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

Niccodeamus said:
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
Click to expand...
Heisenberg was not stuck on the particle. Whatever makes you think that?
 
Niccodeamus said:
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
Click to expand...
Waves in and of themselves are not a particle . waves can not produce a physical thing , in and of itself .
 
exchemist said:
Heisenberg was not stuck on the particle. Whatever makes you think that?
Click to expand...
Well, the uncertainty principle- you cannot know the position of the particle…

river said:
Waves in and of themselves are not a particle . waves can not produce a physical thing , in and of itself .
Click to expand...
And that is the weirdness I’d like to discuss - what if? It wouldn’t be any stranger than existing QM. An atom, after all, is 1x10^-14 ‘something’. Right there you essentially have ‘nothing’ producing something
 
Niccodeamus said:
Well, the uncertainty principle- you cannot know the position of the particle…


And that is the weirdness I’d like to discuss - what if? It wouldn’t be any stranger than existing QM. An atom, after all, is 1x10^-14 ‘something’. Right there you essentially have ‘nothing’ producing something
Click to expand...
Heisenberg strenuously avoided making assumptions about the underlying nature of matter. He made a point of restricting himself to what the observations or interactions showed, not what might or might not go on in between*. He developed a form of mathematics (later called matrix mechanics) to describe that. What is observed is that QM entities manifest themselves in interactions at specific locations, e.g. the dot in on specific spot on a detector screen. That's what we mean when speak of them as showing particle behaviour.

You are forgetting the other side of the Uncertainty Principle. Position and momentum are "conjugate variables", so if the position is precisely defined the momentum is indeterminate, and vice versa: the more the one is tied down the more the other is uncertain.The momentum is, as I have explained, associated with the wavelength of the QM entity. So you don't know the frequency of the wave either.

The Uncertainty Principle takes no position on one being more "real" than the other.

The Uncertainty Principle also applies to other pairs of conjugate variables, most notably time and energy. For example, if the lifetime of an atomic excited state is short, i.e. its existence is not much extended in time, its energy is ill-defined, whereas a long-lived state will have a well-defined energy. We observe this in what is called the "uncertainty broadening" of spectral lines. As the pressure of a gas rises the frequency of interatomic collisions goes up. These collisions will deactivate excited states of the atom prematurely, shortening their lifetime. So their energy becomes less well defined, leading to a borader range of absorption or emissions frequencies in the spectral lines we observe. (There is another broadening effect of gas pressure, due to distortion of the potential experienced by the excited electron due to the approach of a neighbour, so both effects in practice contribute to line broadening.)

Notice how in each case the theory is supported by observation of nature. This is what distinguishes actual science from the made-up stuff a crank pulls out of his arse. ;)


* There is an excellent book on this, by Carlo Rovelli the theoretical physicist, called "Helgoland". It is named after the island to which Heisenberg retreated in order to have the peace and quiet to develop his theory of QM. Heisenberg modelled his approach on Einstein, by throwing out all previous preconceptions about physics and just looking at the observations and what they implied mathematically. That's why he needed to get away from it all to think it through.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
Heisenberg strenuously avoided making assumptions about the underlying nature of matter. He made a point of restricting himself to what the observations or interactions showed, not what might or might not go on in between*. He developed a form of mathematics (later called matrix mechanics) to describe that. What is observed is that QM entities manifest themselves in interactions at specific locations, e.g. the dot in on specific spot on a detector screen. That's what we mean when speak of them as showing particle behaviour.

You are forgetting the other side of the Uncertainty Principle. Position and momentum are "conjugate variables", so if the position is precisely defined the momentum is indeterminate, and vice versa: the more the one is tied down the more the other is uncertain.The momentum is, as I have explained, associated with the wavelength of the QM entity. So you don't know the frequency of the wave either.

The Uncertainty Principle takes no position on one being more "real" than the other.

The Uncertainty Principle also applies to other pairs of conjugate variables, most notably time and energy. For example, if the lifetime of an atomic excited state is short, i.e. its existence is not much extended in time, its energy is ill-defined, whereas a long-lived state will have a well-defined energy. We observe this in what is called the "uncertainty broadening" of spectral lines. As the pressure of a gas rises the frequency of interatomic collisions goes up. These collisions will deactivate excited states of the atom prematurely, shortening their lifetime. So their energy becomes less well defined, leading to a borader range of absorption or emissions frequencies in the spectral lines we observe. (There is another broadening effect of gas pressure, due to distortion of the potential experienced by the excited electron due to the approach of a neighbour, so both effects in practice contribute to line broadening.)

