Stability as Cosmic Foundation: Rethinking Reality's Underlying Architecture!

river said:
Rotation matters . The rings around galaxies , and planets . Why , I'm not sure . But I do know that we know that they exist . Rings in our solar system , around certain planets . Can not be explained by mainstream thinking .
Stability comes and goes . Movement never becomes stilled for infinity .
We need to find out more about rotations , spin , by planets themselves . And the interactions amongst themselves . And the consequences .
With the rotation(spin) of the Sun then included .
Click to expand...
Reported for spamming the same stupid backward shit.
 
Planetary orbits are almost Newtonian. GR stepped in to explain the precession of mercury and used curved spacetime to do that. Galactic rotation does not seem to work in GR, hence the invocation of DM, as the outer limbs spin too fast, or faster than expected. That galactic mass needs to be higher than observed to produce the outer rotation speed. That’s my understanding of the problem
 
Niccodeamus said:
It’s an intriguing idea.
I’ve been thinking about it. What if your quantum particle that sometimes behaves like a wave packet is the other way round, a wave packet that can look like a particle. It’s biasable and it wants to cohere with its environment and everything is driven by the cost of coherence. It wants to be stable. This would be an interesting way of viewing gravity, not as warped spacetime, but wave packets harmonising (in the case of planets or stars, accumulations of wave packets, possibly resonating, amplifying. Goodbye dark matter). It could also explain why satellite galaxies would have a tendency to align with the plane of the parent galaxy
Click to expand...
That’s an intriguing idea! It aligns well with Stability Theory, especially the notion that "It wants to cohere with its environment... It wants to be stable"
This quantum perspective adds depth to Stability Theory.
 
TheVat said:
Doesn't the density of matter at the center of galaxies (including a BH) provide adequate explanation for the stable and fairly circular orbits of stars? You are proposing a hypothetical solution for a non-existent problem. Neither DM halos nor "Stability" were needed to explain roughly circular orbits around the galactic barycenter. Circular orbits tend to have a constant velocity - even Newton and Kepler had this worked out satisfactorily.
Click to expand...
This point about the orbits near the center of the galaxy is valid.. matter density and central gravity are sufficient to maintain stellar orbits. The main issue arises in the outer regions of galaxies, where rotation curves show that stellar velocities do not decrease as expected.
 
Niccodeamus said:
Planetary orbits are almost Newtonian. GR stepped in to explain the precession of mercury and used curved spacetime to do that. Galactic rotation does not seem to work in GR, hence the invocation of DM, as the outer limbs spin too fast, or faster than expected. That galactic mass needs to be higher than observed to produce the outer rotation speed. That’s my understanding of the problem
Click to expand...
That's pretty much it yes.
 
exchemist said:
Not sure this makes a lot of sense. A wave packet is a representation of how a wavelike entity can come to behave more like a particle, or equally, how a particle-like entity can have wavelike character. So there is nothing to be put “the other way round”. It is a hybrid of the two extremes.

Your suggestion that a wave packet “wants to cohere with its environment” does not seem to have an obvious meaning. Can you explain what you mean by it? (I won’t comment on what you say about gravity, as there is no link yet between QM and relativity and frankly I don’t believe the solution is going to come from some guy on the internet.:))

N.B. One has to be a bit careful with how far one pushes the wave packet idea. It’s quite good for photons but less so for QM entities with mass, as for these the wave packet tends to spread out with time, due to the difference in velocity of the component waveforms that make it up. We actually had a discussion of this point on the forum last year: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-two-slit-experiment.165864/page-4#post-3743220
Click to expand...
Lithium atom ‘wave packets’ were the subject of an article in the New Scientist this week, and were imaged. I’m not commenting on the article, just running with the concept of viewing wave packets as a fundamental unit to see where it might go

What might cause one wave packet to bind with each other? I’ll assume, for discussions sake, “particles” are simply coherent, structured wave packets—modes—whose behaviour is not governed by imposed fields, but by internal coherence and mutual anchoring.

