Does time exist outside of mass? All we have for an answer will be subjective reasoning. All Cranks appreciated in their contribution of subjective thoughts. Non mainstreaming allowed. Empirical evidence for rationality a must.
Time, gravity and the speed of light are always confounded. Since Einstein suggested gravity is everywhere a proffered frame is presumed non existent. One definition of time is movement. Ok, what is fundamental movement? What comes to my mind is the photon. But is the photon mass. Apparently not as we define mass (correct me if I am wrong). In the lowest gravity between galaxies the photon energy is at its height. The photon is always measured to be "c" but the measuring stick (time) always changes with gravity. Time varies with gravity but is always relative to "c". There are always SR component to mass that skews the relationship of gravity to mass. It would appear to me that time and gravity are of space and only affected by mass.
Please show evidence that I am wrong.
Hi 4Dguy,
Question is: Can mass exist without SPACE/TIME?
I would say. NO - of course not.
Can electrons move without space/time?
Is, incidentally the verbal version of : Time² x Spaceᐨ³ x Gravitation¹ x Mass¹ = Constant
Relationship of mass and time ? Look, gravitational constant :
6.67 × 10 ᐨ¹¹ m³ kgᐨ¹ sᐨ²
6.67 × 10ᐨ¹¹× (2.99×10Λ8)ᐨ³ kgᐨ¹ s
2.4767 x 10ᐨ³³ s gᐨ¹
An Universal CONSTANT, between matter and time...
2.99792458 x 10Λ(8) m sᐨ¹ is hint of Meter is Second ...
2.4767 x 10ᐨ³³ s gᐨ¹ links Gram to Second ... consider matter is also a form of time .
==================================
Think, What is Universal Constant ?
www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/74822-dimensions-time-dimensions-2.html
QUOTE (4Dguy+)
Does time exist outside of mass? ... [some interesting comments about "stuff"] ... Please show evidence that I am wrong.
I really do not "get" that "stuff" you said about photons, I will just stick to the interesting "primary" question you posed. Consider a system where a force can be exerted that causes acceleration. Then if the mass can be removed/canceled from a particle system any force will cause an infinite acceleration (F=Ma where M = 0 then a = ∞)... the "particle" is now "instantly" traveling at the speed of light... any force will result in one speed and only one speed. Once reaching that speed it can go no faster since time is entirely "arrested" relative to external phenomena where mass is still active and no dynamic process is possible from within that "moving system". It is a "stationary state". It also causes the particle to move along a null geodesic just like light. However in an ideal case there is no time at all being sensed in that frame of reference. How are "we" going to "stop" if there is no aliquot of time to take any actions... Answer: this "ideal" system's motion cannot be "arrested" and no energy process is able to occur. This motion is "frozen" on the edge of a lightcone wall until it strikes some obstacle and be destroyed or passes through or resonantly trapped.... It becomes a "particle" propagation, an acceptable theory in the current literature. The only way in which a system can be accelerated and then deaccelerated is by some "external agency". It needs to be "caught" in a "trap" prepared for it... a resonant "box". The force required to catch it is "almost" zero since it is "massless".
We can see from this illustration that if we remove mass from some particle then time is arrested for that particle simply through expressing any force at all (no matter how small). Once a force has been exerted and a particle is moving at the speed of light it cannot be arrested by any internal "action". Does time exist outside of mass? (... meaning beyond any "mass" effect) ... Answer: No.
Maybe a "bubble" is possible where mass exists inside a certain region and time is proceeding there while outside that limited region the effect on spacetime curvature is minimal or zero (canceled) and time is arrested there where the overall influence on spacetime is zero.... A zero sum. This composite particle might be able to travel at near the speed of light and still have some "internal" control. No laws are broken since the "massless particle system" is simply a quantum particle able to jump from one point in space to another.... the amount of time elapsed depending on the distance jumped at the speed of light (... or not). Time may be just as "compact dimensional" as the other spatial dimensions of our Universe... Artificial dynamic processes may not be subject to the same limitations mentioned here.... Maybe our entire universe is "dimensionally compact" already, we may be able to move outside the "brane" of our Universe and pick the time of re-entry. That brane wall may be only a tiny distance in space from our present position in higher dimensions. Such devices were "designed" by Kip Thorne to assist his friend Carl Sagan in his book .... "Contact"... so they are not totally "off the wall".... Maybe more possible than actually going to the stars using primitive "rockets".
In "Contact" the trajectory through spacetime was "conveniently" arranged to bring the "passenger" back to Earth truly along a "null geodesic" round trip relative to observers on Earth such that total Earth elapsed time was zero.... Good choice if you have that option. Saves having to wait for anyone to return from a mission. That is the kind of mission that governments will fund... instant answers to "grand questions". The round trip using "rockets" will never be funded by any Earth Government because they take too long... maybe generations. Unless a round trip can happen well within a single "administration" you will see no "bucks" being allocated to these interstellar voyages. First Law of Space Travel... No "bucks" ... No "Buck Rogers".
Cheers
PS: Why should I show evidence you are "wrong"... I have no idea what you are meaning there.... Next point ... does it matter? Is there a better question or have you some more interesting answers?
We can see from this illustration that if we remove mass from some particle then time is arrested for that particle simply through expressing any force at all (no matter how small). Once a force has been exerted and a particle is moving at the speed of light it cannot be arrested by any internal "action". Does time exist outside of mass? (... meaning beyond any "mass" effect) ... Answer: No.
Maybe a "bubble" is possible where mass exists inside a certain region and time is proceeding there while outside that limited region the effect on spacetime curvature is minimal or zero (canceled) and time is arrested there where the overall influence on spacetime is zero.... A zero sum. This composite particle might be able to travel at near the speed of light and still have some "internal" control. No laws are broken since the "massless particle system" is simply a quantum particle able to jump from one point in space to another.... the amount of time elapsed depending on the distance jumped at the speed of light (... or not). Time may be just as "compact dimensional" as the other spatial dimensions of our Universe... Artificial dynamic processes may not be subject to the same limitations mentioned here.... Maybe our entire universe is "dimensionally compact" already, we may be able to move outside the "brane" of our Universe and pick the time of re-entry. That brane wall may be only a tiny distance in space from our present position in higher dimensions. Such devices were "designed" by Kip Thorne to assist his friend Carl Sagan in his book .... "Contact"... so they are not totally "off the wall".... Maybe more possible than actually going to the stars using primitive "rockets".
In "Contact" the trajectory through spacetime was "conveniently" arranged to bring the "passenger" back to Earth truly along a "null geodesic" round trip relative to observers on Earth such that total Earth elapsed time was zero.... Good choice if you have that option. Saves having to wait for anyone to return from a mission. That is the kind of mission that governments will fund... instant answers to "grand questions". The round trip using "rockets" will never be funded by any Earth Government because they take too long... maybe generations. Unless a round trip can happen well within a single "administration" you will see no "bucks" being allocated to these interstellar voyages. First Law of Space Travel... No "bucks" ... No "Buck Rogers".
Cheers
PS: Why should I show evidence you are "wrong"... I have no idea what you are meaning there.... Next point ... does it matter? Is there a better question or have you some more interesting answers?
Hej 4Dguy
Time has no existance by itsself - time is something secondary - it is a derived function - and time can perhaps best be defined as the ordering system by which "changes" are being arranged relative to each other.
And in order to have a change - there must be something into existance which can be changed.
And now I am thinking of a "Physical Existance" and a physical existance is perhaps best defined by a dimensionality of a certain lasting and a certain position in 3D space.
And such a dimensionality is perhaps best being defined as a cinematographic "movie-strip" of flash-expressions of dimensionless points "drawing" the conture of a "particle" - a highly dynamic picture - one flash-expression has no physical lasting - but when repeated oscillating eventually to define the full particle structure - that will be how smallest physical thing is being defined - and that will be the definition of TimeUnit 1, and the definition of ParticleUnit 1.
Physical Universe is then about how such smallest dimensionalities are being arranged into bigger and bigger complexion - scalewise - and always into oscillating existance.
Without particle no time.
And mass is a quality associated to particle - so without mass no time.
In order to express a particle - or a dimensionality - in space - a certain amount of information is being needed - namely the information about the exact position (relative to anything else) of each and every flash-expression of dimensionless points in space and in the correct order. So time has also a meaning in imaginary space - before the formation of any physical dimensions - but time is always intimately related to the ordering-procedure. Time is always secondary to the very process of originating something. A more complex dimensional expression in space takes more information - takes more time - and will have a longer lasting. So the very process of turning information into physical matter is intimately related how to extend the lastingness of dimensional expressions in space.
Time is totally confined to its location in space - and changes in space cannot be transmitted faster that c (when we are dealing with physical human scale) which is equivalent to how "fast" one dimensionality can be rearranged into another dimensionality - being equivalent to the speed by which information can be translated into a dimensionality - and the bigger the dimensionality the more TimeUnits 1 being needed, the "longer" it takes to express the dimension- but dimension is also bigger so time-x-dimension is a constant.
So NO - time cannot exist outside of mass -
Time has no existance by itsself - time is something secondary - it is a derived function - and time can perhaps best be defined as the ordering system by which "changes" are being arranged relative to each other.
And in order to have a change - there must be something into existance which can be changed.
And now I am thinking of a "Physical Existance" and a physical existance is perhaps best defined by a dimensionality of a certain lasting and a certain position in 3D space.
And such a dimensionality is perhaps best being defined as a cinematographic "movie-strip" of flash-expressions of dimensionless points "drawing" the conture of a "particle" - a highly dynamic picture - one flash-expression has no physical lasting - but when repeated oscillating eventually to define the full particle structure - that will be how smallest physical thing is being defined - and that will be the definition of TimeUnit 1, and the definition of ParticleUnit 1.
Physical Universe is then about how such smallest dimensionalities are being arranged into bigger and bigger complexion - scalewise - and always into oscillating existance.
Without particle no time.
And mass is a quality associated to particle - so without mass no time.
In order to express a particle - or a dimensionality - in space - a certain amount of information is being needed - namely the information about the exact position (relative to anything else) of each and every flash-expression of dimensionless points in space and in the correct order. So time has also a meaning in imaginary space - before the formation of any physical dimensions - but time is always intimately related to the ordering-procedure. Time is always secondary to the very process of originating something. A more complex dimensional expression in space takes more information - takes more time - and will have a longer lasting. So the very process of turning information into physical matter is intimately related how to extend the lastingness of dimensional expressions in space.
Time is totally confined to its location in space - and changes in space cannot be transmitted faster that c (when we are dealing with physical human scale) which is equivalent to how "fast" one dimensionality can be rearranged into another dimensionality - being equivalent to the speed by which information can be translated into a dimensionality - and the bigger the dimensionality the more TimeUnits 1 being needed, the "longer" it takes to express the dimension- but dimension is also bigger so time-x-dimension is a constant.
So NO - time cannot exist outside of mass -
"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high." (Albert Einstein, 1950)
g.
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high." (Albert Einstein, 1950)
g.
Question is: Can mass exist without SPACE/TIME? 
Question is: Can mass exist without SPACE/TIME?
I would say. NO - of course not.
Can electrons move without space/time?
"Can electrons move without space/time?"
Can you have an electron without spacetime. I would say No.
Can you have an electron without spacetime. I would say No.
Let’s face it… TIME is a complete *** to fully understand. No one can really establish a mechanical explanation of ‘WHAT?’ Time is, if it really is something at all.
However, the way we think of time is what inherently holds us back… When we think of SPACE as being fundamentally the same as TIME it does become much simpler.
(Clip of previous post)
When I was a teenager I picked up a book called – The Reverse Time travel, this book gave me some of the best and most simple explanations of relativity which I have found to be a great resource of understanding.
Firstly you must understand that SPACE & TIME are inherently the same thing and when you measure velocity you calculate the TIME taken over a given SPACE.
Now the phenomenon of travelling at such great velocities is that SPACE/TIME changes. IE Time slows down & Space shrinks. According to relativity if you were to travel close to the speed of light to our nearest star it would take us over 4 years to get there, because the distance of space between us and Proxima Centauri is so far, however this time and distance is only relative to and observer on Earth. As for the traveler the distance and time is contracted, for the traveler the journey would be almost instant because.
I found this book very exciting when I read it because it stated that if we could travel at the speed of light, or at least close to it we could get to any point in the universe almost instantly, however for the observer on earth it would take countless amounts of years.
So the simple way to understand why we can not catch up with a photon is because when we accelerate matter we shrink the distance between the given points, thus slowing down time.
I have found that the whole concept of time slowing down when accelerate close to the speed of light is a subject that really pisses people off, but remember Time & Space are really the same. Time slowing down is just another way of saying REDUCING THE DISTANCE.
GRAVITY
Matter is great stuff and a personal favorite; I mean where would we be with out it?
It is an extraordinary value of matter that gives us gravity, but it is not matter itself that creates this force, it is WHAT matter is doing to SPACE/TIME that gives us gravity. The shrinking of distance and slowing of time is what we are all feeling right now, it is what’s keeping your computer on the desk and your *** to your seat, but how does matter posses the properties to manipulate SPACE/TIME?
(Previous post)
Lensing effect
From our observational point of view light has to bend itself around massive gravitational wells in space thus ‘increasing’ the distance for the light to travel, though this is from our observational point of view. In fact the space occupied by the gravity well is actually reduced; however our perspective is a little back to front.
Imagine looking down a very long bend on a race track and that the bend is so slight that it appears to be a straight line from our perspective, now imagine a racing car IE a ‘photon’ speeding down the long bend but then takes a short cut. The car skips over the apex on the inside of the bend, over the grass and back onto the track. The car has just cut the corner.
When we see this with a point of view that the car was travelling in a straight line it appears that the car turned off the track ‘increasing its distance with a dramatic detour and then rejoined the track.
When we see it from the perspective that the track is a very long bend we see it as a short cut or ‘cutting the corner’
The conundrum is that the path of a photon does not travel in a straight line; it follows the curvature of SPACE/TIME like the long bend of a racing track. It is very easy to conclude that lensing is like a dramatic detour and that the distance it tacks is longer; however the distance is in fact shorter when we have the perspective that the photon is cutting the corner of the curvature of SPACE.
However, the way we think of time is what inherently holds us back… When we think of SPACE as being fundamentally the same as TIME it does become much simpler.
(Clip of previous post)
When I was a teenager I picked up a book called – The Reverse Time travel, this book gave me some of the best and most simple explanations of relativity which I have found to be a great resource of understanding.
Firstly you must understand that SPACE & TIME are inherently the same thing and when you measure velocity you calculate the TIME taken over a given SPACE.
Now the phenomenon of travelling at such great velocities is that SPACE/TIME changes. IE Time slows down & Space shrinks. According to relativity if you were to travel close to the speed of light to our nearest star it would take us over 4 years to get there, because the distance of space between us and Proxima Centauri is so far, however this time and distance is only relative to and observer on Earth. As for the traveler the distance and time is contracted, for the traveler the journey would be almost instant because.
I found this book very exciting when I read it because it stated that if we could travel at the speed of light, or at least close to it we could get to any point in the universe almost instantly, however for the observer on earth it would take countless amounts of years.
So the simple way to understand why we can not catch up with a photon is because when we accelerate matter we shrink the distance between the given points, thus slowing down time.
I have found that the whole concept of time slowing down when accelerate close to the speed of light is a subject that really pisses people off, but remember Time & Space are really the same. Time slowing down is just another way of saying REDUCING THE DISTANCE.
GRAVITY
Matter is great stuff and a personal favorite; I mean where would we be with out it?
