods returning and there being a marriage between science and spirituality.

Once the apex has been reached between the divine and science, humanity will indeed be in a completely different era.

Just looks like over-complicated and technical words that just equal a whole load of mumble jumble.

What the f**k are you on about dude!

Alright OP...I tested your idea of 3-D curving light...and here's how I did it....I turned on my flashlight, aimed it at the wall approx. 20' away and moved real fast down the wall...nope, no curve there...just a straight line of light across, even as I went down....(sorry, for my twisted humor-LOL) I will not pretend to even understand the quantum world, I can barely understand human nature...

Perfect Example.

If you cannot solve a schrodineger wave equation for a simple hydrogen atom then you can't do quantum mechanics.

You probably don't even know the concpets needed to solve a wave equation so your input, opinion, posts, ideas, are useless. How can you come up with a new quantum theory when you don't even know what quantum is. You cant do the basic math to prove your even competent, much less debunk the work already done by real physicists with real observations and real data.

Trust me bro. Neils Bohr was more clever and studied than you. Stop your role playing game at the expense of science.

According to quantum mechanics, spinless, 1-dimensional objects called 'strings' can exist only in a space-time with 26 dimensions.
26 is the gematria number value of Yahweh, the Divine Name associated with Chokmah, the second Sephirah of the Tree of Life (Etz haChayim).
According to superstring theory, superstring forces are free of quantum anomalies provided that the gauge symmetry group describing them have the dimension 496 of either SO(32) or E8xE8. The rank-8, exceptional Lie group E8 has the dimension 248, where
248 = (2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2 + ... + 26^2)/25.
The gematria number value of Yahweh therefore determines both the dimensionality of space-time and the symmetry group of superstring forces. In each case it is consistency with quantum mechanics that causes the appearance of the number of Yahweh.
For details about how other Godnames, such as Elohim, determine E8, see here

reply to post by micpsi


That's close... Try this instead:

Originally posted by micpsi
According to quantum mechanics, spinless, 1-dimensional objects called 'strings' can exist only in a space-time with 26 dimensions.
26 is the gematria number value of Yahweh, the Divine Name associated with Chokmah, the second Sephirah of the Tree of Life (Etz haChayim).
According to superstring theory, superstring forces are free of quantum anomalies provided that the gauge symmetry group describing them have the dimension 496 of either SO(32) or E8xE8. The rank-8, exceptional Lie group E8 has the dimension 248, where
248 = (2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2 + ... + 26^2)/25.
The gematria number value of Yahweh therefore determines both the dimensionality of space-time and the symmetry group of superstring forces. In each case it is consistency with quantum mechanics that causes the appearance of the number of Yahweh.
For details about how other Godnames, such as Elohim, determine E8, see here

Were did the other 15 dimensions come from?

reply to post by micpsi


Explain this E8 thing to me again? You know some of my theories, which is the reason I'm trying to connect that name with those numbers.

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Were did the other 15 dimensions come from?

The original version of string theory -- Bosonic String Theory -- postulated 26 dimensions.

However, it had 26 spatial dimensions because it NEEDED to have that many to work (i.e., they just shoehorned in that number of dimensions to make it work). There was absolutely no evidence to support 26 dimensions, so Bosonic String Theory fell out of favor.

Forcing these 26 dimension into the theory without any evidence for those dimensions would be like me saying the existence of key-stealing gnomes can explain the loss of my car keys; therefore, if I lose my keys, then that must mean key-stealing gnomes exist.

Originally posted by primalfractal

"So, the theory of the implicate order, carried this far, goes quite beyond present quantum mechanics. It actually deals with process, which quantum mechanics does not, except by reference to an observing apparatus that in turn has to be referred to something else. . . ."

This end bit means GOD!!!

I'm missing something here. How does God - or anyone's interpretation of what God is or might be - relate to any of this? I see no connection, and certainly not any proof. I see nothing universal or primordial whatsoever in any of this. I'm not even convinced that it's definitive.

Some theories are too wrong to be adequately refuted. No one even knows where to start with them, and so they simply pass on them altogether.

reply to post by NorEaster


I keep seeing the phrase "in layman's terms", but either that phrase means something else or they don't KNOW what it means!

Because all I'm seeing is rocket science here. It can't be that hard to explain, can it? So hard that it's impossible to simplify for the dummies in the crowd, i.e. me?

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by primalfractal

 

I can't speak to your theory as I'm not a physicist. However, I'm a huge fan of David Bohm and believe he was a bit of a physics "prophet".

As far as the rest, the Goddess has been more active in society and in her callings. This seems to be coinciding with the rapid advancement of quantum physics and general theoretical sciences. I've felt for quite some time that this next "shift" everybody is expecting will be the old gods returning and there being a marriage between science and spirituality.