Take two such wave packets, \psi_1(x) and \psi_2(x), each defined by a coherence density \rho_i(x) and a phase field \phi_i(x). Their internal structure is stabilised by a anchoring costs, which we may write for a single packet as:


B[\psi_i] = \iint \rho_i(x) \Gamma(x - x{\prime}) \rho_i(x{\prime}) \cos\left[ \phi_i(x) - \phi_i(x{\prime}) \right] \, dx \, dx{\prime}


Here, \Gamma(x - x{\prime}) is the anchoring kernel—a positive, real function governing the spatial coherence coupling between regions. When this integral remains below a critical threshold \varepsilon_i, the wave packet retains coherence; if exceeded, the mode decoheres, disperses, or transitions.

two wave packets could anchor or bond to one another if a mutual coherence link forms

The simplest mutual anchoring cost functional between the packets \psi_1 and \psi_2 is:


\mathcal{C}_{12} = \iint \rho_1(x) \, \Gamma(x - x{\prime}) \, \rho_2(x{\prime}) \cos\left[ \phi_1(x) - \phi_2(x{\prime}) \right] \, dx \, dx{\prime}


This is an interference-weighted overlap integral. It quantifies how well-aligned the two wave packets are—not just in space, but in phase. If the integral is large and negative, they are in antiphase and tend to destabilise one another. If large and positive, they are phase-aligned and mutually reinforcing.

Mutual anchoring—and hence binding—is energetically favoured when \mathcal{C}_{12} is negative and decreases the total system cost. That is, the two modes together are more stable than apart.

The total anchoring energy for the pair becomes:


\mathcal{C}\text{total} = B[\psi_1] + B[\psi_2] + \lambda \, \mathcal{C}{12}


with coupling strength \lambda > 0 setting the sensitivity to mutual coherence. Binding occurs when:


\Delta \mathcal{C} = \mathcal{C}_\text{total}^{(\text{bound})} - \left( \mathcal{C}_1^{(\text{free})} + \mathcal{C}_2^{(\text{free})} \right) < 0


That is, the combined configuration is more coherence-efficient than the sum of isolated ones.

This framework explains not just classical “attraction”, but coherence-driven phenomena like:

  • Formation of composite particles
  • Decay via de-anchoring
  • Spin exclusion (when the cosine term turns negative from phase antisymmetry)
  • Even modal resonance bonding (when small shifts in phase alignment sharply lower \mathcal{C})

So, mathematically, two wave packets bind together when their shapes overlap and their internal wave rhythms are in step. If this happens, the cost of maintaining their structure— the “effort” required to keep them stable—is lower together than apart.

There is no need to imagine a force field between them; they remain close simply because it is easier for them to remain coherent as a pair than alone.

I’d expect such a concept to be expandable so that mass and gravity could emerge. It could be fun

I don’t know how to format equations in the chat. Is it markdown or latex or what
 
Niccodeamus said:
Lithium atom ‘wave packets’ were the subject of an article in the New Scientist this week, and were imaged. I’m not commenting on the article, just running with the concept of viewing wave packets as a fundamental unit to see where it might go

What might cause one wave packet to bind with each other? I’ll assume, for discussions sake, “particles” are simply coherent, structured wave packets—modes—whose behaviour is not governed by imposed fields, but by internal coherence and mutual anchoring.

Take two such wave packets, \psi_1(x) and \psi_2(x), each defined by a coherence density \rho_i(x) and a phase field \phi_i(x). Their internal structure is stabilised by a anchoring costs, which we may write for a single packet as:


B[\psi_i] = \iint \rho_i(x) \Gamma(x - x{\prime}) \rho_i(x{\prime}) \cos\left[ \phi_i(x) - \phi_i(x{\prime}) \right] \, dx \, dx{\prime}


Here, \Gamma(x - x{\prime}) is the anchoring kernel—a positive, real function governing the spatial coherence coupling between regions. When this integral remains below a critical threshold \varepsilon_i, the wave packet retains coherence; if exceeded, the mode decoheres, disperses, or transitions.

two wave packets could anchor or bond to one another if a mutual coherence link forms

The simplest mutual anchoring cost functional between the packets \psi_1 and \psi_2 is:


\mathcal{C}_{12} = \iint \rho_1(x) \, \Gamma(x - x{\prime}) \, \rho_2(x{\prime}) \cos\left[ \phi_1(x) - \phi_2(x{\prime}) \right] \, dx \, dx{\prime}


This is an interference-weighted overlap integral. It quantifies how well-aligned the two wave packets are—not just in space, but in phase. If the integral is large and negative, they are in antiphase and tend to destabilise one another. If large and positive, they are phase-aligned and mutually reinforcing.

Mutual anchoring—and hence binding—is energetically favoured when \mathcal{C}_{12} is negative and decreases the total system cost. That is, the two modes together are more stable than apart.