It is an extraordinary value of matter that gives us gravity, but it is not matter itself that creates this force, it is WHAT matter is doing to SPACE/TIME that gives us gravity. The shrinking of distance and slowing of time is what we are all feeling right now, it is what’s keeping your computer on the desk and your *** to your seat, but how does matter posses the properties to manipulate SPACE/TIME?
(Previous post)
Lensing effect
From our observational point of view light has to bend itself around massive gravitational wells in space thus ‘increasing’ the distance for the light to travel, though this is from our observational point of view. In fact the space occupied by the gravity well is actually reduced; however our perspective is a little back to front.
Imagine looking down a very long bend on a race track and that the bend is so slight that it appears to be a straight line from our perspective, now imagine a racing car IE a ‘photon’ speeding down the long bend but then takes a short cut. The car skips over the apex on the inside of the bend, over the grass and back onto the track. The car has just cut the corner.
When we see this with a point of view that the car was travelling in a straight line it appears that the car turned off the track ‘increasing its distance with a dramatic detour and then rejoined the track.
When we see it from the perspective that the track is a very long bend we see it as a short cut or ‘cutting the corner’
The conundrum is that the path of a photon does not travel in a straight line; it follows the curvature of SPACE/TIME like the long bend of a racing track. It is very easy to conclude that lensing is like a dramatic detour and that the distance it tacks is longer; however the distance is in fact shorter when we have the perspective that the photon is cutting the corner of the curvature of SPACE.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 8 2008, 01:06 PM)
Does time exist outside of mass?
OUT OF MY THOGHTS WHAT I COULD SAY IS TIME COULD HARDLY STAY OUTSIDE OF MASS/MATTER.
SINCE AT LARGE SCALES THE EFFECT OF MASS IS QUITE EVIDENT DUE TO THE WARPING OF SPACE AND TIME .
I'D BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT MASS , TIME WOULD BE STATIC IT WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO EXIST.
ALTHOUGH IF PATICLES THAT DONT GET AFFECTED BY SPACE - TIME CURVATURE CAUSED BY MATTER COULD HAVE AN INDEPENDENCE OF TIME .BUT I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT TIME DIMENSION ALTOGETHER.IT WOULDNT OBEY THE PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL RELATIVITY.
OUT OF MY THOGHTS WHAT I COULD SAY IS TIME COULD HARDLY STAY OUTSIDE OF MASS/MATTER.
SINCE AT LARGE SCALES THE EFFECT OF MASS IS QUITE EVIDENT DUE TO THE WARPING OF SPACE AND TIME .
I'D BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT MASS , TIME WOULD BE STATIC IT WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO EXIST.
ALTHOUGH IF PATICLES THAT DONT GET AFFECTED BY SPACE - TIME CURVATURE CAUSED BY MATTER COULD HAVE AN INDEPENDENCE OF TIME .BUT I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT TIME DIMENSION ALTOGETHER.IT WOULDNT OBEY THE PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL RELATIVITY.
But massless particles can interact with each other, thus the glueball of QCD is expected to have a non-zero mass and the interaction of massless photons creates charged particles of non-zero mass. Likewise the massive bound state of positronium decays to massless photons.
So you need to take a more nuanced view before you can even ask a reasonable question in this arena. I suggest that you go to university to learn the details of physics before trying to explain only the parts you have hear of on the streets.
So you need to take a more nuanced view before you can even ask a reasonable question in this arena. I suggest that you go to university to learn the details of physics before trying to explain only the parts you have hear of on the streets.
QUOTE (NEVERDRY+Jul 9 2008, 07:58 PM)
Let’s face it… TIME is a complete *** to fully understand. No one can really establish a mechanical explanation of ‘WHAT?’ Time is, if it really is something at all.
However, the way we think of time is what inherently holds us back… When we think of SPACE as being fundamentally the same as TIME it does become much simpler.
(Clip of previous post)
When I was a teenager I picked up a book called – The Reverse Time travel, this book gave me some of the best and most simple explanations of relativity which I have found to be a great resource of understanding.
Firstly you must understand that SPACE & TIME are inherently the same thing and when you measure velocity you calculate the TIME taken over a given SPACE.
Now the phenomenon of travelling at such great velocities is that SPACE/TIME changes. IE Time slows down & Space shrinks. According to relativity if you were to travel close to the speed of light to our nearest star it would take us over 4 years to get there, because the distance of space between us and Proxima Centauri is so far, however this time and distance is only relative to and observer on Earth. As for the traveler the distance and time is contracted, for the traveler the journey would be almost instant because.
I found this book very exciting when I read it because it stated that if we could travel at the speed of light, or at least close to it we could get to any point in the universe almost instantly, however for the observer on earth it would take countless amounts of years.
So the simple way to understand why we can not catch up with a photon is because when we accelerate matter we shrink the distance between the given points, thus slowing down time.
I have found that the whole concept of time slowing down when accelerate close to the speed of light is a subject that really pisses people off, but remember Time & Space are really the same. Time slowing down is just another way of saying REDUCING THE DISTANCE.
GRAVITY
Matter is great stuff and a personal favorite; I mean where would we be with out it?
It is an extraordinary value of matter that gives us gravity, but it is not matter itself that creates this force, it is WHAT matter is doing to SPACE/TIME that gives us gravity. The shrinking of distance and slowing of time is what we are all feeling right now, it is what’s keeping your computer on the desk and your *** to your seat, but how does matter posses the properties to manipulate SPACE/TIME?
(Previous post)
Lensing effect
From our observational point of view light has to bend itself around massive gravitational wells in space thus ‘increasing’ the distance for the light to travel, though this is from our observational point of view. In fact the space occupied by the gravity well is actually reduced; however our perspective is a little back to front.
Imagine looking down a very long bend on a race track and that the bend is so slight that it appears to be a straight line from our perspective, now imagine a racing car IE a ‘photon’ speeding down the long bend but then takes a short cut. The car skips over the apex on the inside of the bend, over the grass and back onto the track. The car has just cut the corner.
When we see this with a point of view that the car was travelling in a straight line it appears that the car turned off the track ‘increasing its distance with a dramatic detour and then rejoined the track.
When we see it from the perspective that the track is a very long bend we see it as a short cut or ‘cutting the corner’
The conundrum is that the path of a photon does not travel in a straight line; it follows the curvature of SPACE/TIME like the long bend of a racing track. It is very easy to conclude that lensing is like a dramatic detour and that the distance it tacks is longer; however the distance is in fact shorter when we have the perspective that the photon is cutting the corner of the curvature of SPACE.
Yes, 'time' is the movement of Space. It is just common sense.
g.
However, the way we think of time is what inherently holds us back… When we think of SPACE as being fundamentally the same as TIME it does become much simpler.
(Clip of previous post)
When I was a teenager I picked up a book called – The Reverse Time travel, this book gave me some of the best and most simple explanations of relativity which I have found to be a great resource of understanding.
Firstly you must understand that SPACE & TIME are inherently the same thing and when you measure velocity you calculate the TIME taken over a given SPACE.
Now the phenomenon of travelling at such great velocities is that SPACE/TIME changes. IE Time slows down & Space shrinks. According to relativity if you were to travel close to the speed of light to our nearest star it would take us over 4 years to get there, because the distance of space between us and Proxima Centauri is so far, however this time and distance is only relative to and observer on Earth. As for the traveler the distance and time is contracted, for the traveler the journey would be almost instant because.
I found this book very exciting when I read it because it stated that if we could travel at the speed of light, or at least close to it we could get to any point in the universe almost instantly, however for the observer on earth it would take countless amounts of years.
So the simple way to understand why we can not catch up with a photon is because when we accelerate matter we shrink the distance between the given points, thus slowing down time.
I have found that the whole concept of time slowing down when accelerate close to the speed of light is a subject that really pisses people off, but remember Time & Space are really the same. Time slowing down is just another way of saying REDUCING THE DISTANCE.
GRAVITY
Matter is great stuff and a personal favorite; I mean where would we be with out it?
It is an extraordinary value of matter that gives us gravity, but it is not matter itself that creates this force, it is WHAT matter is doing to SPACE/TIME that gives us gravity. The shrinking of distance and slowing of time is what we are all feeling right now, it is what’s keeping your computer on the desk and your *** to your seat, but how does matter posses the properties to manipulate SPACE/TIME?
(Previous post)
Lensing effect
From our observational point of view light has to bend itself around massive gravitational wells in space thus ‘increasing’ the distance for the light to travel, though this is from our observational point of view. In fact the space occupied by the gravity well is actually reduced; however our perspective is a little back to front.
Imagine looking down a very long bend on a race track and that the bend is so slight that it appears to be a straight line from our perspective, now imagine a racing car IE a ‘photon’ speeding down the long bend but then takes a short cut. The car skips over the apex on the inside of the bend, over the grass and back onto the track. The car has just cut the corner.
When we see this with a point of view that the car was travelling in a straight line it appears that the car turned off the track ‘increasing its distance with a dramatic detour and then rejoined the track.
When we see it from the perspective that the track is a very long bend we see it as a short cut or ‘cutting the corner’
The conundrum is that the path of a photon does not travel in a straight line; it follows the curvature of SPACE/TIME like the long bend of a racing track. It is very easy to conclude that lensing is like a dramatic detour and that the distance it tacks is longer; however the distance is in fact shorter when we have the perspective that the photon is cutting the corner of the curvature of SPACE.
Yes, 'time' is the movement of Space. It is just common sense.
g.
the time is the shape of the energy;of where whether derive the mass,as dependent of the velocity(or vibrations) of the particles.
mott.carl
Since photons slow down in the presence of mass and electrons speed up away from other mass in space, this suggests that time is of space and not mass (vibrations). Do you have observations that counter this observation?
Gorgeous
Good answer.
ASH_COSMO
Reason is not a necessary part of existence.
NEVERDRY,
I agree until the shortening of distances. Mass expands space.
Since photons slow down in the presence of mass and electrons speed up away from other mass in space, this suggests that time is of space and not mass (vibrations). Do you have observations that counter this observation?
Gorgeous
Good answer.
ASH_COSMO
Reason is not a necessary part of existence.
NEVERDRY,
I agree until the shortening of distances. Mass expands space.
QUOTE
When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.
Is, incidentally the verbal version of : Time² x Spaceᐨ³ x Gravitation¹ x Mass¹ = Constant
Relationship of mass and time ? Look, gravitational constant :
6.67 × 10 ᐨ¹¹ m³ kgᐨ¹ sᐨ²
6.67 × 10ᐨ¹¹× (2.99×10Λ8)ᐨ³ kgᐨ¹ s
2.4767 x 10ᐨ³³ s gᐨ¹
An Universal CONSTANT, between matter and time...
2.99792458 x 10Λ(8) m sᐨ¹ is hint of Meter is Second ...
2.4767 x 10ᐨ³³ s gᐨ¹ links Gram to Second ... consider matter is also a form of time .
==================================
Think, What is Universal Constant ?
www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/74822-dimensions-time-dimensions-2.html
Could one suggest that the expansion of SPACE is also the expansion of TIME?
Could matter have a property that is able to resit the expansion of SPACE/TIME? thus giving us GRAVITY...
Could matter have a property that is able to resit the expansion of SPACE/TIME? thus giving us GRAVITY...
NEVERDRY,
I have suggested many things that may or may not be true but mass expands space and slows down time. Expanded time is expanded motion and if the cycle time of expanded motion of electrons cause a further path in their cycle then expanded time is slower time. Space and time are the same thing.
I have suggested many things that may or may not be true but mass expands space and slows down time. Expanded time is expanded motion and if the cycle time of expanded motion of electrons cause a further path in their cycle then expanded time is slower time. Space and time are the same thing.
Could matter have a property that is able to resit the expansion of SPACE/TIME? thus giving us GRAVITY...
Could the expansion of space make it easier for other mass to fall into the expanded space causing gravity with the dilation (expansion) of space being reduced by the inverse square?
When a science has a soul, of subjectivity , we, then, are imagination of HIM .. his priests are called scientists.
QUOTE
Could one suggest that the expansion of SPACE is also the expansion of TIME?
I have suggested many things that may or may not be true but mass expands space and slows down time. Expanded time is expanded motion and if the cycle time of expanded motion of electrons cause a further path in their cycle then expanded time is slower time. Space and time are the same thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Could one suggest that the expansion of SPACE is also the expansion of TIME? |
I have suggested many things that may or may not be true but mass expands space and slows down time. Expanded time is expanded motion and if the cycle time of expanded motion of electrons cause a further path in their cycle then expanded time is slower time. Space and time are the same thing.
Could matter have a property that is able to resit the expansion of SPACE/TIME? thus giving us GRAVITY...
Could the expansion of space make it easier for other mass to fall into the expanded space causing gravity with the dilation (expansion) of space being reduced by the inverse square?
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, which states that a system exists in a superposition of all possible states until *observed*, and it's the act of *observation* that forces the system into a single-valued state, the real question seems to be "Does time exist when we aren't Observing something?"
wcelliott,
That would depend on your definition of time. To me time is motion and fundamental motion I suspect comes from space time energy.
QUOTE
"Does time exist when we aren't Observing something?"
That would depend on your definition of time. To me time is motion and fundamental motion I suspect comes from space time energy.
QUOTE
"Does time exist when we aren't Observing something?"
When a science has a soul, of subjectivity , we, then, are imagination of HIM .. his priests are called scientists.
There are certainly some (how shall I say it to be nice???) ... um ... esoterically interesting responses the the original question of this thread. However, enigmatic and/or esoteric answers to this question are problematic to me. I prefer a simple view.
Time exists as a reaction to the existence of matter. Matter requires time. Time will exist as long as matter exists. When the last proton decays (and they DO decay ... when the LHC observes a Higg's Boson you'll see the truth) into nothingness then time will cease to exist.
Time is not a function. It is a property. It is a by-product. It is nothing else. You can call it a construct of our self-awareness if you like but that doesn't make it anything physical. It is virtual. Time is not a wave (two-slit experiment has no relevance) and it's obviously not a particle. It just is. It is so only because matter exists. The discussion of time's existence needs no further examination than that.
Time exists as a reaction to the existence of matter. Matter requires time. Time will exist as long as matter exists. When the last proton decays (and they DO decay ... when the LHC observes a Higg's Boson you'll see the truth) into nothingness then time will cease to exist.
Time is not a function. It is a property. It is a by-product. It is nothing else. You can call it a construct of our self-awareness if you like but that doesn't make it anything physical. It is virtual. Time is not a wave (two-slit experiment has no relevance) and it's obviously not a particle. It just is. It is so only because matter exists. The discussion of time's existence needs no further examination than that.
uaafanblog,
Time is only important where mass is concerned but it might not be fundamental to mass. A different perspective might be what is needed to make progress or not.
QUOTE
Time is not a wave (two-slit experiment has no relevance) and it's obviously not a particle. It just is. It is so only because matter exists. The discussion of time's existence needs no further examination than that.
Time is only important where mass is concerned but it might not be fundamental to mass. A different perspective might be what is needed to make progress or not.
Hello 4Dguy, et al.
I think centrifugal force and it's ability to establish a time gradient may be the key to understanding how mass affects time. That's where my "gut" feeling is leading me.
I think centrifugal force and it's ability to establish a time gradient may be the key to understanding how mass affects time. That's where my "gut" feeling is leading me.
uaafanblog
QUOTE: "Time exists as a reaction to the existence of matter. Matter requires time. Time will exist as long as matter exists. When the last proton decays (and they DO decay ... when the LHC observes a Higg's Boson you'll see the truth) into nothingness then time will cease to exist."