Once the apex has been reached between the divine and science, humanity will indeed be in a completely different era.

Well, this has provoked a rather encouraging response on physicsforum, cool.

I have firmly established that this idea and experiment are new and have never been explored before. Awsome.

This has been my short term aim.

The debate has reopened!

I'm pretty sure that this "experiment" would not cause the light to be curved.

As others have mentioned, you would not be able to "catch" a photon half way out of an emitter.

Think of it this way, the absolute fastest anything can move is the speed of light. This is the speed that photons move. The photon is also one of the smallest elementary particles. The smallest thing moving at the fastest speed is as close to instantaneous as it is possible to get.

There's no chance, even with technology way beyond what we currently have, to catch a photon "half way out" of an emitter.

Not to mention that a photon is a discrete packet size. There is nothing that exists which is a semi-photon. This is one of the fundamentals of the "quantumness" of our universe. Some things cannot be subdivided.

This 'experiment' cannot be done.

www.physicsforums.com...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Sorry you don't get it. I don't know rocket science either.
I am a "dummie" just like most. I can only explain the idea
as a concept, picture and idea. If you want maths specifics
maybe u2u arbitrageur or tdglip because they understand
it.

Please look at the experiment illustration and imagine moving the
aim of the device when the wavepacket is half out. Then imagine
the wave line hanging onto the emitter as it moves. Beacause it is
one wave. The wavepacket will remain straight but the vectors will
curve as the whole line moves through space.

This effect is a fractional quantum hall effect like in anyons
but in photons.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Were did the other 15 dimensions come from?

The original version of string theory -- Bosonic String Theory -- postulated 26 dimensions.

However, it had 26 spatial dimensions because it NEEDED to have that many to work (i.e., they just shoehorned in that number of dimensions to make it work). There was absolutely no evidence to support 26 dimensions, so Bosonic String Theory fell out of favor.

Forcing these 26 dimension into the theory without any evidence for those dimensions would be like me saying the existence of key-stealing gnomes can explain the loss of my car keys; therefore, if I lose my keys, then that must mean key-stealing gnomes exist.

Come on, no one cept for a string theorist will put too much credit in anything but 3 spatial dimensions.

And string theory went through alot of transformations. I agree its theoretical, but its got more merit than anything else of the like. Physics has been alot of groping in the dark till we find what fits. Especially when your working at energies that are not testable with todays technology(both extremes)

Originally posted by primalfractal
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Sorry you don't get it. I don't know rocket science either.
I am a "dummie" just like most. I can only explain the idea
as a concept, picture and idea. If you want maths specifics
maybe u2u arbitrageur or tdglip because they understand
it.

edit on 13-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

The experiment is pointless. Its not only is your hypothesis of the light bending impossible, the actual outcome is well established in todays physics.

There is nothing wrong with speculation especially in the skunk forum lol. Don't claim mathematical competency when you obviously have none. You should have asked questions instead of making claims since your a self proclaimed dummy.

Not to mention that a photon is a discrete packet size. There is nothing that exists which is a semi-photon. This is one of the fundamentals of the "quantumness" of our universe. Some things cannot be subdivided.

The responder on physicsforum does not understanding what I was saying. The split wavepackets is arbitrageurs idea.

My idea is that it is one wave. From alpha to omega or start to end. I dont think it will split wavepackets. I think it will "hold" onto the barrel until extruded. Then wavepacket will remain straight but the vectors will curve as the whole wave moves through space with the barrel.

It is the ONLY logical solution to the experiment. So I seem to have a definate answer to this without even doing the experiment. Quantum hall spin in photons. Curving light waves.

Originally posted by primalfractal

Not to mention that a photon is a discrete packet size. There is nothing that exists which is a semi-photon. This is one of the fundamentals of the "quantumness" of our universe. Some things cannot be subdivided.

The responder on physicsforum does not understanding what I was saying. The split wavepackets is arbitrageurs idea.

My idea is that it is one wave. From alpha to omega or start to end. I dont think it will split wavepackets. I think it will "hold" onto the barrel until extruded. Then wavepacket will remain straight but the vectors will curve as the whole wave moves through space with the barrel.

It is the ONLY logical solution to the experiment. So I seem to have a definate answer to this without even doing the experiment. Quantum hall spin in photons. Curving light waves.

edit on 13-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

You dont get it. Sure, there are some details about the nature of light and subatomic particles in general that we cannot describe in any situation, including your image experiments. Nothing about your proposed experiemnt could tell us anything more than we already know. The limits are complicated, and believe me it would be a waste of time to explain to you.