Notice how in each case the theory is supported by observation of nature. This is what distinguishes actual science from the made-up stuff a crank pulls out of his arse. ;)


* There is an excellent book on this, by Carlo Rovelli the theoretical physicist, called "Helgoland". It is named after the island to which Heisenberg retreated in order to have the peace and quiet to develop his theory of QM. Heisenberg modelled his approach on Einstein, by throwing out all previous preconceptions about physics and just looking at the observations and what they implied mathematically. That's why he needed to get away from it all to think it through.
Click to expand...
I thank you for your patience.
It would be fascinating to have him still be thinking in current times with more information, more observations. I wonder what he’d make of dark matter, the Hubble tension, singularities, the graviton etc etc. given his desires to create a unified field theory.

I’m suffering badly from not having adequate language skills in these areas, but I can assure you that I’m only interested in what’s observed. One of those observations is how layers of complexity are built onto existing ideas to get them to stay ‘right’. Of course this doesn’t mean the layers of complexity, or the idea itself is not right, but it does give any crank with an arse room for manoeuvre.

Given these ‘conjugate variables’, would you comment on whether the biasability or influence of or on such an entity directly by another entity could produce an effect? Excuse my ignorance, and I’ve consistently failed to articulate this question, I think, but if this entity, this conjugate variable, can experience an internal tension rather than an external force, I suspect it would produce observed behaviour. It’s important that the entity is a ‘wave packet’ or ‘conjugate variable’ or ‘phase winding’ because this wouldn’t work for a ‘particle’. The only extension I'm plucking out of my arse here is wondering whether the warp might be in the packet, not space. Einstein himself pondered on these things in his later life, indeed, pondered on the accuracy of ‘spacetime’ as a concept and refuted point particles.
I realise ‘suspecting’ is not science and don’t claim that it is. If I had the mathematics skills, I’d set about it
 
Niccodeamus said:
I thank you for your patience.
It would be fascinating to have him still be thinking in current times with more information, more observations. I wonder what he’d make of dark matter, the Hubble tension, singularities, the graviton etc etc. given his desires to create a unified field theory.

I’m suffering badly from not having adequate language skills in these areas, but I can assure you that I’m only interested in what’s observed. One of those observations is how layers of complexity are built onto existing ideas to get them to stay ‘right’. Of course this doesn’t mean the layers of complexity, or the idea itself is not right, but it does give any crank with an arse room for manoeuvre.

Given these ‘conjugate variables’, would you comment on whether the biasability or influence of or on such an entity directly by another entity could produce an effect? Excuse my ignorance, and I’ve consistently failed to articulate this question, I think, but if this entity, this conjugate variable, can experience an internal tension rather than an external force, I suspect it would produce observed behaviour. It’s important that the entity is a ‘wave packet’ or ‘conjugate variable’ or ‘phase winding’ because this wouldn’t work for a ‘particle’. The only extension I'm plucking out of my arse here is wondering whether the warp might be in the packet, not space. Einstein himself pondered on these things in his later life, indeed, pondered on the accuracy of ‘spacetime’ as a concept and refuted point particles.
I realise ‘suspecting’ is not science and don’t claim that it is. If I had the mathematics skills, I’d set about it
Click to expand...
Heisenberg didn't, so far as I know, have ambitions to develop a unified field theory. The graviton, by the way, is just a proposal, a hypothesis. There is no evidence it exists.

Regarding your "observations" I admire your good humour, but must point out the observations you are referring to are your commentary on the building up of theories, not observations of nature.

Coming to conjugate variables, the first thing to say is these are properties, not entities. Position and momentum, energy and time, are pairs of conjugate variables but none of these quantities has an independent existence. They are properties of some QM entity (an electron, a photon etc). So by referring to them as entities you are muddling ideas. The wave packet, on the other hand, is a representation of a QM entity, which has properties including a range of positions, a range of momenta, etc. (bolded to show the wave packet idea implies the Uncertainty Principle at work.)

I don't know what you mean by "internal tension" or "phase winding". Entities like atoms have internal structure of course, in the form of electrons in standing wave patterns, under the attractive influence of the nucleus. Is this what you are getting at with these terms?

