... and I consider that an encouragement in favor of my hobby which isn't about to go away soonWho was it that said, the Universe is not only weirder then we Imagine, it is weirder then we can ever Imagine...or words to that effect......
.
The Big Wait
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
.
This if for my friend, the flip book man:
We cannot say if anything in the discrete world of quantum mechanics is real because the best we can observe of it is fuzzy images at imprecise moments with indeterminate pasts and futures. But we can console ourselves with the hypotheses of a so called model which allows visualization of a sub quantum realm where there is a continuity of all wave actions, unblemished by the indeterminate past and future of an observable discrete quantum state.
(2026)
We cannot say if anything in the discrete world of quantum mechanics is real because the best we can observe of it is fuzzy images at imprecise moments with indeterminate pasts and futures. But we can console ourselves with the hypotheses of a so called model which allows visualization of a sub quantum realm where there is a continuity of all wave actions, unblemished by the indeterminate past and future of an observable discrete quantum state.
(2026)
The issue of continuous vs. discrete can be explored using the collapse of one of the big crunches that are common across the landscape of the greater universe in my so called model.
Let's view the dense state energy ball produced by such a collapse. It exists momentarily at the center of the collapsing big crunch, before it expands to form a new big bang arena. This view employs tools I use in my so called model: 1) the freeze-frame tool which simply assumes a stand still in the action for discussion purposes, and 2) visualization which allows a description of a state of things at a specific place and time. These two tools together allow for a step by step description of the action taking place from one freeze-frame to the next.
The so called model includes the hypothesis that this ball of energy is in the densest state allowed by nature, and may be a sphere of energy light years across. In this state there are no individual particles, which is consistent with the meaning that the medium of space at this location is completely non-quantized energy.
As the action unfolds from this freeze-frame, particles will form in the new arena as the surface of the dense state energy ball expands and commingles with the contents of the surrounding medium of space.
Though this initial ball of energy is close to perfectly isotropic, when we examine it in a freeze-frame, there are explanations for the existence of energy density fluctuations that will have implications for the formation of structure within the new arena as the commingling of the two energy density environments unfolds.
The nature of the surrounding medium of space includes electromagnetic radiation, gravitational energy, and the physical portions of the parent arenas that were not inside the boundary of the big crunch when it collapsed. On that basis, the hypothesis is that this space includes both quantized and non-quantized energy.
(2093)
Let's view the dense state energy ball produced by such a collapse. It exists momentarily at the center of the collapsing big crunch, before it expands to form a new big bang arena. This view employs tools I use in my so called model: 1) the freeze-frame tool which simply assumes a stand still in the action for discussion purposes, and 2) visualization which allows a description of a state of things at a specific place and time. These two tools together allow for a step by step description of the action taking place from one freeze-frame to the next.
The so called model includes the hypothesis that this ball of energy is in the densest state allowed by nature, and may be a sphere of energy light years across. In this state there are no individual particles, which is consistent with the meaning that the medium of space at this location is completely non-quantized energy.
As the action unfolds from this freeze-frame, particles will form in the new arena as the surface of the dense state energy ball expands and commingles with the contents of the surrounding medium of space.
Though this initial ball of energy is close to perfectly isotropic, when we examine it in a freeze-frame, there are explanations for the existence of energy density fluctuations that will have implications for the formation of structure within the new arena as the commingling of the two energy density environments unfolds.
The nature of the surrounding medium of space includes electromagnetic radiation, gravitational energy, and the physical portions of the parent arenas that were not inside the boundary of the big crunch when it collapsed. On that basis, the hypothesis is that this space includes both quantized and non-quantized energy.
(2093)
To continue the elaboration on the "freeze-frame" of the local energy density environment in and around the new big bang arena, I should add a note about the arena level discrete quantum of energy. Though the energy in the dense state ball does not contain quantized particles, and as such is not internally quantized, you might remember that I referred to that state earlier as an arena quantum of energy.
The energy required for a big crunch to reach "critical capacity" and collapse/bang is hypothetically the same for all big bangs, i.e. it is quantized at the arena level. The distinction is that the arena quantum contains the energy that was contained in the quantized particles that survived in the crunch right up until they were negated into dense state energy by the collapse/bang.
(2141)
The energy required for a big crunch to reach "critical capacity" and collapse/bang is hypothetically the same for all big bangs, i.e. it is quantized at the arena level. The distinction is that the arena quantum contains the energy that was contained in the quantized particles that survived in the crunch right up until they were negated into dense state energy by the collapse/bang.
(2141)
The step by step advance of the freeze frame I have described will start in due time, but because I want to incorporate my hypotheses about Quantum Mechanics and Big Bangs as I describe the steps that lead to the formation of particles and gravity in the new arena, the contrasting views of Feynman and Garrett are prerequisites to the discussion of QM in this thread:
First Ron Garret's perspective on Spooky Action:
http://blog.rongarret.info/2011/01/quantum-conspiracy.html
Be sure to click on and view his YouTube of a Google talk presentation called the Quantum Conspiracy.