Matter requires time - yes - You can also say that matter requires dynamic - requires motion - requires change - no change no matter - and sure time is a simple secondary - a derived function.
QUOTE: "Time exists as a reaction to the existence of matter. Matter requires time. Time will exist as long as matter exists. When the last proton decays (and they DO decay ... when the LHC observes a Higg's Boson you'll see the truth) into nothingness then time will cease to exist."
Matter requires time - yes - You can also say that matter requires dynamic - requires motion - requires change - no change no matter - and sure time is a simple secondary - a derived function.
removing time from the mass equation =1.
one what?.....one volume of energy. replacing time to mass = measuring how many times the one volume of energy rec curs.
Adding motion and time creates "space".
Adding Space and time creates "motion".
Adding motion and space creates "time".
But they only EVER use the same volume of energy when considering relativity. Whether it is Smallest recurring or energy recycling , the available energy =1.
Cheers
Iseason
one what?.....one volume of energy. replacing time to mass = measuring how many times the one volume of energy rec curs.
Adding motion and time creates "space".
Adding Space and time creates "motion".
Adding motion and space creates "time".
But they only EVER use the same volume of energy when considering relativity. Whether it is Smallest recurring or energy recycling , the available energy =1.
Cheers
Iseason
Nothing is 'added', 'removed' or 'created'.
Space exists infinitely, and it moves, vibrates, oscillates (motion). There is your '1', and must therefore always be =.
Stay away from the mushies, iseason.
g.
Space exists infinitely, and it moves, vibrates, oscillates (motion). There is your '1', and must therefore always be =.
Stay away from the mushies, iseason.
g.
iseason
QUOTE: "removing time from the mass equation =1."
No No on the contrary - I am not removing time from mass.
According to my thinking there exist unit1Dimensionality - and I am not saying that this unit1 is the same all over Universe (space) - Unit1 is the smallest dimensionality that occurs at the well defined position that is being observed / defined in spacetime - meaning that smallest dimensionality is strictly bound to place and time.
The "frequency" by which Unit1 changes its ON OFF occurrence in space is defining Unit1Time - which is the oscillating "being physical / not-being physical."
Any spatial dimensionality in 3D space is made of such Unit1's in ever changing configurations. And You can imagine how such Unit1's are being arranged in ever increasing "building blocks" scalewise - and that is how nature dynamically express itsself - how physical best can be defined as these dynamically changing dimensionalities with a one-to-one relation between mass/energy and the number of Unit1's involved in such a measured physical expression.
So Time and Mass is certainly intimately related - I am just saying in low voice that the origen of everything PHYSICAL is such dynamically changing dimensionalities. And time is a measure about the underlying dynamic - without dynamic no time - and without dynamic no matter.
And You will note that a Point (dimensionless) is not into existance - at least not when we are dealing with PHYSICAL - dimensionless is being reserved for non-physical information structures in Informational world - Informational Space - which is the void that is inside smallest 3D dimensionalities.
QUOTE: "removing time from the mass equation =1."
No No on the contrary - I am not removing time from mass.
According to my thinking there exist unit1Dimensionality - and I am not saying that this unit1 is the same all over Universe (space) - Unit1 is the smallest dimensionality that occurs at the well defined position that is being observed / defined in spacetime - meaning that smallest dimensionality is strictly bound to place and time.
The "frequency" by which Unit1 changes its ON OFF occurrence in space is defining Unit1Time - which is the oscillating "being physical / not-being physical."
Any spatial dimensionality in 3D space is made of such Unit1's in ever changing configurations. And You can imagine how such Unit1's are being arranged in ever increasing "building blocks" scalewise - and that is how nature dynamically express itsself - how physical best can be defined as these dynamically changing dimensionalities with a one-to-one relation between mass/energy and the number of Unit1's involved in such a measured physical expression.
So Time and Mass is certainly intimately related - I am just saying in low voice that the origen of everything PHYSICAL is such dynamically changing dimensionalities. And time is a measure about the underlying dynamic - without dynamic no time - and without dynamic no matter.
And You will note that a Point (dimensionless) is not into existance - at least not when we are dealing with PHYSICAL - dimensionless is being reserved for non-physical information structures in Informational world - Informational Space - which is the void that is inside smallest 3D dimensionalities.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 15 2008, 09:06 AM)
Nothing is 'added', 'removed' or 'created'.
Space exists infinitely, and it moves, vibrates, oscillates (motion). There is your '1', and must therefore always be =.
Stay away from the mushies, iseason.
g.
You are incorrect.
Variance requires you to change the dynamics. Varying motion/mass/time in relation to each other changes the available energy.
Unless The universe predicted the changes you are going to make , conservatism is is illusionary, energy WOULD have been here and here . But because you changed the dynamics by affecting the time frames/motion, energy must be directly linked to YOU.
OK. In a relative sense this is true, but to anyone else around you, the energy must be borrowed from their reality since they weren't a party to the decision. Unless energy is unlimited , you cannot have infinite conservation. The decisions you make as to how to use or conserve energy would directly affect everybody elses past and future.
Cheers
Iseason
Space exists infinitely, and it moves, vibrates, oscillates (motion). There is your '1', and must therefore always be =.
Stay away from the mushies, iseason.
g.
You are incorrect.
Variance requires you to change the dynamics. Varying motion/mass/time in relation to each other changes the available energy.
Unless The universe predicted the changes you are going to make , conservatism is is illusionary, energy WOULD have been here and here . But because you changed the dynamics by affecting the time frames/motion, energy must be directly linked to YOU.
OK. In a relative sense this is true, but to anyone else around you, the energy must be borrowed from their reality since they weren't a party to the decision. Unless energy is unlimited , you cannot have infinite conservation. The decisions you make as to how to use or conserve energy would directly affect everybody elses past and future.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 14 2008, 07:06 PM)
Matter requires time - yes - You can also say that matter requires dynamic - requires motion - requires change - no change no matter - and sure time is a simple secondary - a derived function.
Describing it as a "derived function" is much better than my useless wording. Thanks.
Describing it as a "derived function" is much better than my useless wording. Thanks.
I would say yes time does exist outside of mass.
Just because we cant messure or describe the time inbetween nothingness into somethingness does not mean that it took no time for nothingness to become somethingness. But as far as we know from that given perspective we would never know the difference... example you have a universe with a moving ball in it and thats it. Then the moving ball is totaly gone only to apear back again some time later on. Sence the ball was the only thing in this universe in my example it would not know of the time it didn't exist. Time however is a concept of the mind without a thing to visualize the changes in movement there would be no understanding of time and thus no concept of time BUT this fact does not mean that time does not exist.
Time is one of thouse things that someone in the future would figure out and apply there understanding of time to effect the way the past worked for them.
In the future people will be able to know what we type on any given computer at any given time if they care enoth to look. So you effectily could type hello future people and they could read it and think wow that person was crazy or really smart. But while there ideas about the past will change the past always remains just that the past.
I guess to sum it up what we learn in the future we will apply to that futures past effects everything we will understand then while effecting nothing we understand currently.
Just because we cant messure or describe the time inbetween nothingness into somethingness does not mean that it took no time for nothingness to become somethingness. But as far as we know from that given perspective we would never know the difference... example you have a universe with a moving ball in it and thats it. Then the moving ball is totaly gone only to apear back again some time later on. Sence the ball was the only thing in this universe in my example it would not know of the time it didn't exist. Time however is a concept of the mind without a thing to visualize the changes in movement there would be no understanding of time and thus no concept of time BUT this fact does not mean that time does not exist.
Time is one of thouse things that someone in the future would figure out and apply there understanding of time to effect the way the past worked for them.
In the future people will be able to know what we type on any given computer at any given time if they care enoth to look. So you effectily could type hello future people and they could read it and think wow that person was crazy or really smart. But while there ideas about the past will change the past always remains just that the past.
I guess to sum it up what we learn in the future we will apply to that futures past effects everything we will understand then while effecting nothing we understand currently.
uaafanblog
QUOTE: "Describing it as a "derived function" is much better than my useless wording. Thanks."
And once we have established time as a derived function, we can define "dynamic" - "change" as a more primary function. And according to Gödel (which is a good name for logic that for the sake of logic must exist) - perhaps dynamic/change can be defined as something axiomatic. Together with "dimensionality" or "space" - if you follow me.
Essentially the very act of being PHYSICAL can be boiled down to: "dynamically changing of dimensionalities in space". So we have "dimensionality" axiomatically - and we have "change" axiomatically. And out from these two "qualities" - out from these two"existances", everything PHYSICAL can be derived.
And PHYSICAL has to do with "Lastingness" - and in order for something to be lasting and at the same time ensuring dynamic/change - lastingness must be via repetition - or oscillation - of a "PATTERN" - and a pattern is made of dimensionalities arranged 3D in space. So a pattern is made of SMALLEST DIMENSIONALITIES presenting themselves on an ON OFF basis.
So now we only need to think out how smallest dimensionality is being "created" - and I like to think that smallest dimensionality is defined on the basis how "INFORMATION" which by itsself is dimensionless - define the position of dimensionless points in space - and their oscillating repetition makes a "drawing" of the outline of such a dimension (ie smallest dimensionality) - like a movie-strip - cinematographically - and this is the true translation of infinite into discrete. This is how physical is being born - physical being these diemsionalities arranged to form bigger and bigger dynamically reconfiguring dimensions in 3D space. (actually I think that everything is starting from big to small - but that is no issue right here)
Well - that is the short version of the 3D pixel Universe - perhaps it does not make any sense to the unprepared reader.
QUOTE: "Describing it as a "derived function" is much better than my useless wording. Thanks."
And once we have established time as a derived function, we can define "dynamic" - "change" as a more primary function. And according to Gödel (which is a good name for logic that for the sake of logic must exist) - perhaps dynamic/change can be defined as something axiomatic. Together with "dimensionality" or "space" - if you follow me.
Essentially the very act of being PHYSICAL can be boiled down to: "dynamically changing of dimensionalities in space". So we have "dimensionality" axiomatically - and we have "change" axiomatically. And out from these two "qualities" - out from these two"existances", everything PHYSICAL can be derived.
And PHYSICAL has to do with "Lastingness" - and in order for something to be lasting and at the same time ensuring dynamic/change - lastingness must be via repetition - or oscillation - of a "PATTERN" - and a pattern is made of dimensionalities arranged 3D in space. So a pattern is made of SMALLEST DIMENSIONALITIES presenting themselves on an ON OFF basis.
So now we only need to think out how smallest dimensionality is being "created" - and I like to think that smallest dimensionality is defined on the basis how "INFORMATION" which by itsself is dimensionless - define the position of dimensionless points in space - and their oscillating repetition makes a "drawing" of the outline of such a dimension (ie smallest dimensionality) - like a movie-strip - cinematographically - and this is the true translation of infinite into discrete. This is how physical is being born - physical being these diemsionalities arranged to form bigger and bigger dynamically reconfiguring dimensions in 3D space. (actually I think that everything is starting from big to small - but that is no issue right here)
Well - that is the short version of the 3D pixel Universe - perhaps it does not make any sense to the unprepared reader.
spacial dimensionality's would work best if the "space" was pre-allocated to the energy. If big bang was the result of reduction from disorder to ordered space, The reclaiming of position would fall within the 'ordered' sequence for that energy.
Before time was the Governor,their would be no sequence, after however, the position reserved is re-occupied to enable geophysics.
Cheers
Iseason
Before time was the Governor,their would be no sequence, after however, the position reserved is re-occupied to enable geophysics.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
QUOTE: "spacial dimensionality's would work best if the "space" was pre-allocated to the energy"
OK - what is energy - how best to define energy -
To me energy and information is the same.
I like to think that energy is strictly related to "change" and change is strictly related to dimensional rearrangement - and dimension is strictly related to "Information" - and information has always been and will always be - and information can express itsself in many different ways - and one of them is as Physical Universe. Physical Universe is about dynamic change of dimensionalities (dimensionality being defined by information) - so energy and dimensions are being intimately tight up on each other -
QUOTE: "spacial dimensionality's would work best if the "space" was pre-allocated to the energy"
OK - what is energy - how best to define energy -
To me energy and information is the same.
I like to think that energy is strictly related to "change" and change is strictly related to dimensional rearrangement - and dimension is strictly related to "Information" - and information has always been and will always be - and information can express itsself in many different ways - and one of them is as Physical Universe. Physical Universe is about dynamic change of dimensionalities (dimensionality being defined by information) - so energy and dimensions are being intimately tight up on each other -
iseason,
Possibly in the future main stream might find the red shift is gravity based and not motion based. Pound-Rebka experiment shows red shift from gravity causes everything to be red shifted.
Montec
Possibly in the future main stream might find the red shift is gravity based and not motion based. Pound-Rebka experiment shows red shift from gravity causes everything to be red shifted.
Montec
I think centrifugal force and it's ability to establish a time gradient may be the key to understanding how mass affects time. That's where my "gut" feeling is leading me.
QUOTE
If big bang was the result of reduction from disorder to ordered space,
Possibly in the future main stream might find the red shift is gravity based and not motion based. Pound-Rebka experiment shows red shift from gravity causes everything to be red shifted.
Montec
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If big bang was the result of reduction from disorder to ordered space, |
Possibly in the future main stream might find the red shift is gravity based and not motion based. Pound-Rebka experiment shows red shift from gravity causes everything to be red shifted.
Montec
I think centrifugal force and it's ability to establish a time gradient may be the key to understanding how mass affects time. That's where my "gut" feeling is leading me.
]
If space were made of tubes creating a two dimensional system to our three dimensional system of matter centrifugal force would cause work (or gravity). If space were made of tubes (in every direction based on triangle geometry) light would travel in a straight line. If space were made of tubes gravity would bend those tubes and light would follow those tubes. If the tubes were created from rotating disks at "c" and flexible the tubes would expand in mass to rotate the electrons. The electrons would return when the inverse square to the distance from the proton makes the tube to small. Energy and time are the same. Mass reduces the energy (time ) of the space it occupies. Mass is attracted to the larger tubes of less energy. Triangles can create tubes in every direction from every point. When you increase the distance you increase the available tubes you see by the inverse square of the distance. This works the same for volume, pressure, gravity, and many other physical properties. They are based on the same energy structure. Physical properties are different affects on space time energy tubes.
If space were made of tubes creating a two dimensional system to our three dimensional system of matter centrifugal force would cause work (or gravity). If space were made of tubes (in every direction based on triangle geometry) light would travel in a straight line. If space were made of tubes gravity would bend those tubes and light would follow those tubes. If the tubes were created from rotating disks at "c" and flexible the tubes would expand in mass to rotate the electrons. The electrons would return when the inverse square to the distance from the proton makes the tube to small. Energy and time are the same. Mass reduces the energy (time ) of the space it occupies. Mass is attracted to the larger tubes of less energy. Triangles can create tubes in every direction from every point. When you increase the distance you increase the available tubes you see by the inverse square of the distance. This works the same for volume, pressure, gravity, and many other physical properties. They are based on the same energy structure. Physical properties are different affects on space time energy tubes.
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 15 2008, 08:47 AM)
And once we have established time as a derived function, we can define "dynamic" - "change" as a more primary function. And according to Gödel (which is a good name for logic that for the sake of logic must exist) - perhaps dynamic/change can be defined as something axiomatic. Together with "dimensionality" or "space" - if you follow me.