The total anchoring energy for the pair becomes:


\mathcal{C}\text{total} = B[\psi_1] + B[\psi_2] + \lambda \, \mathcal{C}{12}


with coupling strength \lambda > 0 setting the sensitivity to mutual coherence. Binding occurs when:


\Delta \mathcal{C} = \mathcal{C}_\text{total}^{(\text{bound})} - \left( \mathcal{C}_1^{(\text{free})} + \mathcal{C}_2^{(\text{free})} \right) < 0


That is, the combined configuration is more coherence-efficient than the sum of isolated ones.

This framework explains not just classical “attraction”, but coherence-driven phenomena like:

  • Formation of composite particles
  • Decay via de-anchoring
  • Spin exclusion (when the cosine term turns negative from phase antisymmetry)
  • Even modal resonance bonding (when small shifts in phase alignment sharply lower \mathcal{C})

So, mathematically, two wave packets bind together when their shapes overlap and their internal wave rhythms are in step. If this happens, the cost of maintaining their structure— the “effort” required to keep them stable—is lower together than apart.

There is no need to imagine a force field between them; they remain close simply because it is easier for them to remain coherent as a pair than alone.

I’d expect such a concept to be expandable so that mass and gravity could emerge. It could be fun

I don’t know how to format equations in the chat. Is it markdown or latex or what
Click to expand...
I presume you mean this news report? : https://www.livescience.com/physics...o-quantum-waves-just-as-schrodinger-predicted

What it seems to show (it has not been peer-reviewed yet) is the phenomenon of dispersion of the wave packet when the environment of the atoms is changed from a bound state to a free state. This is exactly what was discussed in the link I provided in post 38 :). But I don't see how it provides the basis for new conception of matter, as you seem to be suggesting. It's just a confirmation of regular quantum mechanics.

I don't follow this stuff of yours about "anchoring costs". Are you trying to reformulate the theory of chemical bonding between atoms in some way? (I'm afraid the maths has not come out right on the page -do you want to try again?).
 
exchemist said:
I presume you mean this news report? : https://www.livescience.com/physics...o-quantum-waves-just-as-schrodinger-predicted

What it seems to show (it has not been peer-reviewed yet) is the phenomenon of dispersion of the wave packet when the environment of the atoms is changed from a bound state to a free state. This is exactly what was discussed in the link I provided in post 38 :). But I don't see how it provides the basis for new conception of matter, as you seem to be suggesting. It's just a confirmation of regular quantum mechanics.

I don't follow this stuff of yours about "anchoring costs". Are you trying to reformulate the theory of chemical bonding between atoms in some way? (I'm afraid the maths has not come out right on the page -do you want to try again?).
Click to expand...
How do you format equations in the forum?

Regarding the article, I’m certainly not using it as a basis for reformulating the conception of matter. I am using it as an example of the wooliness of theory at that level, and for the sake of discussion, general curiosity and temporary shelving of dogma, wondering whether the mathematics of a biasable wave packet (no particle) simply wanting to harmonise might be enough to explain wider observation. (Like synchronising metronomes on a board (I’m aware that that phenomenon is classical physics))

I’ll try and find out how to format the equations so they display correctly
 
Niccodeamus said:
How do you format equations in the forum?

Regarding the article, I’m certainly not using it as a basis for reformulating the conception of matter. I am using it as an example of the wooliness of theory at that level, and for the sake of discussion, general curiosity and temporary shelving of dogma, wondering whether the mathematics of a biasable wave packet (no particle) simply wanting to harmonise might be enough to explain wider observation. (Like synchronising metronomes on a board (I’m aware that that phenomenon is classical physics))

I’ll try and find out how to format the equations so they display correctly
Click to expand...
I wonder if what you describing has something in common with London, or dispersion, forces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force
 
exchemist said:
I wonder if what you describing has something in common with London, or dispersion, forces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force
Click to expand...
Not so much, I don’t think.
What I’m thinking is more a harmony of quantum optics, effective field theories, pilot wave theory, that sort of thing, but putting the onus on the ‘quanta’ themselves to find the least cost of self maintenance rather than some external ‘forces’ guiding their behaviour. The more I think about it, the more appealing it becomes. 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’ (there’s no doubt spacetime is accurate, but it has to be conceivable that the same mathematical result could be a least cost path for the ‘packet’ (photon, planet) rather than a warped road imposed on it by another object)
Baryons are stable because it’s a very low cost situation, nuclei stick together because it’s more expensive to be apart, Schrödingers wave functions describe a least cost position
So, if the idea were to be explored, it would certainly have to explain LDFs in terms of a mutual least cost to the component wave packets, the observed phenomena
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top