Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Balls
Stability as Cosmic Foundation: Rethinking Reality's Underlying Architecture!
- Thread starter seddighrigi
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This isn't science, I'm afraid.
seddighrigi
Registered Member
The way I understand your idea, youre suggesting that instead of external forces determining the paths of quantum particles, the particles themselves seek the least cost of self-maintenance. This perspective could be a different way to approach spacetime, where paths emerge naturally rather than being imposed by gravity or curvature ..? This idea connects interestingly to Stability Theory, which proposes that balance and coherence are linked to stability itself rather than separate forces acting on matter and energy. If this principle holds across quantum and cosmic scales, it could add an important layer to understanding systems.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Nope, word salad.
Niccodeamus
Registered Member
What is science? Obviously I don’t have the means to test anything. Anything theoretical is done in the mind, on paper, in the pub. What definitely isn’t science is to dismiss ideas for dogmatic reasons, dogma is for the religions. Science is about exploring ideas and putting them to bed when they are falsified. ‘Balls’ is up there with creationists at their most skilful. ‘This isn’t science’ is possibly valid but, without evidence, without addressing the idea, is itself not science.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
No, I am dismissing your ideas because you are just stringing scientific terms together and making sentences.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Scientific theories, or hypotheses, have a meaning clear enough to enable them to be put to the test -at least in principle - by observation of nature. What you have written seems close to meaningless. What can be meant by " The quanta follow a contour of self preservation or least cost, they are not pushed or pulled, it’s more of a self imposed ‘spacetime’ "?
What is a contour of self-preservation? How would one observe such a "contour", or show that a "quantum" (of what?) was following one?
What does "least cost" mean. Cost in terms of what quantity? In what circumstances would a quantum (of what?) experience a "cost" and how would this be manifest? Is this possibly a coded reference to the principle of least action? If that is what you mean you should say so.
You see? At the moment there's just nothing here one can get hold of and relate to anything in the physical world.
P.S. Your reference to "dogma" earns you 20 crank points by the way, straight off the bat, because that is boilerplate crankspeak. Nobody is dismissing what you have written due to "dogma". The criticism is that you have not described anything physical. If you want the discussion to continue, don't throw accusations about dogma around. It is for you to sharpen up your ideas so that they have a recognisable physical meaning. At present they invite Pauli's comment: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch" , i.e not even wrong.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
It is not a theory, it is something you made up. Third or fourth time this has been pointed out to you.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Some maths would certainly be a good start.
The ideas being presented here are not falsifiable, since they make no predictions. Which is why they're merely ideas, not hypotheses, not theories.
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." is definitely a scientific principle.
Niccodeamus
Registered Member
I’m just chewing fat.
I’ll go back to original suggestion and back to the mathematics in the earlier post, the formulae render well enough if pasted into an editor.
If a quantum ‘particle’, photon, neutron, electron, is a wave packet, not a particle at all - this is not voodoo, it’s something QFT dances all around - and that wave, some form of standing wave, resonance, whatever it is, has an optimal ‘shape’ or configuration, then deforming that shape has a cost and produces a bias, like bending a spring. I personally find that, as a concept, interesting. The lithium atoms, being persuaded to show their expanded wave packet behaviour was interesting. I imagine if you deformed that wave packet shape, the atom would react and react in a way that maintains or increases the ‘stability’ or reduces the ‘tension’ of that wave/phase winding/resonance. I find this idea interesting because, for me, it puts the boot on the other foot, a wave packet isn’t subject to external force but an internal one, and you’re right, it would be novel from the ground up. Which makes it more interesting, not less.
So, regarding the contour, there is no actual contour, but it’s how the phase winding of the electron, say, experiences its environment. GR says the contour is there, real, warped spacetime (whatever that is). I’m desperately trying to avoid a ‘word salad’ - what if it’s the photon (or electron, or proton etc) that warps or is biased, not space. If not, why not?
I’ll go back to original suggestion and back to the mathematics in the earlier post, the formulae render well enough if pasted into an editor.