I'm a bit confused ... I'll explain why ... I'm not on board with your first sentence I guess. "dynamic/change" are states that wouldn't exist without the derived function (time) therefore it seems to me that classifying them as "more primary" is illogical. Matter creates time. Dynamics and change are a result of the existence of time. Aren't they are just a way of describing the effects of time. In a narrow sense it is entropy you're describing when you say "dynamic-change" ... isn't it? But then again you describe the change/dynamic function as axiomatic ... that seems to be more akin to what I'm saying. It seems that your first sentence and the rest of what you said are a bit conflicted.
No doubt I'm a bit "unprepared" but I'll give this a go. It strikes me that your definitions are of a universe that is (for lack of a better word) digital. It also sounds a bit geometric to me which is bothersome. I don't believe that mathematics/geometry are anything other than a construct of our consciousness in order to describe the universe. Compound Dodecahedrons didn't exist until we created/discovered them through our math eh? I think we live in an analog universe which is devoid of "straight" lines. I do like your description of "dimensionalities arranged to from bigger and bigger dynamically reconfiguring dimension in 3D space" ... I've always thought of similar fundamental process that I call "clumping". It is more than just atoms/molecules naturally grouping themselves together with like atoms/molecules. Nonetheless such conglomerations are evidence of this thing I call "clumping". It is a larger fundamental process that utilizes the other fundamental properties of the universe to accomplish a larger goal. The effects of gravity are another nice evidentiary representation of this thing I call "clumping". People clump together in cities, trees clump together in groves, birds in flocks and fish in shoals. Planets in solar systems. Asteroids in belts. Galaxies in clusters. Whether by gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force or weak force the larger universal functionality is "clumping".
Ok I'm done with my amateurish physics pontification. For now.
I'm a bit confused ... I'll explain why ... I'm not on board with your first sentence I guess. "dynamic/change" are states that wouldn't exist without the derived function (time) therefore it seems to me that classifying them as "more primary" is illogical. Matter creates time. Dynamics and change are a result of the existence of time. Aren't they are just a way of describing the effects of time. In a narrow sense it is entropy you're describing when you say "dynamic-change" ... isn't it? But then again you describe the change/dynamic function as axiomatic ... that seems to be more akin to what I'm saying. It seems that your first sentence and the rest of what you said are a bit conflicted.
QUOTE
Essentially the very act of being PHYSICAL can be boiled down to: "dynamically changing of dimensionalities in space". So we have "dimensionality" axiomatically - and we have "change" axiomatically. And out from these two "qualities" - out from these two"existances", everything PHYSICAL can be derived.
So now we only need to think out how smallest dimensionality is being "created" - and I like to think that smallest dimensionality is defined on the basis how "INFORMATION" which by itsself is dimensionless - define the position of dimensionless points in space - and their oscillating repetition makes a "drawing" of the outline of such a dimension (ie smallest dimensionality) - like a movie-strip - cinematographically - and this is the true translation of infinite into discrete. This is how physical is being born - physical being these diemsionalities arranged to form bigger and bigger dynamically reconfiguring dimensions in 3D space. (actually I think that everything is starting from big to small - but that is no issue right here)
Well - that is the short version of the 3D pixel Universe - perhaps it does not make any sense to the unprepared reader.
So now we only need to think out how smallest dimensionality is being "created" - and I like to think that smallest dimensionality is defined on the basis how "INFORMATION" which by itsself is dimensionless - define the position of dimensionless points in space - and their oscillating repetition makes a "drawing" of the outline of such a dimension (ie smallest dimensionality) - like a movie-strip - cinematographically - and this is the true translation of infinite into discrete. This is how physical is being born - physical being these diemsionalities arranged to form bigger and bigger dynamically reconfiguring dimensions in 3D space. (actually I think that everything is starting from big to small - but that is no issue right here)
Well - that is the short version of the 3D pixel Universe - perhaps it does not make any sense to the unprepared reader.
No doubt I'm a bit "unprepared" but I'll give this a go. It strikes me that your definitions are of a universe that is (for lack of a better word) digital. It also sounds a bit geometric to me which is bothersome. I don't believe that mathematics/geometry are anything other than a construct of our consciousness in order to describe the universe. Compound Dodecahedrons didn't exist until we created/discovered them through our math eh? I think we live in an analog universe which is devoid of "straight" lines. I do like your description of "dimensionalities arranged to from bigger and bigger dynamically reconfiguring dimension in 3D space" ... I've always thought of similar fundamental process that I call "clumping". It is more than just atoms/molecules naturally grouping themselves together with like atoms/molecules. Nonetheless such conglomerations are evidence of this thing I call "clumping". It is a larger fundamental process that utilizes the other fundamental properties of the universe to accomplish a larger goal. The effects of gravity are another nice evidentiary representation of this thing I call "clumping". People clump together in cities, trees clump together in groves, birds in flocks and fish in shoals. Planets in solar systems. Asteroids in belts. Galaxies in clusters. Whether by gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force or weak force the larger universal functionality is "clumping".
Ok I'm done with my amateurish physics pontification. For now.
uaafanblog
thanks for reply
matter creates time - yeah - but what creates matter -
and here I say that matter is dynamically reconfiguring dimensionalities - so the most "primary" is 1) dimension and 2) dynamically changing.
I define matter as smallest dimensionalities (whateverthatis) arranging themselves in ever changing "clusters" - what you call "clumping" which is also a good description - but it is very important to realize that matter is not static - matter is into an oscillating existance. Matter must be into oscillating existance - otherwise there would be no chance of having the "illusion" that we call motion. Motion is equivalent to this ever rearrangements in differing clusters of smallest dimensionalities - there exist no void - there is no free room where "particles" can move relative to each other. At the best we can define a frame - a frame out from which we define everything - and in my optics this frame is the so-called 3D pixel grid - which is smallest dimensions in the human physical scale, (pixels) arranged in a 3D grid shoulder by shoulder - and like pixels on a screen can play cinematographically all kind of "moving" figures - such a 3D pixel screen can play the illusion of moving particles - play the physical world as we humans see it. And we have to be respectful - we humans are part of all this - so we are also pixels - so it is about how pixels sense / interfere with pixels - or even more basically how information sense information.
QUOTE: "Matter creates time. Dynamics and change are a result of the existence of time."
Yes, matter creates time - but it is dynamic dimensionalities that create matter - so matter is in a sense higher ranking than time - time IS a derived function - but dimensionality and change they are the most prime I can think of - and that is why they are axiomatic.
And dynamic - this urge for physical universe constantly to express itsself in ever changing clusters of dimensionalities - it is in its very essence Entropy - and the driving force in physical universe is because there is a constantly ongoing process how to minimize void - to minimize free space. Smallest dimensionalities seeks to arrange themselves in patterns that gives the best overall fit, so every time one single dimensionality has arranged itsself relative to its neighbors - then immediately this effect in a rearrangement of all nearby dimensionalities to construct a new fit, and this proces to achieve the best fit will be seen as a wavelike rearranging of smallest dimensionalities, all dynamics in physical universe will spread like waves. I see this "fitting process" as bosonic waves - whilst fermionic structures (particles) are being characterized by standing circular waves - repetition in situ. (remember tat any and all matter is into oscillating existance - static is simply not an option. The only difference between potential and kinetic is whether the "waves" are being propagated relative to the 3D grid in a linear trajectory or whether the waves are standing circular not being moved (gliding) over the grid.
QUOTE: "I've always thought of similar fundamental process that I call "clumping". It is more than just atoms/molecules naturally grouping themselves together with like atoms/molecules. Nonetheless such conglomerations are evidence of this thing I call "clumping". It is a larger fundamental process that utilizes the other fundamental properties of the universe to accomplish a larger goal. The effects of gravity are another nice evidentiary representation of this thing I call "clumping". People clump together in cities, trees clump together in groves, birds in flocks and fish in shoals. Planets in solar systems. Asteroids in belts. Galaxies in clusters. Whether by gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force or weak force the larger universal functionality is "clumping".
Just mine words - and "clumping" is a natural effect of wave-interferences - matter creates matter - where something is more is to come - and vice versa.
thanks for reply
matter creates time - yeah - but what creates matter -
and here I say that matter is dynamically reconfiguring dimensionalities - so the most "primary" is 1) dimension and 2) dynamically changing.
I define matter as smallest dimensionalities (whateverthatis) arranging themselves in ever changing "clusters" - what you call "clumping" which is also a good description - but it is very important to realize that matter is not static - matter is into an oscillating existance. Matter must be into oscillating existance - otherwise there would be no chance of having the "illusion" that we call motion. Motion is equivalent to this ever rearrangements in differing clusters of smallest dimensionalities - there exist no void - there is no free room where "particles" can move relative to each other. At the best we can define a frame - a frame out from which we define everything - and in my optics this frame is the so-called 3D pixel grid - which is smallest dimensions in the human physical scale, (pixels) arranged in a 3D grid shoulder by shoulder - and like pixels on a screen can play cinematographically all kind of "moving" figures - such a 3D pixel screen can play the illusion of moving particles - play the physical world as we humans see it. And we have to be respectful - we humans are part of all this - so we are also pixels - so it is about how pixels sense / interfere with pixels - or even more basically how information sense information.
QUOTE: "Matter creates time. Dynamics and change are a result of the existence of time."
Yes, matter creates time - but it is dynamic dimensionalities that create matter - so matter is in a sense higher ranking than time - time IS a derived function - but dimensionality and change they are the most prime I can think of - and that is why they are axiomatic.
And dynamic - this urge for physical universe constantly to express itsself in ever changing clusters of dimensionalities - it is in its very essence Entropy - and the driving force in physical universe is because there is a constantly ongoing process how to minimize void - to minimize free space. Smallest dimensionalities seeks to arrange themselves in patterns that gives the best overall fit, so every time one single dimensionality has arranged itsself relative to its neighbors - then immediately this effect in a rearrangement of all nearby dimensionalities to construct a new fit, and this proces to achieve the best fit will be seen as a wavelike rearranging of smallest dimensionalities, all dynamics in physical universe will spread like waves. I see this "fitting process" as bosonic waves - whilst fermionic structures (particles) are being characterized by standing circular waves - repetition in situ. (remember tat any and all matter is into oscillating existance - static is simply not an option. The only difference between potential and kinetic is whether the "waves" are being propagated relative to the 3D grid in a linear trajectory or whether the waves are standing circular not being moved (gliding) over the grid.
QUOTE: "I've always thought of similar fundamental process that I call "clumping". It is more than just atoms/molecules naturally grouping themselves together with like atoms/molecules. Nonetheless such conglomerations are evidence of this thing I call "clumping". It is a larger fundamental process that utilizes the other fundamental properties of the universe to accomplish a larger goal. The effects of gravity are another nice evidentiary representation of this thing I call "clumping". People clump together in cities, trees clump together in groves, birds in flocks and fish in shoals. Planets in solar systems. Asteroids in belts. Galaxies in clusters. Whether by gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force or weak force the larger universal functionality is "clumping".
Just mine words - and "clumping" is a natural effect of wave-interferences - matter creates matter - where something is more is to come - and vice versa.
bukh,
Yes but pixels have to have fundamental motion associated with it to be time. They can not be square box pixels, they can not be stationary. For the inverse square to work they have to be triangular in order for light to go in every direction in a straight line. The tubes need to be able to be torn and expanded in order for centrifugal force create gravity. Local expansion would be the strong nuclear force and total accumulated expansion of mass as a gradient to the center would be the weak gravity force.
QUOTE
At the best we can define a frame - a frame out from which we define everything - and in my optics this frame is the so-called 3D pixel grid -
Yes but pixels have to have fundamental motion associated with it to be time. They can not be square box pixels, they can not be stationary. For the inverse square to work they have to be triangular in order for light to go in every direction in a straight line. The tubes need to be able to be torn and expanded in order for centrifugal force create gravity. Local expansion would be the strong nuclear force and total accumulated expansion of mass as a gradient to the center would be the weak gravity force.
4Dguy
"Fundamental motion" - OK - a pixel can signal - a pixel can tell whether it is in ON or OFF mode - and a signal of course fundamentally is a kind of "motion" - but it is a very very subtle activity which energetically is approaching zero in said scale.
It is important to be accurate about this very concept of motion. It is not possible to have one particle moving relative to another - or a particle moving relative to a frame. Any and all motion is an illusion. First one have to be accurate about how a particle is being defined. A particle is defined out from the oscillating presence of smallest dimensionalities where this presence is cinematographically expressing the total structure of said particle. A particle is not static - a particle is a movie-strip of repeating patterns of smallest dimensionalities in space, and each flash pattern - each picture - is different from the following - until it reaches the point where everything starts again - so a particle is a repeated moviestrip. A particle is not into static existance - a particle is an oscillating pattern. So when we get this illusion of a particle moving - it is fundamentally based on this ON OFF signaling of smallest dimensionalities.
And now scale comes into effect. In smallest scale one can imagine how smallest dimensionalities by their ON OFF presences describe or define the outline - the structure of a particle. Such a particle will also be in an oscillating presence - because it is not fully described before the whole movie-strip has been played, - the period it takes to run the full movie-strip and then it repeats. The net effect is that the particle seems to have a certain kind of lastingness. And then we come to next following scale where second generation particles is being defined of such first-generations - and so on ---
For each phase-transistion - for each step upsize - there will be a relatively longer and seemingly more stable presence of such patterns of oscillating dimensionalities in space. The 3D pixel-grid is composed of particles that are so small that they cannot be percepted by human scale - neither by our senses nor by the apparatus that we use - they represent this intermediary medium between non-physical and physical. But the pixels by their oscillating pattern - they express / they play - the movie-strips that form physical structures - the smallest physical elements what ever they may show up to be - quarks, leptons - or smaller,
And here it is difficult for us humans to accept that the movement of such structures are illusional in the sense that they are being played by signaling - by oscillations in this complex stepwise upsized informational system.
Energies that we see and measure, basically all are such ever changing patterns of smallest dimensional informational bits, orderly arranged in 3D space, which give us the illusion of presenceness and of motion and of change - gives us the illusion of time and forces, gives us the illusion of "Real Physical World".
We are not near to accept the complexity of physical universe - but sticking to ideas that quarks are small - or even saying that they are smallest - and that physical nature are being based upon such structures with no deeper complexity - that would be very very naive. The complexity of physical nature is perhaps best described as being truely infinite. Because by introducing and accepting the concept of scaling - then at the same time (I think) that we have to accept the total relativity involved in scaling. Scales inherently have to be of at least the same complexity when downsizing - and is this process INFINITELY going on ???
"Fundamental motion" - OK - a pixel can signal - a pixel can tell whether it is in ON or OFF mode - and a signal of course fundamentally is a kind of "motion" - but it is a very very subtle activity which energetically is approaching zero in said scale.
It is important to be accurate about this very concept of motion. It is not possible to have one particle moving relative to another - or a particle moving relative to a frame. Any and all motion is an illusion. First one have to be accurate about how a particle is being defined. A particle is defined out from the oscillating presence of smallest dimensionalities where this presence is cinematographically expressing the total structure of said particle. A particle is not static - a particle is a movie-strip of repeating patterns of smallest dimensionalities in space, and each flash pattern - each picture - is different from the following - until it reaches the point where everything starts again - so a particle is a repeated moviestrip. A particle is not into static existance - a particle is an oscillating pattern. So when we get this illusion of a particle moving - it is fundamentally based on this ON OFF signaling of smallest dimensionalities.