Then some classic Feynman:
I appreciate Richard Feynman and others who have taped lectures and experiments to help teach quantum mechanics. I've studied it for awhile and as you can tell, have my own hypotheses about it in my so called model. One distinction between the QM in my model and Feynman's stated view (see his lectures) is the meaning of hidden variables vs. spooky action at a distance. Feynman teaches that there can't be hidden variables and uses the double slit thought experiment in 1965 to point out the mystery of wave-particle duality. Here is a modern link to his thought experiment made real: http://www.iop.org/news/13/mar/page_59670.html
""""""""""""""""
I brought up the Hidden Variables vs. Spooky Action debate because my so called model is a Hidden Variables interpretation of QM. That is evident in the hypotheses about a hidden level of action below the Standard Model of QM. That is the level where quantum action takes place, and so my discussion, as the freeze frame unfolds, will be about quantum action at the hidden level. The quantum action establishes and maintains the presence of particles and gravity.
Freeze Frame discussion to continue ...
(2454)
First Ron Garret's perspective on Spooky Action:
http://blog.rongarret.info/2011/01/quantum-conspiracy.html
Be sure to click on and view his YouTube of a Google talk presentation called the Quantum Conspiracy.
"""""""""""""RonGarrettBlog said:
Then some classic Feynman:
I appreciate Richard Feynman and others who have taped lectures and experiments to help teach quantum mechanics. I've studied it for awhile and as you can tell, have my own hypotheses about it in my so called model. One distinction between the QM in my model and Feynman's stated view (see his lectures) is the meaning of hidden variables vs. spooky action at a distance. Feynman teaches that there can't be hidden variables and uses the double slit thought experiment in 1965 to point out the mystery of wave-particle duality. Here is a modern link to his thought experiment made real: http://www.iop.org/news/13/mar/page_59670.html
""""""""""""""""
I brought up the Hidden Variables vs. Spooky Action debate because my so called model is a Hidden Variables interpretation of QM. That is evident in the hypotheses about a hidden level of action below the Standard Model of QM. That is the level where quantum action takes place, and so my discussion, as the freeze frame unfolds, will be about quantum action at the hidden level. The quantum action establishes and maintains the presence of particles and gravity.
Freeze Frame discussion to continue ...
(2454)
Freeze Frame discussion to continue ...
But first, the hidden variables that I am invoking apply to both quantum levels, the micro and macro levels of order where quantization occurs. The action that I describe in the two processes, quantum action and arena action, are descriptions of the physical mechanics that underpin the presence of particles, the expression of gravity, and even the formation of new big bang arenas, according to my so called model. These discussions are what the topic of QM is all about in my opinion, now that the uncertainty and probability equations are well tested. The discussion is about if there is a reality when we aren't looking, or is nature probabilistic and random until observed.
(For reference, this is a link to post #72 in another thread that describes my estimate of the number of quanta in an electron and a proton, to give some perspective to the discussion in this post ... /link )
The dense state balls of energy at the initial stage of a new Big Bang arena, like the one we have in our "freeze-frame" right now, and the micro level high density spots deep within the fundamental particles (linked post #72), are half the story of Bohr's "complementarity", i.e. the particle half of wave-particle duality. The other half of the story is the quantum waves that are expanding and converging to produce the momentary high density spots at the two quantized levels of order.
My description of the micro process of quantum action is consistent with Bohr's description of "complementarity" ... in my opinion.
... a particle is composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and its location is determined by the high density spots caused by the overlaps of those waves. You may remember from my previous threads how I describe the process of quantum action. Quantum waves are refreshed once each quantum period, and location is refreshed in a slightly new place with each sequential set of high density spots.
Motion, or momentum, is determined by the net wave action of each quanta contained by the particle as those quanta expand spherically from their "initial spots". I'm saying that, between each set of high density spots there is motion from where the last set of spots occurred to where the new set of spots occurs, and that motion is the due to the spherically expanding wave action of each of the waves that emerge from each new set of spots.
That wave action corresponds to the net directional inflow of the wave energy that is continually refreshing the presence of the particle by replacing the energy that is lost to the particle from its surface boundary via the out flowing spherical wave energy component.
If you look at the location, you are seeing a single set (billions) of spots in a freeze-frame, and you see where the particle was when you looked. But you cannot see the next set of spots because you have interfered with the motion between sets of spots. Therefore by looking at a set of high density spots at one instant in time you have guaranteed that you cannot then know the momentum of that particle. That is Bohr's complementarity.
That concept of complementarity, aka wave-particle duality, can be understood in my so called model as being orchestrated by the processes of quantum action and arena action as I describe them. You can see how a high density spot becomes a wave at both levels of action. When the action establishes a spot it gives a momentary glimpse of location. When the spot expands spherically into a wave, the sum of the waves making up the particle give us the momentum during the briefest time interval between glimpses of location.
In my so called model, location and motion do not both exist simultaneously. What always exists though is the continual wave action in the foundational medium. The location of particles changes in discrete increments as the waves intersect to form momentary high density spots at a location.
For those knowledgable about Einstein's and Schrodinger's search for the description of the nature of reality, my so called model describes my view of the hidden variables that make the local connection between location and momentum.
(2548)
But first, the hidden variables that I am invoking apply to both quantum levels, the micro and macro levels of order where quantization occurs. The action that I describe in the two processes, quantum action and arena action, are descriptions of the physical mechanics that underpin the presence of particles, the expression of gravity, and even the formation of new big bang arenas, according to my so called model. These discussions are what the topic of QM is all about in my opinion, now that the uncertainty and probability equations are well tested. The discussion is about if there is a reality when we aren't looking, or is nature probabilistic and random until observed.