I must say I don't recall reading that Einstein rejected the concept of point particles. Do you have a reference for that?
 
exchemist said:
I must say I don't recall reading that Einstein rejected the concept of point particles. Do you have a reference for that?
Click to expand...
Letter to Besso 1951

exchemist said:
Entities like atoms have internal structure of course, in the form of electrons in standing wave patterns, under the attractive influence of the nucleus. Is this what you are getting at with these terms?
Click to expand...
Partly, that’s an extension. More the idea that the protons, electrons, photons could be viewed as biasable wave packets. The uncertainty principle puts the packets onto spacetime.
The idea I’d like to explore is whether the effect of spacetime can be reproduced by biasing the wave packets, because that seems more elegant than warping space and time. The photon follows a gradient in a Helmholtz type of field that the sun emits.
Light bends near the Sun not because spacetime curves, but because the structure of the photon—what gives it its direction and frequency—shifts slightly to avoid losing coherence as it moves through a field emitted by the Sun.

That coherence field drops off with distance, like a Yukawa potential. So the photon’s path bends toward stronger coherence—not because it’s pulled, but because its internal structure resists becoming unstable.

The end result is the same deflection angle as in general relativity for a grazing ray—but the mechanism is different
 
Niccodeamus said:
Letter to Besso 1951


Partly, that’s an extension. More the idea that the protons, electrons, photons could be viewed as biasable wave packets. The uncertainty principle puts the packets onto spacetime.
The idea I’d like to explore is whether the effect of spacetime can be reproduced by biasing the wave packets, because that seems more elegant than warping space and time. The photon follows a gradient in a Helmholtz type of field that the sun emits.
Light bends near the Sun not because spacetime curves, but because the structure of the photon—what gives it its direction and frequency—shifts slightly to avoid losing coherence as it moves through a field emitted by the Sun.

That coherence field drops off with distance, like a Yukawa potential. So the photon’s path bends toward stronger coherence—not because it’s pulled, but because its internal structure resists becoming unstable.

The end result is the same deflection angle as in general relativity for a grazing ray—but the mechanism is different
Click to expand...
I thought the letter to Besso was just saying Einstein felt he still did not understand the nature of photons, specifically, nothing about rejecting point particles in general. Can you quote the passage you have in mind?

Secondly, you will need to explain what you mean by "biasing" a wave packet.

Thirdly, what do you mean by a "Helmholtz field". This, to my understanding, is the magnetic field produced by a pair of plane coils carrying an electric current. It's a way of producing a uniform magnetic field for experimental purposes. I can't see how that concept can be relevant to the spherically symmetrical gravitational field, with a radially falling inverse square gradient, of the sun.
 
Last edited:
Niccodeamus said:
That coherence field drops off with distance, like a Yukawa potential. So the photon’s path bends toward stronger coherence—not because it’s pulled, but because its internal structure resists becoming unstable.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "coherence?" Waves that cohere has a distinct meaning, it means the waves are in synch, this is how lasers work.

Otherwise light propagates from a source outwards in all directions, from a fire, star, light bulb.
You said you lack the language skills.
The only language you need in physics is maths
Describing physics in words like in this is like talking about Bach’s two part inventions without sitting at a piano or looking at the sheet music.
If you are really interested in this I recommend a series of books Leonard Susskind Theoretical minimum series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theoretical_Minimum
 
Niccodeamus said:
Letter to Besso 1951


Partly, that’s an extension. More the idea that the protons, electrons, photons could be viewed as biasable wave packets. The uncertainty principle puts the packets onto spacetime.
The idea I’d like to explore is whether the effect of spacetime can be reproduced by biasing the wave packets, because that seems more elegant than warping space and time. The photon follows a gradient in a Helmholtz type of field that the sun emits.
Light bends near the Sun not because spacetime curves, but because the structure of the photon—what gives it its direction and frequency—shifts slightly to avoid losing coherence as it moves through a field emitted by the Sun.

That coherence field drops off with distance, like a Yukawa potential. So the photon’s path bends toward stronger coherence—not because it’s pulled, but because its internal structure resists becoming unstable.

The end result is the same deflection angle as in general relativity for a grazing ray—but the mechanism is different
Click to expand...
If you end up developing your idea further and putting it out there, let me know! curious to see where it goes, and really hoping it works out. . Thanks.
 
seddighrigi said:
If you end up developing your idea further and putting it out there, let me know! curious to see where it goes, and really hoping it works out. . Thanks.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to make a website.
It’s odd that a science forum can’t handle equations easily so I’ve reached a dead end here, the experts are correct, only the maths can speak the language and the medium doesn’t support it.
I’ll not post a link because I think random links are not permitted
 
Niccodeamus said:
I’m trying to make a website.
It’s odd that a science forum can’t handle equations easily so I’ve reached a dead end here, the experts are correct, only the maths can speak the language and the medium doesn’t support it.
I’ll not post a link because I think random links are not permitted
Click to expand...
In physics, the maths comes after the concepts have been defined, which is done in words. For instance one can't write an equation for the energy of an electron without first defining what an electron is. That requires words.