And now scale comes into effect. In smallest scale one can imagine how smallest dimensionalities by their ON OFF presences describe or define the outline - the structure of a particle. Such a particle will also be in an oscillating presence - because it is not fully described before the whole movie-strip has been played, - the period it takes to run the full movie-strip and then it repeats. The net effect is that the particle seems to have a certain kind of lastingness. And then we come to next following scale where second generation particles is being defined of such first-generations - and so on ---
For each phase-transistion - for each step upsize - there will be a relatively longer and seemingly more stable presence of such patterns of oscillating dimensionalities in space. The 3D pixel-grid is composed of particles that are so small that they cannot be percepted by human scale - neither by our senses nor by the apparatus that we use - they represent this intermediary medium between non-physical and physical. But the pixels by their oscillating pattern - they express / they play - the movie-strips that form physical structures - the smallest physical elements what ever they may show up to be - quarks, leptons - or smaller,
And here it is difficult for us humans to accept that the movement of such structures are illusional in the sense that they are being played by signaling - by oscillations in this complex stepwise upsized informational system.
Energies that we see and measure, basically all are such ever changing patterns of smallest dimensional informational bits, orderly arranged in 3D space, which give us the illusion of presenceness and of motion and of change - gives us the illusion of time and forces, gives us the illusion of "Real Physical World".
We are not near to accept the complexity of physical universe - but sticking to ideas that quarks are small - or even saying that they are smallest - and that physical nature are being based upon such structures with no deeper complexity - that would be very very naive. The complexity of physical nature is perhaps best described as being truely infinite. Because by introducing and accepting the concept of scaling - then at the same time (I think) that we have to accept the total relativity involved in scaling. Scales inherently have to be of at least the same complexity when downsizing - and is this process INFINITELY going on ???
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 16 2008, 09:12 AM)
4Dguy
"Fundamental motion" - OK - a pixel can signal - a pixel can tell whether it is in ON or OFF mode - and a signal of course fundamentally is a kind of "motion" - but it is a very very subtle activity which energetically is approaching zero in said scale.
It is important to be accurate about this very concept of motion. It is not possible to have one particle moving relative to another - or a particle moving relative to a frame. Any and all motion is an illusion. First one have to be accurate about how a particle is being defined. A particle is defined out from the oscillating presence of smallest dimensionalities where this presence is cinematographically expressing the total structure of said particle. A particle is not static - a particle is a movie-strip of repeating patterns of smallest dimensionalities in space, and each flash pattern - each picture - is different from the following - until it reaches the point where everything starts again - so a particle is a repeated moviestrip. A particle is not into static existance - a particle is an oscillating pattern. So when we get this illusion of a particle moving - it is fundamentally based on this ON OFF signaling of smallest dimensionalities.
And now scale comes into effect. In smallest scale one can imagine how smallest dimensionalities by their ON OFF presences describe or define the outline - the structure of a particle. Such a particle will also be in an oscillating presence - because it is not fully described before the whole movie-strip has been played, - the period it takes to run the full movie-strip and then it repeats. The net effect is that the particle seems to have a certain kind of lastingness. And then we come to next following scale where second generation particles is being defined of such first-generations - and so on ---
For each phase-transistion - for each step upsize - there will be a relatively longer and seemingly more stable presence of such patterns of oscillating dimensionalities in space. The 3D pixel-grid is composed of particles that are so small that they cannot be percepted by human scale - neither by our senses nor by the apparatus that we use - they represent this intermediary medium between non-physical and physical. But the pixels by their oscillating pattern - they express / they play - the movie-strips that form physical structures - the smallest physical elements what ever they may show up to be - quarks, leptons - or smaller,
And here it is difficult for us humans to accept that the movement of such structures are illusional in the sense that they are being played by signaling - by oscillations in this complex stepwise upsized informational system.
Energies that we see and measure, basically all are such ever changing patterns of smallest dimensional informational bits, orderly arranged in 3D space, which give us the illusion of presenceness and of motion and of change - gives us the illusion of time and forces, gives us the illusion of "Real Physical World".
We are not near to accept the complexity of physical universe - but sticking to ideas that quarks are small - or even saying that they are smallest - and that physical nature are being based upon such structures with no deeper complexity - that would be very very naive. The complexity of physical nature is perhaps best described as being truely infinite. Because by introducing and accepting the concept of scaling - then at the same time (I think) that we have to accept the total relativity involved in scaling. Scales inherently have to be of at least the same complexity when downsizing - and is this process INFINITELY going on ???
Hi Buhk.
I've Read your last post , in light of recent thoughts on the subject, your "cinematography" could be 'constant' in this way. If each "measure of energy" were the original 'whole' that I spoke of . This means that the strip of information would always be equal in energy or constant.
This requires that the available energy be finite in nature, but in repetition.Space is required as a limiting factor on the energy. EI: there is a maximum dispersion. This is also capped in relation to a minimum dispersion or pattern.
In the end it still means that the "actual" available energy there is can be totalled by the smallest particle arrangement there is. But the smallest singular energy is "smallest arrangement dispersed into the volume of space" Or inconceivably small , even to the best imagination. It's smaller than an electron dispersed into the volume of space.
Cheers
Iseason
"Fundamental motion" - OK - a pixel can signal - a pixel can tell whether it is in ON or OFF mode - and a signal of course fundamentally is a kind of "motion" - but it is a very very subtle activity which energetically is approaching zero in said scale.
It is important to be accurate about this very concept of motion. It is not possible to have one particle moving relative to another - or a particle moving relative to a frame. Any and all motion is an illusion. First one have to be accurate about how a particle is being defined. A particle is defined out from the oscillating presence of smallest dimensionalities where this presence is cinematographically expressing the total structure of said particle. A particle is not static - a particle is a movie-strip of repeating patterns of smallest dimensionalities in space, and each flash pattern - each picture - is different from the following - until it reaches the point where everything starts again - so a particle is a repeated moviestrip. A particle is not into static existance - a particle is an oscillating pattern. So when we get this illusion of a particle moving - it is fundamentally based on this ON OFF signaling of smallest dimensionalities.
And now scale comes into effect. In smallest scale one can imagine how smallest dimensionalities by their ON OFF presences describe or define the outline - the structure of a particle. Such a particle will also be in an oscillating presence - because it is not fully described before the whole movie-strip has been played, - the period it takes to run the full movie-strip and then it repeats. The net effect is that the particle seems to have a certain kind of lastingness. And then we come to next following scale where second generation particles is being defined of such first-generations - and so on ---
For each phase-transistion - for each step upsize - there will be a relatively longer and seemingly more stable presence of such patterns of oscillating dimensionalities in space. The 3D pixel-grid is composed of particles that are so small that they cannot be percepted by human scale - neither by our senses nor by the apparatus that we use - they represent this intermediary medium between non-physical and physical. But the pixels by their oscillating pattern - they express / they play - the movie-strips that form physical structures - the smallest physical elements what ever they may show up to be - quarks, leptons - or smaller,
And here it is difficult for us humans to accept that the movement of such structures are illusional in the sense that they are being played by signaling - by oscillations in this complex stepwise upsized informational system.
Energies that we see and measure, basically all are such ever changing patterns of smallest dimensional informational bits, orderly arranged in 3D space, which give us the illusion of presenceness and of motion and of change - gives us the illusion of time and forces, gives us the illusion of "Real Physical World".
We are not near to accept the complexity of physical universe - but sticking to ideas that quarks are small - or even saying that they are smallest - and that physical nature are being based upon such structures with no deeper complexity - that would be very very naive. The complexity of physical nature is perhaps best described as being truely infinite. Because by introducing and accepting the concept of scaling - then at the same time (I think) that we have to accept the total relativity involved in scaling. Scales inherently have to be of at least the same complexity when downsizing - and is this process INFINITELY going on ???
Hi Buhk.
I've Read your last post , in light of recent thoughts on the subject, your "cinematography" could be 'constant' in this way. If each "measure of energy" were the original 'whole' that I spoke of . This means that the strip of information would always be equal in energy or constant.
This requires that the available energy be finite in nature, but in repetition.Space is required as a limiting factor on the energy. EI: there is a maximum dispersion. This is also capped in relation to a minimum dispersion or pattern.
In the end it still means that the "actual" available energy there is can be totalled by the smallest particle arrangement there is. But the smallest singular energy is "smallest arrangement dispersed into the volume of space" Or inconceivably small , even to the best imagination. It's smaller than an electron dispersed into the volume of space.
Cheers
Iseason
Hej iseason
Yes - we see and define Energy as the sum of a dimension and a change - energy is a reflection of "Size and Change"
The smallest unit of energy is one oscillatary change of smallest dimensionality. Everything is being build or constructed out from this, so energy is constant provided that oscillation and (smallest) size- is constant.
And then what about size ? - well Universe has the size that Universe has - and everything in Univere is relative, and relativeness is being based upon ratios. Ratios can be measured with absolute accuratesse - size is unmeasurable.
So when saying that energy is constant it is more correct to say that energy is being measured out from an accurate RATIO of size - and that energy is a derived function. Or put into other words: - "Space has the amount of energy that space has" - like size of Universe. Instead of saying that energy is constant - it would be more correct to say that energy is infinite (or better non-defined), and we measure energy out from a relative size ratio. But we can infinitely (almost) downsize the units (increase the number of ratios) - the dimensionalities that are expressing energy. And when I say almost - it is because I like to think that PHYSICAL essentially involves discreteness - I simply cannot imagine physical without a kind of "particle" structure. And discreteness is the same as saying finite in number - and it is this finiteness that allow us to measure and percept all that is physical.
QUOTE: "In the end it still means that the "actual" available energy there is can be totalled by the smallest particle arrangement there is. But the smallest singular energy is "smallest arrangement dispersed into the volume of space" Or inconceivably small , even to the best imagination. It's smaller than an electron dispersed into the volume of space."
In the essence I totally agree - with this little restriction that energy involves size and size is relative and non-measurable. Smallest arrangement is inconcievably small (or inconcievably big in terms of inverse ratio - remember size is not an option)- and an electron dispersed in Universe is a BIG structure (or a big proportion). And in this respect humans are reluctant to accept the complexity and the "smallness and bigness" of nature. Humans have a lot of inertia in their imagination - and in order better to get an idea about mother nature we need to push all these constraints not just a little - we really need to take a big footstep.
BTW - you may have noticed that cinematographic existance imply that there is no deep difference between potential and kinetic - everything is essentially kinetic - but something is marginally more kinetic than others (and "others" in this context is everything that we like to call potential) and the difference between P and K is solely a question as to whether the kinetic is present (or not) relative to the frame that we decide to measure "motion" against.
Motion is a concept that we intuitively interpret wrongly or translated into plain words - "a concept that we do not understand"
Motion shouls be defined as" The dynamic rearrangement of smallets dimensionalities in ever changing patterns".
Physical Universe is based upon the axiomatic existance of:
1) Dimensionality (space) -
2) System (binary?) that divides space into ratios.
Yes - we see and define Energy as the sum of a dimension and a change - energy is a reflection of "Size and Change"
The smallest unit of energy is one oscillatary change of smallest dimensionality. Everything is being build or constructed out from this, so energy is constant provided that oscillation and (smallest) size- is constant.
And then what about size ? - well Universe has the size that Universe has - and everything in Univere is relative, and relativeness is being based upon ratios. Ratios can be measured with absolute accuratesse - size is unmeasurable.
So when saying that energy is constant it is more correct to say that energy is being measured out from an accurate RATIO of size - and that energy is a derived function. Or put into other words: - "Space has the amount of energy that space has" - like size of Universe. Instead of saying that energy is constant - it would be more correct to say that energy is infinite (or better non-defined), and we measure energy out from a relative size ratio. But we can infinitely (almost) downsize the units (increase the number of ratios) - the dimensionalities that are expressing energy. And when I say almost - it is because I like to think that PHYSICAL essentially involves discreteness - I simply cannot imagine physical without a kind of "particle" structure. And discreteness is the same as saying finite in number - and it is this finiteness that allow us to measure and percept all that is physical.
QUOTE: "In the end it still means that the "actual" available energy there is can be totalled by the smallest particle arrangement there is. But the smallest singular energy is "smallest arrangement dispersed into the volume of space" Or inconceivably small , even to the best imagination. It's smaller than an electron dispersed into the volume of space."
In the essence I totally agree - with this little restriction that energy involves size and size is relative and non-measurable. Smallest arrangement is inconcievably small (or inconcievably big in terms of inverse ratio - remember size is not an option)- and an electron dispersed in Universe is a BIG structure (or a big proportion). And in this respect humans are reluctant to accept the complexity and the "smallness and bigness" of nature. Humans have a lot of inertia in their imagination - and in order better to get an idea about mother nature we need to push all these constraints not just a little - we really need to take a big footstep.
BTW - you may have noticed that cinematographic existance imply that there is no deep difference between potential and kinetic - everything is essentially kinetic - but something is marginally more kinetic than others (and "others" in this context is everything that we like to call potential) and the difference between P and K is solely a question as to whether the kinetic is present (or not) relative to the frame that we decide to measure "motion" against.
Motion is a concept that we intuitively interpret wrongly or translated into plain words - "a concept that we do not understand"
Motion shouls be defined as" The dynamic rearrangement of smallets dimensionalities in ever changing patterns".
Physical Universe is based upon the axiomatic existance of:
1) Dimensionality (space) -
2) System (binary?) that divides space into ratios.
bukh,
Where does fundamental energy come from? Top down or bottom up? There are some things I totally agree with in the essence of what you are suggesting. I believe Protons are made from positrons and negitrons with one excess electron cycling into the proton bumping out a different electron.
I believe the pixels are the energy and rotating all the time. They also can be like water with water logging mass. Mass can effect the pixel size. A larger pixel size with more mass. Pixels can compress in fusion to create electron when the pixel motion is frozen. What is the pixel ratio to an electron?
Where does fundamental energy come from? Top down or bottom up? There are some things I totally agree with in the essence of what you are suggesting. I believe Protons are made from positrons and negitrons with one excess electron cycling into the proton bumping out a different electron.
I believe the pixels are the energy and rotating all the time. They also can be like water with water logging mass. Mass can effect the pixel size. A larger pixel size with more mass. Pixels can compress in fusion to create electron when the pixel motion is frozen. What is the pixel ratio to an electron?
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 16 2008, 12:26 PM)
Where does fundamental energy come from? Top down or bottom up? There are some things I totally agree with in the essence of what you are suggesting. I believe Protons are made from positrons and negitrons with one excess electron cycling into the proton bumping out a different electron.
What about deep inelastic scattering that proves the existence of quarks?
What about deep inelastic scattering that proves the existence of quarks?
Hej 4Dguy
QUOTE: "Where does fundamental energy come from? Top down or bottom up?"
Bottom up - definitely
If we define energy as the capacity of inducing change - then it is possible to imagine how information is the source of energy - or perhaps better - how information IS energy.
Information is everything - and information can express itsself - among others - in the form of Physical Universe.
In order to express itsself in a physical form - information must express itsself in the "language" of physical - and this language is: dynamically changing dimensionalities.
Smallest dimensionality can be seen as an informational bit, and any dimensionality can be seen a a well-defined informational content - an informational package, comprising of such smallest informational bits.
And then the question - why ? - why is the dimensionalities constantly rearranging - and here I postulate that all processes are driven by a gradient towards 3D harmony - and harmony means an absolutely ideal "fit", - that all dimensionalities fit into each other with no void - universe strives for arranging itsself in a complete and exact fit of all the dimensionalities. So each time a dimension is being rearranged there will wave-like rearranging activities spreading in all directions - (and vice-versa rearranging waves coming in from all directions).
When I say Pixel - it is not different from any other informational package or dimensionality in space - it just happens to be the SIZE of building blocks - the complexity - that we humans are "constructed" out from. And Pixels thereby become the frame out from which we humans percept physical universe - and the 3D pixel grid is the "frozen" relative frame out from which we humans percept motion.