(For reference, this is a link to post #72 in another thread that describes my estimate of the number of quanta in an electron and a proton, to give some perspective to the discussion in this post ... /link )
The dense state balls of energy at the initial stage of a new Big Bang arena, like the one we have in our "freeze-frame" right now, and the micro level high density spots deep within the fundamental particles (linked post #72), are half the story of Bohr's "complementarity", i.e. the particle half of wave-particle duality. The other half of the story is the quantum waves that are expanding and converging to produce the momentary high density spots at the two quantized levels of order.
My description of the micro process of quantum action is consistent with Bohr's description of "complementarity" ... in my opinion.
... a particle is composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and its location is determined by the high density spots caused by the overlaps of those waves. You may remember from my previous threads how I describe the process of quantum action. Quantum waves are refreshed once each quantum period, and location is refreshed in a slightly new place with each sequential set of high density spots.
Motion, or momentum, is determined by the net wave action of each quanta contained by the particle as those quanta expand spherically from their "initial spots". I'm saying that, between each set of high density spots there is motion from where the last set of spots occurred to where the new set of spots occurs, and that motion is the due to the spherically expanding wave action of each of the waves that emerge from each new set of spots.
That wave action corresponds to the net directional inflow of the wave energy that is continually refreshing the presence of the particle by replacing the energy that is lost to the particle from its surface boundary via the out flowing spherical wave energy component.
If you look at the location, you are seeing a single set (billions) of spots in a freeze-frame, and you see where the particle was when you looked. But you cannot see the next set of spots because you have interfered with the motion between sets of spots. Therefore by looking at a set of high density spots at one instant in time you have guaranteed that you cannot then know the momentum of that particle. That is Bohr's complementarity.
That concept of complementarity, aka wave-particle duality, can be understood in my so called model as being orchestrated by the processes of quantum action and arena action as I describe them. You can see how a high density spot becomes a wave at both levels of action. When the action establishes a spot it gives a momentary glimpse of location. When the spot expands spherically into a wave, the sum of the waves making up the particle give us the momentum during the briefest time interval between glimpses of location.
In my so called model, location and motion do not both exist simultaneously. What always exists though is the continual wave action in the foundational medium. The location of particles changes in discrete increments as the waves intersect to form momentary high density spots at a location.
For those knowledgable about Einstein's and Schrodinger's search for the description of the nature of reality, my so called model describes my view of the hidden variables that make the local connection between location and momentum.
(2548)
Last edited:
We are going to do a micro level freeze-frame to capture the overlap of multiple parent quantum waves within the particle space of a fundamental particle. This overlap is called a high density spot in the lexicon of my so call model. The high density spot is the quantum level equivalent to the dense state ball of energy in our macro level freeze-frame.
Having these two freeze-frames captured, we can explain in simple steps conceptually how location and momentum do not both exist simultaneously.
Remember, location is represented by the high density maximums; the quantum level high density energy spots, and the arena level dense state energy balls. These high energy density maximums form as the associated waves at each level of order overlap.
Momentum, on the other hand, is represented by the spherical expansion of those same energy density maximums. The spots that we have just captured in our freeze-frames at each level are about to expand spherically due to the force of energy density equalization. Their high energy density equalizes with the lower surrounding energy density causing them to expand until the energy density differential between them is equalized, or until that expansion is interrupted by convergence with adjacent expanding waves. When such convergences occur, new high density spots form. High density spots become expanding waves, and so you have one or the other at any freeze-frame point, but not both in the same space simultaneously.
Having a freeze-frame of the density maximum from each level of order is instructive because, for me at least, I can envision the density maximum at the arena level, the collapse of a big crunch, more easily than I can envision the high density spot forming deep within a fundamental particle as quantum waves intersect. On the other hand, I can envision the wave action in the foundational medium at the quantum level, quantum waves, more easily than I can envision a big bang arena as being an energy wave, as opposed to being the separation momentum of physically observed galaxies.
(2574)
My only question is - "wait"... for "how long"? What determines the period of "time" between a big crunch and a big bang? There is "time" between them? What would determine that "time" from the perspective of the previous and the next universe?
Also, an interesting thought... if the big bang is exponential... is the big crunch also exponential? Could we just be obliterated into oblivion in a matter of seconds without barely having time to notice what is happening?
Also, an interesting thought... if the big bang is exponential... is the big crunch also exponential? Could we just be obliterated into oblivion in a matter of seconds without barely having time to notice what is happening?
Well here's the thing. I am not describing a cyclical bang/crunch/bang scenario, in case your question implies that. If that is how you interpreted my scenario, than this clarification will help. There is only one universe, so when you talk about the time between one universe and the next, it is not consistent with my scenario. A new Big Bang occurs because two or more expanding Big Bang arenas converge. The new big bang arena forms out of the galactic material that is contributed by the "parent" arenas (there is a crunch of the converging galaxies, and the crunch then bangs). Furthermore, there are a potentially infinite number of active arenas across the landscape of the greater universe, so the convergences are occurring all the time here and there, and each new arena represents one big bang, not a new universe.