So when you speak of "biasing" a wave packet, you ought to be able to describe the principle at least in words. Can you do that?
 
I have tried, but it appears fairly alien so is unappealing.
imagine a mode, a photon, electron, proton (or a planet) etc, is defined by a number phase windings (2pi, 4pi, 6pi say), an internal phase field, and an envelope that defines its amplitude of coherent support. 3 factors. No spacetime, no particle.
You define an anchoring cost functional and you solve the envelope shape to minimise the anchoring cost
If you have 2 or more modes in a coexistence, then their combined anchoring costs (how much phase tension/relaxation arises from their proximity) gives you a scalar coherence kernel, a Helmholtz equation, and it will follow that motion will follow a minimisation of the integrated anchoring cost. From that will follow, from phase tension cost, envelope coherence, and coherence susceptibility, the laws of physics. Spacetime, as an apparent effect, emerges from a minimisation of bias and anchoring cost of modes
One of the problems of language is words have multiple meanings and definitions so describing the indescribable becomes difficult. The ‘mode’ is the structure and it has the properties that combine a phase field that is ‘bounded’ by a mathematical envelope and the coherence ‘field’ is also a mathematical construct defining the area of influence of the mode. A Schrödinger electron shell is the combined coherence field of 2 modes, a proton and electron, in the case of a hydrogen atom, and represents a low cost environment. (H2 represents a lower cost etc). A proton envelope is tight, its coherence field is large, an electron is the reverse.

A mode’s phase structure radiates influence through its coherence field.
This field biases the anchoring cost of nearby modes by favouring certain phase alignments.
If a neighbouring mode’s phase surface is distorted to remain coherent within this field, its envelope adjusts accordingly—resulting in an apparent action or motion.

This concept appears to scale from small to large without breaking stride
 
Last edited:
Niccodeamus said:
I have tried, but it appears fairly alien so is unappealing.
imagine a mode, a photon, electron, proton (or a planet) etc, is defined by a number phase windings (2pi, 4pi, 6pi say), an internal phase field, and an envelope that defines its amplitude of coherent support. 3 factors. No spacetime, no particle.
You define an anchoring cost functional and you solve the envelope shape to minimise the anchoring cost
If you have 2 or more modes in a coexistence, then their combined anchoring costs (how much phase tension/relaxation arises from their proximity) gives you a scalar coherence kernel, a Helmholtz equation, and it will follow that motion will follow a minimisation of the integrated anchoring cost. From that will follow, from phase tension cost, envelope coherence, and coherence susceptibility, the laws of physics. Spacetime, as an apparent effect, emerges from a minimisation of bias and anchoring cost of modes
One of the problems of language is words have multiple meanings and definitions so describing the indescribable becomes difficult. The ‘mode’ is the structure and it has the properties that combine a phase field that is ‘bounded’ by a mathematical envelope and the coherence ‘field’ is also a mathematical construct defining the area of influence of the mode. A Schrödinger electron shell is the combined coherence field of 2 modes, a proton and electron, in the case of a hydrogen atom, and represents a low cost environment. (H2 represents a lower cost etc). A proton envelope is tight, its coherence field is large, an electron is the reverse.

A mode’s phase structure radiates influence through its coherence field.
This field biases the anchoring cost of nearby modes by favouring certain phase alignments.
If a neighbouring mode’s phase surface is distorted to remain coherent within this field, its envelope adjusts accordingly—resulting in an apparent action or motion.

This concept appears to scale from small to large without breaking stride
Click to expand...
This is just sciency word salad. I'll leave you to it.
 
I know, but what else can I do. Mathematically, it seems to work. I’d love for it to be pointed out where it goes wrong, but this isn’t the venue
 
river:
river said:
Rings in our solar system , around certain planets . Can not be explained by mainstream thinking .
Click to expand...
There you go again, making an assertion that you haven't attempted to support.

Rings around planets are explained quite adequately by "mainstream thinking".

The fact that you are not cognisant of the explanation does not mean that there isn't one in "mainstream thinking".

You should not make definitive assertions about things that are clearly beyond the scope of what you know. Whenever you do that, you usually just end up looking like a bit of a fool.

river said:
We need to find out more about rotations , spin , by planets themselves . And the interactions amongst themselves . And the consequences .
Click to expand...
It certainly sounds like you need to find out more.

You can start by reading my helpful post in the other thread where I briefly explained the formation of planetary rings to you. You know, you could have just googled the question. It's not hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top