QUOTE: "I believe the pixels are the energy and rotating all the time. They also can be like water with water logging mass. Mass can effect the pixel size. A larger pixel size with more mass."
Any change in our physical scale is being "played" by the 3D pixel grid, pixels are not rotating - they are just expressing their ON-status in a fashion that is approacing zero-motion - and it is this signal that makes the illusion of motion in our scale.
Mass is an inherent quality that relates to number of smallest informational bits involved in the construction of said dimensionality. So a pixel is well-defined concerning mass - provided that we are dealing with pixels of same informational content.
Pixel ratio to an electron - I would like to know - I can only say that it is most likely an awful lot.
QUOTE: "Where does fundamental energy come from? Top down or bottom up?"
Bottom up - definitely
If we define energy as the capacity of inducing change - then it is possible to imagine how information is the source of energy - or perhaps better - how information IS energy.
Information is everything - and information can express itsself - among others - in the form of Physical Universe.
In order to express itsself in a physical form - information must express itsself in the "language" of physical - and this language is: dynamically changing dimensionalities.
Smallest dimensionality can be seen as an informational bit, and any dimensionality can be seen a a well-defined informational content - an informational package, comprising of such smallest informational bits.
And then the question - why ? - why is the dimensionalities constantly rearranging - and here I postulate that all processes are driven by a gradient towards 3D harmony - and harmony means an absolutely ideal "fit", - that all dimensionalities fit into each other with no void - universe strives for arranging itsself in a complete and exact fit of all the dimensionalities. So each time a dimension is being rearranged there will wave-like rearranging activities spreading in all directions - (and vice-versa rearranging waves coming in from all directions).
When I say Pixel - it is not different from any other informational package or dimensionality in space - it just happens to be the SIZE of building blocks - the complexity - that we humans are "constructed" out from. And Pixels thereby become the frame out from which we humans percept physical universe - and the 3D pixel grid is the "frozen" relative frame out from which we humans percept motion.
QUOTE: "I believe the pixels are the energy and rotating all the time. They also can be like water with water logging mass. Mass can effect the pixel size. A larger pixel size with more mass."
Any change in our physical scale is being "played" by the 3D pixel grid, pixels are not rotating - they are just expressing their ON-status in a fashion that is approacing zero-motion - and it is this signal that makes the illusion of motion in our scale.
Mass is an inherent quality that relates to number of smallest informational bits involved in the construction of said dimensionality. So a pixel is well-defined concerning mass - provided that we are dealing with pixels of same informational content.
Pixel ratio to an electron - I would like to know - I can only say that it is most likely an awful lot.
bukh,
Than the pixels have to move to give electrons their movement.
Than the pixels have to move to give electrons their movement.
Any change in our physical scale is being "played" by the 3D pixel grid, pixels are not rotating - they are just expressing their ON-status in a fashion that is approacing zero-motion - and it is this signal that makes the illusion of motion in our scale.
It seems unlikely that the electron is always the same ratio in every frame unless the pixels are controlling both in a down up energy scenario. What moves the pixels ? Another dimension possibly? There is a standard that gives the ratio in relativity and if not the pixels, what? Electrons moving on their own without end and the relative ratio to light needs a standard between them. The standard can not be mass if light travels outside of mass. Light has to be a wave of pixels riding on pixel energy.
robots in disguise !
I'm not sure if that is what is meant by the poster, but all seems a little dodgy to me.
Just a liittle!
g.
QUOTE
Bottom up - definitely
Than the pixels have to move to give electrons their movement.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Bottom up - definitely |
Than the pixels have to move to give electrons their movement.
Any change in our physical scale is being "played" by the 3D pixel grid, pixels are not rotating - they are just expressing their ON-status in a fashion that is approacing zero-motion - and it is this signal that makes the illusion of motion in our scale.
It seems unlikely that the electron is always the same ratio in every frame unless the pixels are controlling both in a down up energy scenario. What moves the pixels ? Another dimension possibly? There is a standard that gives the ratio in relativity and if not the pixels, what? Electrons moving on their own without end and the relative ratio to light needs a standard between them. The standard can not be mass if light travels outside of mass. Light has to be a wave of pixels riding on pixel energy.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 16 2008, 12:47 PM)
What about deep inelastic scattering that proves the existence of quarks?
*cough*
*cough*
prometheus,
Quarks can not exist very long by themselves without the rest of them to form a proton or neutron. Yes I believe the dismantling of the proton moves it back up to energy (fission). Quarks I believe are made of positrons and negitrons.
Quarks can not exist very long by themselves without the rest of them to form a proton or neutron. Yes I believe the dismantling of the proton moves it back up to energy (fission). Quarks I believe are made of positrons and negitrons.
What the hell is a negitron?!
PS, quarks are perfectly well defined objects in bound states like protons and neutrons. You're getting mixed up with confinement I think.
PS, quarks are perfectly well defined objects in bound states like protons and neutrons. You're getting mixed up with confinement I think.
QUOTE
prometheus Posted on Today at 7:01 AM What the hell is a negitron
robots in disguise !
Hej 4Dguy
QUOTE: "Than the pixels have to move to give electrons their movement."
Well - no more than pixels of your TV screen has to move in order to "move" the golfball on the screen.
Energy is essentially change - and change is essentially about information. You need information in order to describe a picture - or in 3D to desribe a "figure" or a dimensionlity. And you need information to describe the next following in a row of changing dimensionalities - each been shown as a flash-expression - and the full movie-strip show a dimensionality moving in space. But there is no motion - it is all about reconfiguration / rearrangement of smallest building blocks in space which in one moment participate in the outlining - the definition of one dimensionality and the next following they are now defining another dimensionality - the building blocks never move as such - they just make a signal telling to where they belong - which dimensionality structure they are participating in.
QUOTE: "The standard can not be mass if light travels outside of mass. Light has to be a wave of pixels riding on pixel energy"
The definition of mass according to 3D pixel Universe is that mass of a said "particle" is directly proportional to the number of smallest dimensionalities involved in the expression / definition of said structure. Any and all physical expressions - and let us call them particles - are characterized by being into oscillating existance - and in physical universe human scale - all such physical structures are being played by the Pixels. (Pixels themselves are being constructed out from smaller structures - we can call them pixellinos - which themselves are being constructed out from even smaller - and so on - ad -- (infinitum ?)
A particle is being expressed as a repetition of a pattern played by a well-defined number of pixels. If the pixels involved are the same in each repetition - the particel will be at the same place of the pixel-screen (pixel-grid) - the particle will show no motion - and the mass of the particle will be exclusively potential mass. If each repetition is moved slowly over the pixel-screen some of the pixels in such a repetition will be the same as in the foregoing (potential mass) and some will be new involved pixels (kinetic mass). And in the extreme case that all the pixels in next repetition is new as compared from the foregoing - then all the mass will be kinetic - as is the case with a bosonic wave-expression of a photon. So a particle is defined as the combined expression of form and relative motion over the grid, respectively. As the combination of potential and kinetic. And that is how particles can transform from "particles" fermions and into "waves" bosons. A "particle" is characterized by standing circular wave structures and a wave is likewise characterized by non-circular wave structures. Angular momentum is the circular radius.
The fastes propagation over the pixel-grid is logically speed of light c. And a speed in physical universe must be the sum of size and repetition. Photon is a well-defined informational unit - it takes a well-defined time to repeate its exspression, and the sum is equal to c. Smaller informational units (in subquantum) will have a smaller size and a shorter repetition rate - and the sum will define the respective propagation rate. (Propagation rate of information is faster in smaller scales and slower in bigger scales - because information has to be "transported" from inside-out according to entropy-law).
So You can say that light as well as particles ride on pixel energy - and that pixel energy IS information. We just have to accustom our mind to this way of seeing energy.
QUOTE: "Than the pixels have to move to give electrons their movement."
Well - no more than pixels of your TV screen has to move in order to "move" the golfball on the screen.
Energy is essentially change - and change is essentially about information. You need information in order to describe a picture - or in 3D to desribe a "figure" or a dimensionlity. And you need information to describe the next following in a row of changing dimensionalities - each been shown as a flash-expression - and the full movie-strip show a dimensionality moving in space. But there is no motion - it is all about reconfiguration / rearrangement of smallest building blocks in space which in one moment participate in the outlining - the definition of one dimensionality and the next following they are now defining another dimensionality - the building blocks never move as such - they just make a signal telling to where they belong - which dimensionality structure they are participating in.
QUOTE: "The standard can not be mass if light travels outside of mass. Light has to be a wave of pixels riding on pixel energy"
The definition of mass according to 3D pixel Universe is that mass of a said "particle" is directly proportional to the number of smallest dimensionalities involved in the expression / definition of said structure. Any and all physical expressions - and let us call them particles - are characterized by being into oscillating existance - and in physical universe human scale - all such physical structures are being played by the Pixels. (Pixels themselves are being constructed out from smaller structures - we can call them pixellinos - which themselves are being constructed out from even smaller - and so on - ad -- (infinitum ?)
A particle is being expressed as a repetition of a pattern played by a well-defined number of pixels. If the pixels involved are the same in each repetition - the particel will be at the same place of the pixel-screen (pixel-grid) - the particle will show no motion - and the mass of the particle will be exclusively potential mass. If each repetition is moved slowly over the pixel-screen some of the pixels in such a repetition will be the same as in the foregoing (potential mass) and some will be new involved pixels (kinetic mass). And in the extreme case that all the pixels in next repetition is new as compared from the foregoing - then all the mass will be kinetic - as is the case with a bosonic wave-expression of a photon. So a particle is defined as the combined expression of form and relative motion over the grid, respectively. As the combination of potential and kinetic. And that is how particles can transform from "particles" fermions and into "waves" bosons. A "particle" is characterized by standing circular wave structures and a wave is likewise characterized by non-circular wave structures. Angular momentum is the circular radius.
The fastes propagation over the pixel-grid is logically speed of light c. And a speed in physical universe must be the sum of size and repetition. Photon is a well-defined informational unit - it takes a well-defined time to repeate its exspression, and the sum is equal to c. Smaller informational units (in subquantum) will have a smaller size and a shorter repetition rate - and the sum will define the respective propagation rate. (Propagation rate of information is faster in smaller scales and slower in bigger scales - because information has to be "transported" from inside-out according to entropy-law).
So You can say that light as well as particles ride on pixel energy - and that pixel energy IS information. We just have to accustom our mind to this way of seeing energy.
Prometheus
QUOTE: "What about deep inelastic scattering that proves the existence of quarks?"
I think that this should follow from the above explanation to 4Dguy - ?
Photon / electron is the smallest STABLE (sufficiently longlived to be detected under normal circumstances) informational units in physical human scale - (what we normally refer to as "Our Universe" - or all that is "Physical")
Quarks represent smaller and unstable informational units - being very shortlived and therefore not detectable under normal cirumstances - and probably also not existing or viable under normal physical conditions on earth. Such smaller informational units are being played by a pixel-pattern exactly like everything else - and they can show bosonic and fermionic behavior - and the "ratio" of bosonic/fermionic = potential / kinetic - is what defines the respective quarks. And likewise for leptons.
QUOTE: "What about deep inelastic scattering that proves the existence of quarks?"
I think that this should follow from the above explanation to 4Dguy - ?
Photon / electron is the smallest STABLE (sufficiently longlived to be detected under normal circumstances) informational units in physical human scale - (what we normally refer to as "Our Universe" - or all that is "Physical")
Quarks represent smaller and unstable informational units - being very shortlived and therefore not detectable under normal cirumstances - and probably also not existing or viable under normal physical conditions on earth. Such smaller informational units are being played by a pixel-pattern exactly like everything else - and they can show bosonic and fermionic behavior - and the "ratio" of bosonic/fermionic = potential / kinetic - is what defines the respective quarks. And likewise for leptons.
Hi Buhk.
One problem I see with your view is it's limitation to explaining a pixel "in situ". It does not attempt to show the energy "Before it was available". I guess this is the side I have concentrating on and not 'what energy does when we perceive it".
Motion , as being a cinematic 'joining the dots', I agree with. However , more important for me is how it changes to perceptible energy from 'whatever it was before we could perceive it' and then back to inperceptible, as it must do this for cinematic effect.
There is a great need for me, to be able to match or allow "macro behaviors" that are well documented by science. It is not enough to state behaviors that can not be readily tested unless they conform to and include behaviors are well known. For instance,
How does your view explain "action at a distance" and "constants" as well as "conservatism"....I know you have followed my postings, so understand where I am coming from. I guess I want to see why your view "proves" other puzzling aspects of scientific thought, not just putting forth one level of behavior but marrying that against all others.
Cheers
Iseason
One problem I see with your view is it's limitation to explaining a pixel "in situ". It does not attempt to show the energy "Before it was available". I guess this is the side I have concentrating on and not 'what energy does when we perceive it".
Motion , as being a cinematic 'joining the dots', I agree with. However , more important for me is how it changes to perceptible energy from 'whatever it was before we could perceive it' and then back to inperceptible, as it must do this for cinematic effect.
There is a great need for me, to be able to match or allow "macro behaviors" that are well documented by science. It is not enough to state behaviors that can not be readily tested unless they conform to and include behaviors are well known. For instance,
How does your view explain "action at a distance" and "constants" as well as "conservatism"....I know you have followed my postings, so understand where I am coming from. I guess I want to see why your view "proves" other puzzling aspects of scientific thought, not just putting forth one level of behavior but marrying that against all others.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 17 2008, 10:24 PM)
Quarks represent smaller and unstable informational units - being very shortlived and therefore not detectable under normal cirumstances - and probably also not existing or viable under normal physical conditions on earth.
Quarks are both stable and detected in experiments like the deep inelastic scattering I've already mentioned but also RHIC in the quark gloun plasma they make there.
As far as I can tell, this is gibberish.
Quarks are both stable and detected in experiments like the deep inelastic scattering I've already mentioned but also RHIC in the quark gloun plasma they make there.
QUOTE
Such smaller informational units are being played by a pixel-pattern exactly like everything else - and they can show bosonic and fermionic behavior - and the "ratio" of bosonic/fermionic = potential / kinetic - is what defines the respective quarks. And likewise for leptons.
As far as I can tell, this is gibberish.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 17 2008, 09:01 PM)
What the hell is a negitron?!
A Negitron is some kind of negative thought and is language often used by used by 'Cosmic Spiritualist' types 'Ufo' fanatics and is mysteriously and (IMO) erroneously tied up with Christianity and technology. It is also meant to be the opposite to a Positron There are other possible interperatations.
After a google search, here is an example of the kind of site that uses this language.
Cosmic Mission
Circuit
I'm not sure if that is what is meant by the poster, but all seems a little dodgy to me.
A Negitron is some kind of negative thought and is language often used by used by 'Cosmic Spiritualist' types 'Ufo' fanatics and is mysteriously and (IMO) erroneously tied up with Christianity and technology. It is also meant to be the opposite to a Positron There are other possible interperatations.
After a google search, here is an example of the kind of site that uses this language.
Cosmic Mission
Circuit
I'm not sure if that is what is meant by the poster, but all seems a little dodgy to me.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jul 17 2008, 11:20 PM)
I'm not sure if that is what is meant by the poster, but all seems a little dodgy to me.
Just a liittle!
g.
prometheus
QUOTE: "Quarks are both stable and detected in experiments like the deep inelastic scattering I've already mentioned but also RHIC in the quark gloun plasma they make there."