I have made some wild ass guesses as to how long it takes for parent arenas to mature (fill up with galaxies that are generally all moving away from each other), and expand enough to converge with adjacent arenas, but that my not be what you are asking. Sorry for having such a confusing so called model
.As for the "exponential", I'll be glad to discuss that if you feel you understand this reply :shrug:
Oh, I see what you are saying now. But if that was the case, the universe would have to be far more heterogeneous than we observe. We would have to observe large portions of empty space and converging portions of cluttered space. The universe is far too homogeneous for that. Unless the mass required for a "big bang" to occur was not very high. Say, if the mass was the combined mass of Vega galaxy (as we observe a blueshift) and ours. In that case, once Vega and ours collided, we would have a local big bang. But the problem with that is that our models show the stars are far apart enough that the stars wouldn't even be likely to collide, let alone converge and cause a "mini" big bang...Well here's the thing. I am not describing a cyclical bang/crunch/bang scenario, in case your question implies that. If that is how you interpreted my scenario, than this clarification will help. There is only one universe, so when you talk about the time between one universe and the next, it is not consistent with my scenario. A new Big Bang occurs because two or more expanding Big Bang arenas converge. The new big bang arena forms out of the galactic material that is contributed by the "parent" arenas (there is a crunch of the converging galaxies, and the crunch then bangs). Furthermore, there are a potentially infinite number of active arenas across the landscape of the greater universe, so the convergences are occurring all the time here and there, and each new arena represents one big bang, not a new universe.
I have made some wild ass guesses as to how long it takes for parent arenas to mature (fill up with galaxies that are generally all moving away from each other), and expand enough to converge with adjacent arenas, but that my not be what you are asking. Sorry for having such a confusing so called model
As for the "exponential", I'll be glad to discuss that if you feel you understand this reply :shrug:
Having said all that, perhaps it cold be possible that all the mass of our galaxy could fall back into the black hole in the center of the galaxy, creating a cycle of expansion and contraction of the galaxy. A faint possibility... I'm not aware of any explorations of that idea, though.
I already apologized for making my so called model so difficult to understand, and your response acknowledges that you might have had the wrong scenario in mind in your first post. Your second post though, still implies that your understanding doesn't yet correspond with what I intend to convey.
I could try to clear up the misunderstanding by stating the scenario over again from the start, or you could carefully read the content and see if that gives you a better picture of my confusing so called model. I don't really recommend you read the entire thread because I wouldn't wish that boring task on you, but it is really the only course of action if you have any interest in understanding it, because I certainly wouldn't relish the task of repeating it all from the beginning
.
In post #47 we established the micro level quantum high density spot of energy in a freeze-frame to go alone with our macro level dense state energy ball. It is exciting how we can just keep them both there in their freeze-frames for talking purposes. You should get a picture from that of the difference in magnitude between the quanta of the energy involved in the two action processes of my so called model. (BTW, I am going to try to start calling it my "model", and I want everyone to know that it is still just my so-called model, but I have been typing that all the time in order to accommodate the detractors who always want to portray me as having some grand ideas of "doing science". Either the population has accepted my model as a hobby, or they have simply moved on.
I know most science enthusiasts have no trouble at all with there being a quantum realm. We have Planck to thank for that. However, it is understandable that there is no great support for the idea that the "point particles" used for mathematical purposes might themselves have a vast high density internal structure; a wave-to-spot-to-wave action continually "seething" within matter. I know that the idea that there is internal action within particles is still "alternative", but there are some good reasons to consider the possibility.
Do you notice how that concept corresponds nicely with the macro level discussion of the landscape of the greater universe with its big crunch-bangs-expanding arenas-arena convergences-new big crunches? The symmetry of action between the micro and macro has a good feel to me. It establishes limits within which my view of reality operates.
Also, the quantum action that establishes and maintains the presence of matter within the foundational medium is the micro level counterpart to the process of arena action at the macro level. Notice that at the micro level I prefer to characterize the action as wave/spot/wave, while at the macro level I envision it as spot/wave/spot. That is a small distinction that has a bigger implication.
The distinction is that at the micro level, I make the meaningful increment of energy a quantum wave, and at the macro level I make the meaningful increment if energy the high density big crunch. The implication may be just philosophical, but I visualize the smallest meaningful energy unit as the quantum wave, and the largest meaningful energy unit as the Big Crunch. The Big Crunch/bang is the macro quantum, and the quantum wave is the the micro quantum.
That also translates to the thinking that the "state" of energy in the exchange of quanta in particle interactions is the wave state; waves carry energy for particle interactions, and the high density spots "contain" energy at the micro level. In my model, there is no equivalent to the particle at the macro level because that would require talking about billions of big bang/big crunches required to make an arena landscape level particle, and there is no such "turtle" in my model, lol. ("Turtle" is a reference to "Turtles all the way down cosmology".)
And another reason to consider the internal wave structure of particles is the matter of the cause of gravity. In my model gravity involves the exchange of energy between objects; energy that is carried across distances of space by wave action. Objects have inflowing as well as out flowing wave energy components, and they move in the direction of the highest net wave energy source. The wave energy traversing the space between objects is what the medium of space consists of. Gravity is a natural characteristic of the presence of particles.
(2706)
I know most science enthusiasts have no trouble at all with there being a quantum realm. We have Planck to thank for that. However, it is understandable that there is no great support for the idea that the "point particles" used for mathematical purposes might themselves have a vast high density internal structure; a wave-to-spot-to-wave action continually "seething" within matter. I know that the idea that there is internal action within particles is still "alternative", but there are some good reasons to consider the possibility.