If a quantum ‘particle’, photon, neutron, electron, is a wave packet, not a particle at all - this is not voodoo, it’s something QFT dances all around - and that wave, some form of standing wave, resonance, whatever it is, has an optimal ‘shape’ or configuration, then deforming that shape has a cost and produces a bias, like bending a spring. I personally find that, as a concept, interesting. The lithium atoms, being persuaded to show their expanded wave packet behaviour was interesting. I imagine if you deformed that wave packet shape, the atom would react and react in a way that maintains or increases the ‘stability’ or reduces the ‘tension’ of that wave/phase winding/resonance. I find this idea interesting because, for me, it puts the boot on the other foot, a wave packet isn’t subject to external force but an internal one, and you’re right, it would be novel from the ground up. Which makes it more interesting, not less.
So, regarding the contour, there is no actual contour, but it’s how the phase winding of the electron, say, experiences its environment. GR says the contour is there, real, warped spacetime (whatever that is). I’m desperately trying to avoid a ‘word salad’ - what if it’s the photon (or electron, or proton etc) that warps or is biased, not space. If not, why not?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
An honest acknowledgement - rare as hen's teeth around here.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No quantum mechanical entity is a particle, nor is it a wave. It is what it is, which has something of the character of both, depending on the circumstances. The mathematics of QM describes this in detail, so this is not a woolly idea but carefully defined and in accordance with observation.
The wave packet idea is useful to describe a QM entity that is somewhat spread out in space but whose location is not completely indeterminate.
You may be aware of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The wave packet concept captures the essence of this. In QM, momentum determines the wavelength of the entity, by de Broglie's relation: λ = h/p. That has the consequence that the wave associated with a QM entity with an exact momentum must be a pure sine wave, which mathematically extends throughout space, making its location completley indeterminate. But a wave packet, which has a significant amplitude only in a limited region of space, is composed of a sum of a range of different wavelengths, which interfere constructively only in a limited region of space and cancel one another out everywhere else. That corresponds to an uncertainty in position given by the width of the wave packet and an uncertainty in momentum given by the range of wavelengths that comprise it.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Virtually all the isotopes and many of the elements on the periodic table are not stable. You are talking out of your butt again.
But the periodic is stable . Hence Elements .
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The periodic table is an human-made abstraction. It doesn't exist unless we draw it on paper.
It's also arbitrary, as there are many (hundreds) ways of showing the relationships between elements, some of which are not tables at all.
. 
Regardless, the physical entities that these diagrams symbolizing - the chemical elements of the universe - atoms - are, themselves, not stable.
All elements have isotopes. Almost all of them are not stable and decay over time. Even the most stable of isotopes are not stable for many elements. For example, all the transuranium elements decay over known, and sometimes very short, time scales.
Please, river. Do not talk about things you know nothing of. You're just trolling. Learn a little bit of science or keep quiet.
Last edited:
Yet minerals exist . Copper , gold etc . Rare Earth minerals as well .
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
They do. So?
They are no more stable than the elements they are composed of.
Some are so unstable they decay before they ever have time to combine with other atoms.
Some are more stable . Than others , gold for example .
Niccodeamus
Registered Member
Quite.
But Heisenberg was still stuck on the particle. What if the wave you describe, and what your diagram shows, is the entire structure? That wave is stable in that state but is vulnerable to bias. It can be squeezed, bent, condensed, stretched, could spin etc etc, but the harmonic of that wave packet has one or more stable conditions that can affect how it ‘sees’ its environment.
What you have said, in much better language than I have at my command, is what I’m trying to imagine. This wave packet is the structure and it has tension and can experience and could behave accordingly. And the combinations of waves can amplify, resonate or cancel each other out, as you say.
And the bazaar thing is that it’s assumed that this behaviour stops when these structures accumulate into a mug, or planet. They decohere. But if they didn’t, if they remained biasable wave packets, you potentially have your unified physics