Well - RHIC is not a very common physical conditions - and stableness must be a relative concept - it is solely a matter of how longlasting an expression is: - "sufficiently longlived to be detected under normal circumstances" as I said
QUOTE: "Such smaller informational units are being played by a pixel-pattern exactly like everything else - and they can show bosonic and fermionic behavior - and the "ratio" of bosonic/fermionic = potential / kinetic - is what defines the respective quarks. And likewise for leptons.
As far as I can tell, this is gibberish."
Well - not mainstream - and you may be right that it is gibberish
QUOTE: "Quarks are both stable and detected in experiments like the deep inelastic scattering I've already mentioned but also RHIC in the quark gloun plasma they make there."
Well - RHIC is not a very common physical conditions - and stableness must be a relative concept - it is solely a matter of how longlasting an expression is: - "sufficiently longlived to be detected under normal circumstances" as I said
QUOTE: "Such smaller informational units are being played by a pixel-pattern exactly like everything else - and they can show bosonic and fermionic behavior - and the "ratio" of bosonic/fermionic = potential / kinetic - is what defines the respective quarks. And likewise for leptons.
As far as I can tell, this is gibberish."
Well - not mainstream - and you may be right that it is gibberish
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 18 2008, 10:44 AM)
Well - RHIC is not a very common physical conditions - and stableness must be a relative concept - it is solely a matter of how longlasting an expression is: - "sufficiently longlived to be detected under normal circumstances" as I said
Just because they can't be detected under "normal circumstances" (whatever that may mean) doesn't mean they aren't there. We know virtual particles are there by Lamb shift but we can't detect them directly in an experiment.
I'm trying to emphasise to you that quarks are real particles that definitely exist.
Just because they can't be detected under "normal circumstances" (whatever that may mean) doesn't mean they aren't there. We know virtual particles are there by Lamb shift but we can't detect them directly in an experiment.
I'm trying to emphasise to you that quarks are real particles that definitely exist.
prometheus,
Negatron is an electron with the opposite spin of the positron. I am not sure about the spelling. Usually considered anti-matter. Electrons were distinguished between their spins this way. I am sorry for the confusion.
Quarks alone are not stable. They are only stable in the proton and neutron. The quarks opposing spin disassembles itself into energy.
Negatron is an electron with the opposite spin of the positron. I am not sure about the spelling. Usually considered anti-matter. Electrons were distinguished between their spins this way. I am sorry for the confusion.
Quarks alone are not stable. They are only stable in the proton and neutron. The quarks opposing spin disassembles itself into energy.
prometeus
I know what You mean - I am just mentioning with low voice that such a thing as "particles that definitely exist" is not a well defined fish.
We are all on deep water when we like to define: "what really exist" !!
And that is the reason why I try to be a little cautious and try to relate existance to a kind of "lastingness" - but it is all about definitions - and provided that we keep exact definitions there is no problem to say that something "exists"
gibberish or not - time will tell
I know what You mean - I am just mentioning with low voice that such a thing as "particles that definitely exist" is not a well defined fish.
We are all on deep water when we like to define: "what really exist" !!
And that is the reason why I try to be a little cautious and try to relate existance to a kind of "lastingness" - but it is all about definitions - and provided that we keep exact definitions there is no problem to say that something "exists"
gibberish or not - time will tell
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 18 2008, 11:15 AM)
Negatron is an electron with the opposite spin of the positron. I am not sure about the spelling. Usually considered anti-matter. Electrons were distinguished between their spins this way. I am sorry for the confusion.
Define "opposite spin." Both electrons and positrons has a spin of 1/2 which is to say they exist in two spin states for a given axis, -1/2 and +1/2 (often called spin up and spin down). That means there are four possible "particles" spin up electron and positron and spin down positron and electron. There is no difference between electrons and negatrons by your definition, so why call it a negatron?
Quarks alone are not stable. They are only stable in the proton and neutron. The quarks opposing spin disassembles itself into energy.
Quarks alone are stable, as evidenced by quark gluon plasma produced at RHIC. When quarks and gluons are at low temperature and are confined, it would take an infinite amount of energy to introduce a free quark, which is kind of the definition of confined. Have a read about QCD which you need to really understand quarks.
The last sentence is completely meaningless. What is energy? when you're talking about quantum field theories, particles generally decay into lighter particles, and the lightest particles are massless - photons, gluons etc.
This is an absolute lie. The username is clearly spelled out in lower case.
g.
Define "opposite spin." Both electrons and positrons has a spin of 1/2 which is to say they exist in two spin states for a given axis, -1/2 and +1/2 (often called spin up and spin down). That means there are four possible "particles" spin up electron and positron and spin down positron and electron. There is no difference between electrons and negatrons by your definition, so why call it a negatron?
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 18 2008, 11:15 AM)
Quarks alone are not stable. They are only stable in the proton and neutron. The quarks opposing spin disassembles itself into energy.
Quarks alone are stable, as evidenced by quark gluon plasma produced at RHIC. When quarks and gluons are at low temperature and are confined, it would take an infinite amount of energy to introduce a free quark, which is kind of the definition of confined. Have a read about QCD which you need to really understand quarks.
The last sentence is completely meaningless. What is energy? when you're talking about quantum field theories, particles generally decay into lighter particles, and the lightest particles are massless - photons, gluons etc.
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 18 2008, 12:05 PM)
I know what You mean - I am just mentioning with low voice that such a thing as "particles that definitely exist" is not a well defined fish.
We are all on deep water when we like to define: "what really exist" !!
To a physicist, something exists if you can detect it in an experiment. Quarks, virtual particles, neutrinos etc all exist by this definition.
We are all on deep water when we like to define: "what really exist" !!
To a physicist, something exists if you can detect it in an experiment. Quarks, virtual particles, neutrinos etc all exist by this definition.
prometheus
not to twist words - but what then about such things that cannot be detected - do they then either not exist - or do they potentally exist ?
the question of course implicate that there must be some considerations as to whether elementary particles pops into existance out of nothing or they originate out from something that is not "physically" detectable.
not to twist words - but what then about such things that cannot be detected - do they then either not exist - or do they potentally exist ?
the question of course implicate that there must be some considerations as to whether elementary particles pops into existance out of nothing or they originate out from something that is not "physically" detectable.
QUOTE
Dear DavidD - My username is spelt P R O M E T H E U S
This is an absolute lie. The username is clearly spelled out in lower case.
g.
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 18 2008, 01:01 PM)
not to twist words - but what then about such things that cannot be detected - do they then either not exist - or do they potentally exist ?
quarks and virtual particles can and have been detected. Quarks directly through DIS and virtual particles indirectly by Lamb shift. They exist.
quarks and virtual particles can and have been detected. Quarks directly through DIS and virtual particles indirectly by Lamb shift. They exist.
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 18 2008, 01:01 PM)
the question of course implicate that there must be some considerations as to whether elementary particles pops into existance out of nothing or they originate out from something that is not "physically" detectable.
That is a question for quantum field theory. If you don't know any then you won't understand this too much, but particles can and do "pop into existence" from nothing in the form of vacuum to vacuum amplitudes. Note the word vacuum in this context means completely empty space. Not the random zero point energy quantum vacuum that you hear about.
That is a question for quantum field theory. If you don't know any then you won't understand this too much, but particles can and do "pop into existence" from nothing in the form of vacuum to vacuum amplitudes. Note the word vacuum in this context means completely empty space. Not the random zero point energy quantum vacuum that you hear about.
Hej prometheus
QUOTE: "Note the word vacuum in this context means completely empty space"
Well - on that we do not agree.
You are in your good right to say that space is absolutely empty - and I would like to think that space is totally filled up by subquantum structures - immensely complex and scalewise ordered into infinitely small structures.
QUOTE: "Note the word vacuum in this context means completely empty space"
Well - on that we do not agree.
You are in your good right to say that space is absolutely empty - and I would like to think that space is totally filled up by subquantum structures - immensely complex and scalewise ordered into infinitely small structures.
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 18 2008, 04:15 PM)
Hej prometheus
QUOTE: "Note the word vacuum in this context means completely empty space"
Well - on that we do not agree.
You are in your good right to say that space is absolutely empty - and I would like to think that space is totally filled up by subquantum structures - immensely complex and scalewise ordered into infinitely small structures.
What does that mean? There's no theory I know of that predicts "subquantum" structure. Is this something you are making up as you go along?
QUOTE: "Note the word vacuum in this context means completely empty space"
Well - on that we do not agree.
You are in your good right to say that space is absolutely empty - and I would like to think that space is totally filled up by subquantum structures - immensely complex and scalewise ordered into infinitely small structures.
What does that mean? There's no theory I know of that predicts "subquantum" structure. Is this something you are making up as you go along?
prometheus
QUOTE: "What does that mean? There's no theory I know of that predicts "subquantum" structure."
pity -
actually there are probably as yet no "theories" but just call them ideas -
QUOTE: "What does that mean? There's no theory I know of that predicts "subquantum" structure."
pity -
actually there are probably as yet no "theories" but just call them ideas -
The really important point is does any of this subquantum structure make any difference to experiments. The answer to this is emphatically no, because quantum fluctuations would kill it all.
If there are no consequences then it is irrelevant, whether you think it is interesting or not.
If there are no consequences then it is irrelevant, whether you think it is interesting or not.
prometheus,
Does that include the big bang?
Its interesting how something that is not known can be killed by quantum fluctuations. Especially since the sub-quantum could be causing the quantum fluctuations.
QUOTE
The really important point is does any of this subquantum structure make any difference to experiments. The answer to this is emphatically no, because quantum fluctuations would kill it all.
If there are no consequences then it is irrelevant, whether you think it is interesting or not.
If there are no consequences then it is irrelevant, whether you think it is interesting or not.
Does that include the big bang?
Its interesting how something that is not known can be killed by quantum fluctuations. Especially since the sub-quantum could be causing the quantum fluctuations.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jul 18 2008, 09:16 PM)
prometheus,
Does that include the big bang?
Its interesting how something that is not known can be killed by quantum fluctuations. Especially since the sub-quantum could be causing the quantum fluctuations.
That includes the big bang, and sub quantum stuff is still irrelevant, unless you can show how they affect the quantum fluctuations, which are essentially random so it's hard to see how anything would really change what we think already.
Does that include the big bang?
Its interesting how something that is not known can be killed by quantum fluctuations. Especially since the sub-quantum could be causing the quantum fluctuations.
That includes the big bang, and sub quantum stuff is still irrelevant, unless you can show how they affect the quantum fluctuations, which are essentially random so it's hard to see how anything would really change what we think already.
Hi 4Dguy, prometheus, bukh et al,
Sorry to barge in again on this thread...
Sorry to barge in again on this thread...
QUOTE (prometheus+)
That includes the big bang, and sub quantum stuff is still irrelevant, unless you can show how they affect the quantum fluctuations, which are essentially random so it's hard to see how anything would really change what we think already.
Regarding virtual particles and virtual photons... The idea of totally random processes being required to provide a necessary connection with a theory based on reality requires us to consider what these "packets" mean. I realize that QFT is fraught with deep complexity and my level of understanding is relatively "superficial" in these matters. I have a deep abiding conviction that all this "means something" much deeper than some kind of adiabatic corrections to systems. The reason why this must have meaning is these particles should form a class of measurables in the system. In some systems they are indeed something measurable... In electromagnetism they provide the currents and the forces in wires and yet they are not visible entities as such. Nothing could be more "real" than that yet they are not part of our set of measurables. Here is another short but authoritative reference to provide an idea of what I am getting at...
As to "sub-quantum" phenomena and the Planck Length and "stuff" going on down there... I think that it is physically meaningless and based on some quite odd assumptions that have no formal proof and are then treated as axiomatic. For instance that quantum foam "down among the dead men" seem implausible... these phenomena would suggest that there are small scale (physically small) fluctuations leading to spactime being broken up at these short ranges. Yet the enigma about this is the scale of such fluctuations would suggest energies greater than a galaxy exploding to produce even one of these minute phenomena. This is because E = hf and to have an artifact the size of a Planck Length would require energies "way off the scale" of our normal levels of measuring. Regardless of the calculations which appear to show there are finite possibilities that such energies may occur at this scale to stir this Dirac Sea I look at the "instruction" of what we can see at the level of Quantum Electrodynamics and there are no "disturbances" to be seen there and I think that some of this renormalization theory would be avoided if we did not insist on the concept of a compact "particle". One of the "theories" that are incomplete is that this "renormalization" exists because asymptotically free particles in HEP are not guided by the "ladder" of the state space which breaks down into a continuum at extreme high energies. The "appears" to be a very important inconsistency. I am personally "plugging for" a reciprocally connected "state space"... these relate to Fourier Modes in spacetime and not "discrete particle modes". The quanta appear to be packets that are defined by the cavity space and not entirely defined by interactions. In fact the quanta is more accurately defined by "non-interaction" than by it's interactions. Low energy and quantum non-locality are the most important aspects of our Universe these are not covered by HEP as well as might be argued. I think there is a general "dismissal" of low energy physics as being the "other" in this conversation and a non-included aspect. If we think for a minute and consider this it is low energy interaction that defines what it is for us to be human. Quantum Electrodynamics are the processes which are known to exist and define our level of the Universe. QCD is the next level and the particles at that level (if one could call them that) are mostly never seen as "entities" and only inferred from other processes (there are no actual "Quark Detectors"... it would be "futile" to even attempt to build such a device). For instance quarks are never seen as a single entity since this Universe would tend to "hide" the influence of this bare quark from observation. Alternatively I would prefer to think of it quite differently and say the quark is more a reflection of "deep structure" and is not really a "particle" and that means it is not able to be isolated (obvious when you think about it... of course there is apparently nothing "obvious" to those who do "Quantum Physics", a formalism that "must be obeyed").
The isolated particle infers ... deconstructionism... and that is the way 20th and early 21st Century man views the Universe but it is also possible and I would say in the light of recent experiments that the Universe is more like a Hologram than a Lego Building Kit. The Lego kit is made of blocks (... as children all know) the assumption is our Universe is very much like a children's construction kit, each block being able to exist by itself and all things are constructable through some "assembly". The truth is and the truth of this thread relies on the fact that these blocks of "stuff" cannot exist outside of spacetime and need time in which the signals and processes communicate. At that level at least the ruling paradigm must be wrong. I "feel" more inclined and influenced by the results of experiment that the right course of action is tho look at this space as existing alongside of this "block" and this "block" being a truly extended object. For instance it is arguably true that every particle of mass in the universe is "connected" to every other particle of mass through "Mach's Principle".The influence of "matter" never dies, the de Broglie Matter Wave is "space filling" as "interferences" but still entirely quantized. They penetrate everything and they are "relentless" joining everything with mass together right out to the distant stars. I have referenced some interesting experiments in a reference below that show this very subtle truth. This conveys the particles inertia and spacetime curvature contribution even for one sub-atomic particle reaches not to the next particle but to "infinity and possibly even beyond". I say "beyond" since current renormalization does not take into account any infinities or contributions that have come from the distant parts of our Universe yet there are experiments that show there very well may be such contributions and they occur with the infinite speed of "entanglement". The "Distant Universe" is not as far away as we may have formerly thought. I disagree that this Legoland is the way it truly is and the meaning is being lost because of our habitual deconstructionism.
The universe can be experimentally shown and confirmed to be entirely "non-local" and some experiments are quite interesting regarding all this... For those wanting to look into some aspects of these experiments you may look here (and the reference below).. Non-locality shows that a particle can exist in this way...
QUOTE
Virtual photons
The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.