Do you notice how that concept corresponds nicely with the macro level discussion of the landscape of the greater universe with its big crunch-bangs-expanding arenas-arena convergences-new big crunches? The symmetry of action between the micro and macro has a good feel to me. It establishes limits within which my view of reality operates.
Also, the quantum action that establishes and maintains the presence of matter within the foundational medium is the micro level counterpart to the process of arena action at the macro level. Notice that at the micro level I prefer to characterize the action as wave/spot/wave, while at the macro level I envision it as spot/wave/spot. That is a small distinction that has a bigger implication.
The distinction is that at the micro level, I make the meaningful increment of energy a quantum wave, and at the macro level I make the meaningful increment if energy the high density big crunch. The implication may be just philosophical, but I visualize the smallest meaningful energy unit as the quantum wave, and the largest meaningful energy unit as the Big Crunch. The Big Crunch/bang is the macro quantum, and the quantum wave is the the micro quantum.
That also translates to the thinking that the "state" of energy in the exchange of quanta in particle interactions is the wave state; waves carry energy for particle interactions, and the high density spots "contain" energy at the micro level. In my model, there is no equivalent to the particle at the macro level because that would require talking about billions of big bang/big crunches required to make an arena landscape level particle, and there is no such "turtle" in my model, lol. ("Turtle" is a reference to "Turtles all the way down cosmology".)
And another reason to consider the internal wave structure of particles is the matter of the cause of gravity. In my model gravity involves the exchange of energy between objects; energy that is carried across distances of space by wave action. Objects have inflowing as well as out flowing wave energy components, and they move in the direction of the highest net wave energy source. The wave energy traversing the space between objects is what the medium of space consists of. Gravity is a natural characteristic of the presence of particles.
(2706)
Last edited:
To address the cause of gravity, now we can put together the high density spots that "contain" energy within a particle, with the quantum waves that "carry" energy within the particle. That is the picture you should try to visualize when you examine a freeze-frame of the high density spots that form as the internal waves converge. Those spots don't stay high density spots for long, so that is why we have the freeze-frame,
. They expand immediately into spherical waves themselves, overlapping with their neighbors to form new high density spots within the seething interior of a fundamental particle in my model.This is the internal portion of the process of quantum action. The internal "wave/spot/wave" action continually redistributes and equalizes the internal energy density. If you can visualize it, the action can be seen as continually fluctuating energy density at every point within the particle space. The range of the energy density differential between the high density spots and the lower density wave action surrounding each spot, if it could be quantified, would show that each particle has a unique set of specific values at any given time and place in spite of their overall general sameness.
The external portion of the process of quantum action is occurring in an entirely different environment, i.e. in the medium of space outside of the particle space. The wave energy density inside the particle is extreme, and is always equalizing within the particle, while the wave energy density surrounding the particle is much less dense, but is always in the process of equalizing as well.
The external wave energy density is not only very low relative to the matter density, but it falls off in an inverse square relationship as the distance from the source particle or object increases. Thus the energy density immediately surrounding objects is higher than the energy density in deeper space, and there is a gradient as the energy density falls off.
That gradient consists of the wave energy coming in from all directions, and wave energy exiting the particle or object in all directions as well. The energy density of the inflow is diminishing as it gets further from its source and closer to our particle or object, and conversely, the wave energy exiting the particles of our object is at its highest density as it exits from the particle boundary, and its density falls off rapidly in an inverse square relationship, as mentioned.
When we combine the concepts of the internal action and the external action surrounding a particle, the concept of the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components that maintains particles and objects falls into perspective. Inflowing wave energy is said to be directional because it comes to an object in waves from distant objects, even though it exited those objects spherically. As the spherical waves expand they become curved plane waves of energy, and in deep space they can be visualized as directional flat plan waves.
The frequency of this wave energy is an interesting topic for later, but it should be recognized that there is a frequency characteristic to the gravitational wave action, but it is lost in space, lol. Gravity waves in space are characterized as simply a directional wave energy gradient which has a declining density as it traverses space away from its source.
The motion of the particle has to do with the continually refreshing internal high density spots. The spots have location but not momentum relative to the particle space. They "refresh" in that particle space in a slightly new position once each quantum period in the direction of the net highest inflowing wave energy density, and the location of the particle is the moving boundary of that particle space; the sum of the location of its individual set of internal spots.
The spots don't all form at the same time within the particle, so there is no complete set of spots that morphs into one complete set of expanding spherical waves, from which a new complete set of spots form in a slightly different location. The particle is not "blinking" between its wave nature and its spot nature, it is "twinkling with spots among the waves", if I am permitted some poetic license.
(2761)
Last edited:
That little bit of poetic license leads me to an analogy of the wave/spot/wave action within the particle space. Slinky.
It is a bad analogy, but you probably know the look of how a slinky moves down steps. The part of that motion that I am basing the analogy on is that you can observe the tail end remaining in place while the front end moves forward, and then the tail end catches up. The wave/spot/wave action is like that tail end that stays in place as the rest of the particle moves forward.
Motion of the particle or object is the effect that the net gradient of the foundational medium plays as the next set of spots form in "slinky" fashion. Its role is to provide the preferred direction in which high density spots will form next, followed by the new spots across the rest of the particle, until the tail end of the spots form; a complete new set forms once in each quantum period (a quantum period is the length of time it takes for all of the quanta from one location to refresh in their spot state in the new location).