When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.
http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/documents/PUS/...tual_photon.htm
So in one sense of the word the meaning of our physics is closely connected with interpreting of the virtual particles. The "rest" in QFT are buried in layer upon layer of "detail" such that we are unable to extract truly meaningful and observable entities from it. In High Energy Physics the lifetimes of a particle may be so short that it is never directly measured and only a shower of short lived entities are all that remains. A lot depends on the symmetry alone. It is not as if anyone is even going to be able to hold a Higgs Boson in their hands or even "glimpse" it's underlying meaning even if it is discovered. What we can know about are the virtual photons and their interactions which are what those detectors are actually responding to anyway... I do not accept the Mathematicians view of "reality". Physics is "utilitarian" and must be interpreted as phenomena. I am unsure that we are dealing with "phenomena" when analyzing those showers of particles and through their symmetry we infer the existence of "particles".The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.
When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.
http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/documents/PUS/...tual_photon.htm
As to "sub-quantum" phenomena and the Planck Length and "stuff" going on down there... I think that it is physically meaningless and based on some quite odd assumptions that have no formal proof and are then treated as axiomatic. For instance that quantum foam "down among the dead men" seem implausible... these phenomena would suggest that there are small scale (physically small) fluctuations leading to spactime being broken up at these short ranges. Yet the enigma about this is the scale of such fluctuations would suggest energies greater than a galaxy exploding to produce even one of these minute phenomena. This is because E = hf and to have an artifact the size of a Planck Length would require energies "way off the scale" of our normal levels of measuring. Regardless of the calculations which appear to show there are finite possibilities that such energies may occur at this scale to stir this Dirac Sea I look at the "instruction" of what we can see at the level of Quantum Electrodynamics and there are no "disturbances" to be seen there and I think that some of this renormalization theory would be avoided if we did not insist on the concept of a compact "particle". One of the "theories" that are incomplete is that this "renormalization" exists because asymptotically free particles in HEP are not guided by the "ladder" of the state space which breaks down into a continuum at extreme high energies. The "appears" to be a very important inconsistency. I am personally "plugging for" a reciprocally connected "state space"... these relate to Fourier Modes in spacetime and not "discrete particle modes". The quanta appear to be packets that are defined by the cavity space and not entirely defined by interactions. In fact the quanta is more accurately defined by "non-interaction" than by it's interactions. Low energy and quantum non-locality are the most important aspects of our Universe these are not covered by HEP as well as might be argued. I think there is a general "dismissal" of low energy physics as being the "other" in this conversation and a non-included aspect. If we think for a minute and consider this it is low energy interaction that defines what it is for us to be human. Quantum Electrodynamics are the processes which are known to exist and define our level of the Universe. QCD is the next level and the particles at that level (if one could call them that) are mostly never seen as "entities" and only inferred from other processes (there are no actual "Quark Detectors"... it would be "futile" to even attempt to build such a device). For instance quarks are never seen as a single entity since this Universe would tend to "hide" the influence of this bare quark from observation. Alternatively I would prefer to think of it quite differently and say the quark is more a reflection of "deep structure" and is not really a "particle" and that means it is not able to be isolated (obvious when you think about it... of course there is apparently nothing "obvious" to those who do "Quantum Physics", a formalism that "must be obeyed").
The isolated particle infers ... deconstructionism... and that is the way 20th and early 21st Century man views the Universe but it is also possible and I would say in the light of recent experiments that the Universe is more like a Hologram than a Lego Building Kit. The Lego kit is made of blocks (... as children all know) the assumption is our Universe is very much like a children's construction kit, each block being able to exist by itself and all things are constructable through some "assembly". The truth is and the truth of this thread relies on the fact that these blocks of "stuff" cannot exist outside of spacetime and need time in which the signals and processes communicate. At that level at least the ruling paradigm must be wrong. I "feel" more inclined and influenced by the results of experiment that the right course of action is tho look at this space as existing alongside of this "block" and this "block" being a truly extended object. For instance it is arguably true that every particle of mass in the universe is "connected" to every other particle of mass through "Mach's Principle".The influence of "matter" never dies, the de Broglie Matter Wave is "space filling" as "interferences" but still entirely quantized. They penetrate everything and they are "relentless" joining everything with mass together right out to the distant stars. I have referenced some interesting experiments in a reference below that show this very subtle truth. This conveys the particles inertia and spacetime curvature contribution even for one sub-atomic particle reaches not to the next particle but to "infinity and possibly even beyond". I say "beyond" since current renormalization does not take into account any infinities or contributions that have come from the distant parts of our Universe yet there are experiments that show there very well may be such contributions and they occur with the infinite speed of "entanglement". The "Distant Universe" is not as far away as we may have formerly thought. I disagree that this Legoland is the way it truly is and the meaning is being lost because of our habitual deconstructionism.
The universe can be experimentally shown and confirmed to be entirely "non-local" and some experiments are quite interesting regarding all this... For those wanting to look into some aspects of these experiments you may look here (and the reference below).. Non-locality shows that a particle can exist in this way...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Virtual photons The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other. When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles. http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/documents/PUS/...tual_photon.htm |
So in one sense of the word the meaning of our physics is closely connected with interpreting of the virtual particles. The "rest" in QFT are buried in layer upon layer of "detail" such that we are unable to extract truly meaningful and observable entities from it. In High Energy Physics the lifetimes of a particle may be so short that it is never directly measured and only a shower of short lived entities are all that remains. A lot depends on the symmetry alone. It is not as if anyone is even going to be able to hold a Higgs Boson in their hands or even "glimpse" it's underlying meaning even if it is discovered. What we can know about are the virtual photons and their interactions which are what those detectors are actually responding to anyway... I do not accept the Mathematicians view of "reality". Physics is "utilitarian" and must be interpreted as phenomena. I am unsure that we are dealing with "phenomena" when analyzing those showers of particles and through their symmetry we infer the existence of "particles".
As to "sub-quantum" phenomena and the Planck Length and "stuff" going on down there... I think that it is physically meaningless and based on some quite odd assumptions that have no formal proof and are then treated as axiomatic. For instance that quantum foam "down among the dead men" seem implausible... these phenomena would suggest that there are small scale (physically small) fluctuations leading to spactime being broken up at these short ranges. Yet the enigma about this is the scale of such fluctuations would suggest energies greater than a galaxy exploding to produce even one of these minute phenomena. This is because E = hf and to have an artifact the size of a Planck Length would require energies "way off the scale" of our normal levels of measuring. Regardless of the calculations which appear to show there are finite possibilities that such energies may occur at this scale to stir this Dirac Sea I look at the "instruction" of what we can see at the level of Quantum Electrodynamics and there are no "disturbances" to be seen there and I think that some of this renormalization theory would be avoided if we did not insist on the concept of a compact "particle". One of the "theories" that are incomplete is that this "renormalization" exists because asymptotically free particles in HEP are not guided by the "ladder" of the state space which breaks down into a continuum at extreme high energies. The "appears" to be a very important inconsistency. I am personally "plugging for" a reciprocally connected "state space"... these relate to Fourier Modes in spacetime and not "discrete particle modes". The quanta appear to be packets that are defined by the cavity space and not entirely defined by interactions. In fact the quanta is more accurately defined by "non-interaction" than by it's interactions. Low energy and quantum non-locality are the most important aspects of our Universe these are not covered by HEP as well as might be argued. I think there is a general "dismissal" of low energy physics as being the "other" in this conversation and a non-included aspect. If we think for a minute and consider this it is low energy interaction that defines what it is for us to be human. Quantum Electrodynamics are the processes which are known to exist and define our level of the Universe. QCD is the next level and the particles at that level (if one could call them that) are mostly never seen as "entities" and only inferred from other processes (there are no actual "Quark Detectors"... it would be "futile" to even attempt to build such a device). For instance quarks are never seen as a single entity since this Universe would tend to "hide" the influence of this bare quark from observation. Alternatively I would prefer to think of it quite differently and say the quark is more a reflection of "deep structure" and is not really a "particle" and that means it is not able to be isolated (obvious when you think about it... of course there is apparently nothing "obvious" to those who do "Quantum Physics", a formalism that "must be obeyed").
The isolated particle infers ... deconstructionism... and that is the way 20th and early 21st Century man views the Universe but it is also possible and I would say in the light of recent experiments that the Universe is more like a Hologram than a Lego Building Kit. The Lego kit is made of blocks (... as children all know) the assumption is our Universe is very much like a children's construction kit, each block being able to exist by itself and all things are constructable through some "assembly". The truth is and the truth of this thread relies on the fact that these blocks of "stuff" cannot exist outside of spacetime and need time in which the signals and processes communicate. At that level at least the ruling paradigm must be wrong. I "feel" more inclined and influenced by the results of experiment that the right course of action is tho look at this space as existing alongside of this "block" and this "block" being a truly extended object. For instance it is arguably true that every particle of mass in the universe is "connected" to every other particle of mass through "Mach's Principle".The influence of "matter" never dies, the de Broglie Matter Wave is "space filling" as "interferences" but still entirely quantized. They penetrate everything and they are "relentless" joining everything with mass together right out to the distant stars. I have referenced some interesting experiments in a reference below that show this very subtle truth. This conveys the particles inertia and spacetime curvature contribution even for one sub-atomic particle reaches not to the next particle but to "infinity and possibly even beyond". I say "beyond" since current renormalization does not take into account any infinities or contributions that have come from the distant parts of our Universe yet there are experiments that show there very well may be such contributions and they occur with the infinite speed of "entanglement". The "Distant Universe" is not as far away as we may have formerly thought. I disagree that this Legoland is the way it truly is and the meaning is being lost because of our habitual deconstructionism.
The universe can be experimentally shown and confirmed to be entirely "non-local" and some experiments are quite interesting regarding all this... For those wanting to look into some aspects of these experiments you may look here (and the reference below).. Non-locality shows that a particle can exist in this way...
If a "packet" does spread then it's final position in a cavity will depend on where it is detected. I can choose (this is not "Jedi Knight" stuff...) where in a resonant cavity to detect a particular photon emitted from a coherent source. I simply make the cavity 'almost" perfectly reflecting and I place a resonant element in that cavity "tuned" to the source using conventional waveguide theory. Lo and behold I can "receive" each emitted photon with near to perfect "fidelity" as individual photon transactions in the cavity. Quantum Theory "forbids" this kind of knowledge but it is very possible using "squeezed states"... and that is what we are doing here (I have discussed the experimental results of that previously). It is also very clear to me and can be clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that each photon "knows" about the entire cavity even though it has not been there and travels directly from source to sink (detector). Once again this is no "Jedi Knight" Effect unless you think tuning your radio is "mind over matter".
Post By Good Elf
IMHO Some more interesting references regarding this topic by Good Elf
So I am not happy with deconstructionism regarding Quantum Theory and the quantum i
As to "sub-quantum" phenomena and the Planck Length and "stuff" going on down there... I think that it is physically meaningless and based on some quite odd assumptions that have no formal proof and are then treated as axiomatic. For instance that quantum foam "down among the dead men" seem implausible... these phenomena would suggest that there are small scale (physically small) fluctuations leading to spactime being broken up at these short ranges. Yet the enigma about this is the scale of such fluctuations would suggest energies greater than a galaxy exploding to produce even one of these minute phenomena. This is because E = hf and to have an artifact the size of a Planck Length would require energies "way off the scale" of our normal levels of measuring. Regardless of the calculations which appear to show there are finite possibilities that such energies may occur at this scale to stir this Dirac Sea I look at the "instruction" of what we can see at the level of Quantum Electrodynamics and there are no "disturbances" to be seen there and I think that some of this renormalization theory would be avoided if we did not insist on the concept of a compact "particle". One of the "theories" that are incomplete is that this "renormalization" exists because asymptotically free particles in HEP are not guided by the "ladder" of the state space which breaks down into a continuum at extreme high energies. The "appears" to be a very important inconsistency. I am personally "plugging for" a reciprocally connected "state space"... these relate to Fourier Modes in spacetime and not "discrete particle modes". The quanta appear to be packets that are defined by the cavity space and not entirely defined by interactions. In fact the quanta is more accurately defined by "non-interaction" than by it's interactions. Low energy and quantum non-locality are the most important aspects of our Universe these are not covered by HEP as well as might be argued. I think there is a general "dismissal" of low energy physics as being the "other" in this conversation and a non-included aspect. If we think for a minute and consider this it is low energy interaction that defines what it is for us to be human. Quantum Electrodynamics are the processes which are known to exist and define our level of the Universe. QCD is the next level and the particles at that level (if one could call them that) are mostly never seen as "entities" and only inferred from other processes (there are no actual "Quark Detectors"... it would be "futile" to even attempt to build such a device). For instance quarks are never seen as a single entity since this Universe would tend to "hide" the influence of this bare quark from observation. Alternatively I would prefer to think of it quite differently and say the quark is more a reflection of "deep structure" and is not really a "particle" and that means it is not able to be isolated (obvious when you think about it... of course there is apparently nothing "obvious" to those who do "Quantum Physics", a formalism that "must be obeyed").
The isolated particle infers ... deconstructionism... and that is the way 20th and early 21st Century man views the Universe but it is also possible and I would say in the light of recent experiments that the Universe is more like a Hologram than a Lego Building Kit. The Lego kit is made of blocks (... as children all know) the assumption is our Universe is very much like a children's construction kit, each block being able to exist by itself and all things are constructable through some "assembly". The truth is and the truth of this thread relies on the fact that these blocks of "stuff" cannot exist outside of spacetime and need time in which the signals and processes communicate. At that level at least the ruling paradigm must be wrong. I "feel" more inclined and influenced by the results of experiment that the right course of action is tho look at this space as existing alongside of this "block" and this "block" being a truly extended object. For instance it is arguably true that every particle of mass in the universe is "connected" to every other particle of mass through "Mach's Principle".The influence of "matter" never dies, the de Broglie Matter Wave is "space filling" as "interferences" but still entirely quantized. They penetrate everything and they are "relentless" joining everything with mass together right out to the distant stars. I have referenced some interesting experiments in a reference below that show this very subtle truth. This conveys the particles inertia and spacetime curvature contribution even for one sub-atomic particle reaches not to the next particle but to "infinity and possibly even beyond". I say "beyond" since current renormalization does not take into account any infinities or contributions that have come from the distant parts of our Universe yet there are experiments that show there very well may be such contributions and they occur with the infinite speed of "entanglement". The "Distant Universe" is not as far away as we may have formerly thought. I disagree that this Legoland is the way it truly is and the meaning is being lost because of our habitual deconstructionism.
The universe can be experimentally shown and confirmed to be entirely "non-local" and some experiments are quite interesting regarding all this... For those wanting to look into some aspects of these experiments you may look here (and the reference below).. Non-locality shows that a particle can exist in this way...
If a "packet" does spread then it's final position in a cavity will depend on where it is detected. I can choose (this is not "Jedi Knight" stuff...) where in a resonant cavity to detect a particular photon emitted from a coherent source. I simply make the cavity 'almost" perfectly reflecting and I place a resonant element in that cavity "tuned" to the source using conventional waveguide theory. Lo and behold I can "receive" each emitted photon with near to perfect "fidelity" as individual photon transactions in the cavity. Quantum Theory "forbids" this kind of knowledge but it is very possible using "squeezed states"... and that is what we are doing here (I have discussed the experimental results of that previously). It is also very clear to me and can be clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that each photon "knows" about the entire cavity even though it has not been there and travels directly from source to sink (detector). Once again this is no "Jedi Knight" Effect unless you think tuning your radio is "mind over matter".
Post By Good Elf
IMHO Some more interesting references regarding this topic by Good Elf
So I am not happy with deconstructionism regarding Quantum Theory and the quantum i