A particle "at rest" relative to surrounding particles and objects will be in an energy density environment where the energy gradient of the foundational medium surrounding the particle space is fully equalized. In nature, that particular state of the energy density gradient is rare for a macroscopic object, and so a particle being at rest is more likely to be at rest only within an object and only relative to the object itself, and not relative to the greater vicinity surrounding the object.
I am just saying that everything is in constant motion, and the direction of that motion is governed by the net energy density gradient of the foundational medium of space that surrounds everything composed of matter.
(2817)
The previous post pointed to a subtlety in the spot by spot motion of the particle space, and to the action within the particle space vs. the action at the particle boundary. The particle boundary itself is subtle as opposed to what one might envision as a clearly defined and stable surface. The particle's boundary is defined by the interface between the spherical wave action of the quanta that are right there at the boundary between the particle's space, and the gradient of the foundational medium surrounding the particle's space. The energy density gradient, as described earlier, is the directional wave energy density of the medium of space that interfaces with the particle's boundary.
The energy density flowing toward any point from all directions in the foundational medium of space has one preferred direction that can be referred to as the net "highest" density direction of the inflow. For a particle or object, that net highest density direction in the gradient would be an average of all directional density inflow, and that average (net) determines the direction of motion of that object.
One point that is worth mentioning, and it might already be clear, is that from the perspective of any given point in space, though the gradient is defined by the inward flow of wave energy from all directions, there is a corresponding flow of energy away from that point as the inflowing wave energy passes and heads away.
That is a small point but it does lend to what I call the infinite reach of spherically expanding gravitational waves. They go until their flow is interrupted by encountering mass, which uses their energy to sustain the presence of particles. If the inflow stopped and didn't then flow out, with a time delay, then the particles wouldn't be able to continue to "communicate" their location and momentum to distance objects. Those objects then wouldn't "know" how and where to move.
That coming and going of wave energy is a characteristic of every point in space. So for a particle or object in space, the surrounding gradient determines the particle's future motion, and the wave energy exiting and going away from that particle or object contributes to the future motion of distant particles and objects.
(2889)
The energy density flowing toward any point from all directions in the foundational medium of space has one preferred direction that can be referred to as the net "highest" density direction of the inflow. For a particle or object, that net highest density direction in the gradient would be an average of all directional density inflow, and that average (net) determines the direction of motion of that object.
One point that is worth mentioning, and it might already be clear, is that from the perspective of any given point in space, though the gradient is defined by the inward flow of wave energy from all directions, there is a corresponding flow of energy away from that point as the inflowing wave energy passes and heads away.
That is a small point but it does lend to what I call the infinite reach of spherically expanding gravitational waves. They go until their flow is interrupted by encountering mass, which uses their energy to sustain the presence of particles. If the inflow stopped and didn't then flow out, with a time delay, then the particles wouldn't be able to continue to "communicate" their location and momentum to distance objects. Those objects then wouldn't "know" how and where to move.
That coming and going of wave energy is a characteristic of every point in space. So for a particle or object in space, the surrounding gradient determines the particle's future motion, and the wave energy exiting and going away from that particle or object contributes to the future motion of distant particles and objects.
(2889)
I mentioned the time delay between the inflow and out flow of wave energy in passing in the last post. Time delay is a characteristic of all particles and it represents the average duration between the moment of inflow of a quantum of wave energy and the subsequent out flow of the same quantum.
Quanta are inflowing and out flowing at all times, and the inflow equals the out flow for a particle at rest in my model. The time delay concept is that the out flowing wave energy during a quantum period initially entered the particle at an earlier point in time, got caught up in the internal process of quantum action, and worked its way through and out of the particle while being disbursed by the wave/spot/wave action, finally exiting the particle as part of the spherically out flowing wave energy emitted from the surface. Can you imagine that?
The concept is useful to help quantify the natural process of quantum action. It makes sense then to equate the time delay to the energy content of a particle. I do that in terms of a ratio between the particle's total energy quanta, and the number of quanta that are exchanged by the inflow and out flow during each quantum period. From that ratio you get the number of quantum periods it takes to refresh all of the energy in the particle, and then you have the time delay measured in quantum periods. Now all we need to know is how long a quantum period is and we have quantified the time delay. Simple, right.
Needless to say, for ease of calculation purposes, it helps to be working with spherical particles and objects. (Lol, that reminds me of the story of the Spherical Cow).
To provide an example of the time delay of a particle, note that earlier, in post #46, I provided a link to my Wild Guess at the number of quanta in an electron and proton at rest. I want to re-post that content in the next post in case you didn't take a look back then, and then show an example of the time delay calculation.
(2929)
Quanta are inflowing and out flowing at all times, and the inflow equals the out flow for a particle at rest in my model. The time delay concept is that the out flowing wave energy during a quantum period initially entered the particle at an earlier point in time, got caught up in the internal process of quantum action, and worked its way through and out of the particle while being disbursed by the wave/spot/wave action, finally exiting the particle as part of the spherically out flowing wave energy emitted from the surface. Can you imagine that?
The concept is useful to help quantify the natural process of quantum action. It makes sense then to equate the time delay to the energy content of a particle. I do that in terms of a ratio between the particle's total energy quanta, and the number of quanta that are exchanged by the inflow and out flow during each quantum period. From that ratio you get the number of quantum periods it takes to refresh all of the energy in the particle, and then you have the time delay measured in quantum periods. Now all we need to know is how long a quantum period is and we have quantified the time delay. Simple, right.
Needless to say, for ease of calculation purposes, it helps to be working with spherical particles and objects. (Lol, that reminds me of the story of the Spherical Cow).
To provide an example of the time delay of a particle, note that earlier, in post #46, I provided a link to my Wild Guess at the number of quanta in an electron and proton at rest. I want to re-post that content in the next post in case you didn't take a look back then, and then show an example of the time delay calculation.
(2929)
Quantum Units Wild Guess
In my model, the proton’s presence (three quarks if you like) is literally composed of the high density spots that form at the overlap of the multiple quantum standing waves within the proton; the wave/spot/wave action.
Spherical waves are bursting out of high density spots (HDSs), expanding spherically, overlapping, and forming new HDSs within the proton. It is a continual process where the wave energy out flow that escapes the proton from the surface spherically (equal in all directions) is replaced by wave energy arriving at the surface (directionally) from the out flow of wave energy from other particles. Thus the presence of the proton is maintained by the inflowing and out flowing standing wave action.
Let’s say that we can freeze the quantum action process that has established the presence of a proton. That freeze frame will contain a finite number of spherical quantum waves in overlap positions within the proton. Each overlap is a high density spot in my jargon. There are a finite number of high density spots within the particle space where the spherical waves have overlapped at the moment of the freeze frame. That close configuration of high density spots has stability because there is no niche on the surface for any additional surface quanta or high density spots in a stable environment, i.e. the surface wave energy out flow is equal to the wave energy inflow in a stable energy density environment, like at rest. (Increase the energy of the environment or accelerate the proton and there are more surface quanta and proportionately more total quanta, hypothetically.)
The question is, from what we know about the proton at rest, and from what I hypothesize about the process of quantum action at the foundational level, can we derive a ball park figure or even a wild guess of the number of high density spots (or shall we say quantum units) within a proton? A quantum unit would be the foundational unit of energy in a universe composed of wave energy in a foundational medium, i.e. in my model.
In this exercise you might point out that the units of measure don’t work unless we define the whole exercise in terms of a new unit, i.e. a speculative “quantum unit” that occupies an average amount of space per quanta in the freeze frame view inside a proton. We are not talking about energy in joules for example because the units of measure wouldn’t work. We are talking about energy in quantum units; quanta. Each quantum unit is a quantum of wave energy, not only the individual spherical waves, but the high density spots that accumulate a full quantum and burst into new spherical waves when "parent waves" overlap. So the number of quantum units would be the total number of spherical wave intersections that are present as hypothetically represented by the high density spots that form and burst into quantum waves. Supposedly we could count the HDSs in a freeze frame of the proton, and if we could we would know the total energy in quantum units of a proton at rest.
This hypothetical exercise is to put some perspective on the number of energy quanta in a proton and an electron at rest to quantify my idea of the composition of quantum units within a stable particle. For simplicity we will call these “average quantum units” which simply occupy the space within the proton; a quantum unit would consist of one high density spot at the overlap of multiple spherical quantum waves. This can also be thought of as the wave energy, in quanta, in a volume of space occupied by the proton, accounted for unit by unit in a whole number. I am suggesting the following widely speculative guess at the number of these quantum units within the space occupied by a proton:
I am using the approximate ratio of the rest energy of an electron vs. a proton, which is 1/1836, to equate the number of quantum units in the proton to the number of units in the electron which give me some basis for a calculation.
In addition, I am supposing that the number of quantum units in an electron is equal to the number of quanta at the surface of the proton for various reasons, but for this exercise that is just to have a relationship to allow us to do the calculations.
Area/Volume = (4 pi r^2)/(4/3 pi r^3) = 3/r = 1/1836,
therefore r=3*1836 = 5508, thus the radius of the proton is equal to 5508 quantum units.
4 pi r^2 = surface area of a sphere
4/3 pi r^3 = volume of a sphere
pi = 3.14159265
Quantum units in an electron = 381,239,356
Quantum units in a proton = 699,955,457,517
I'll just call it 400 million and 700 billion respectively, or even just hundreds of millions and hundreds of billions respectively .
{end of referenced link}
From that link we get the number of quanta in a proton and we get the number of quanta at the surface of the proton, but that does not give us the number of inflowing and out flowing quanta. We can say though that about half of the wave energy of each surface quantum goes out into space, and half goes back into the particle space during each quantum period (the length of time it takes for all of the high density spots to form and burst into waves, once). Therefore it would follow that the number of quanta at the surface, divided by 2, roughly equals the number of quanta that are out flowing during each quantum period. Then we could state the containment ratio as the total contained quanta divided by the out flowing quanta during each quantum period:
Radius = 5508 quantum units
Surface quanta = 381,239,356
divided by 2 = 190,619,678 inflow and out flow in quanta per quantum period
Total quanta in proton = 699,955,457,517
Containment ratio 3,672:1
Time delay = 3672 quantum periods
If we use a heavier particle, like an accelerated proton that has, say 10,000 quantum units for the radius, we get a much higher energy containment, we have a much more massive particle, and we get a greater time delay, 6667 quantum periods.
These calculations are simply wild guesses intended to put the amount of energy contained in a particle, and the relative time delay associated with different masses into some perspective. The relative duration of the quantum period between different energy density environments will be discussed later. These ideas will be helpful when visualizing various aspects of the model, especially when we get back to the freeze-frame tool.
(2987)
In my model, the proton’s presence (three quarks if you like) is literally composed of the high density spots that form at the overlap of the multiple quantum standing waves within the proton; the wave/spot/wave action.
Spherical waves are bursting out of high density spots (HDSs), expanding spherically, overlapping, and forming new HDSs within the proton. It is a continual process where the wave energy out flow that escapes the proton from the surface spherically (equal in all directions) is replaced by wave energy arriving at the surface (directionally) from the out flow of wave energy from other particles. Thus the presence of the proton is maintained by the inflowing and out flowing standing wave action.
Let’s say that we can freeze the quantum action process that has established the presence of a proton. That freeze frame will contain a finite number of spherical quantum waves in overlap positions within the proton. Each overlap is a high density spot in my jargon. There are a finite number of high density spots within the particle space where the spherical waves have overlapped at the moment of the freeze frame. That close configuration of high density spots has stability because there is no niche on the surface for any additional surface quanta or high density spots in a stable environment, i.e. the surface wave energy out flow is equal to the wave energy inflow in a stable energy density environment, like at rest. (Increase the energy of the environment or accelerate the proton and there are more surface quanta and proportionately more total quanta, hypothetically.)
The question is, from what we know about the proton at rest, and from what I hypothesize about the process of quantum action at the foundational level, can we derive a ball park figure or even a wild guess of the number of high density spots (or shall we say quantum units) within a proton? A quantum unit would be the foundational unit of energy in a universe composed of wave energy in a foundational medium, i.e. in my model.
In this exercise you might point out that the units of measure don’t work unless we define the whole exercise in terms of a new unit, i.e. a speculative “quantum unit” that occupies an average amount of space per quanta in the freeze frame view inside a proton. We are not talking about energy in joules for example because the units of measure wouldn’t work. We are talking about energy in quantum units; quanta. Each quantum unit is a quantum of wave energy, not only the individual spherical waves, but the high density spots that accumulate a full quantum and burst into new spherical waves when "parent waves" overlap. So the number of quantum units would be the total number of spherical wave intersections that are present as hypothetically represented by the high density spots that form and burst into quantum waves. Supposedly we could count the HDSs in a freeze frame of the proton, and if we could we would know the total energy in quantum units of a proton at rest.
This hypothetical exercise is to put some perspective on the number of energy quanta in a proton and an electron at rest to quantify my idea of the composition of quantum units within a stable particle. For simplicity we will call these “average quantum units” which simply occupy the space within the proton; a quantum unit would consist of one high density spot at the overlap of multiple spherical quantum waves. This can also be thought of as the wave energy, in quanta, in a volume of space occupied by the proton, accounted for unit by unit in a whole number. I am suggesting the following widely speculative guess at the number of these quantum units within the space occupied by a proton:
I am using the approximate ratio of the rest energy of an electron vs. a proton, which is 1/1836, to equate the number of quantum units in the proton to the number of units in the electron which give me some basis for a calculation.
In addition, I am supposing that the number of quantum units in an electron is equal to the number of quanta at the surface of the proton for various reasons, but for this exercise that is just to have a relationship to allow us to do the calculations.
Area/Volume = (4 pi r^2)/(4/3 pi r^3) = 3/r = 1/1836,
therefore r=3*1836 = 5508, thus the radius of the proton is equal to 5508 quantum units.
4 pi r^2 = surface area of a sphere
4/3 pi r^3 = volume of a sphere
pi = 3.14159265
Quantum units in an electron = 381,239,356
Quantum units in a proton = 699,955,457,517
I'll just call it 400 million and 700 billion respectively, or even just hundreds of millions and hundreds of billions respectively .
{end of referenced link}
From that link we get the number of quanta in a proton and we get the number of quanta at the surface of the proton, but that does not give us the number of inflowing and out flowing quanta. We can say though that about half of the wave energy of each surface quantum goes out into space, and half goes back into the particle space during each quantum period (the length of time it takes for all of the high density spots to form and burst into waves, once). Therefore it would follow that the number of quanta at the surface, divided by 2, roughly equals the number of quanta that are out flowing during each quantum period. Then we could state the containment ratio as the total contained quanta divided by the out flowing quanta during each quantum period:
Radius = 5508 quantum units
Surface quanta = 381,239,356
divided by 2 = 190,619,678 inflow and out flow in quanta per quantum period
Total quanta in proton = 699,955,457,517
Containment ratio 3,672:1
Time delay = 3672 quantum periods
If we use a heavier particle, like an accelerated proton that has, say 10,000 quantum units for the radius, we get a much higher energy containment, we have a much more massive particle, and we get a greater time delay, 6667 quantum periods.
These calculations are simply wild guesses intended to put the amount of energy contained in a particle, and the relative time delay associated with different masses into some perspective. The relative duration of the quantum period between different energy density environments will be discussed later. These ideas will be helpful when visualizing various aspects of the model, especially when we get back to the freeze-frame tool
.(2987)
Test image Photon Wave-Particle (Time lapse ~20 quantum periods)
Aka "The Lopsided Trailing Energy Balloon"
Aka "The Lopsided Trailing Energy Balloon"
Last edited:
Moving from left to right?
Yes, stay tuned
.
Last edited: