Structure of Matter/Energy Crazy Idea

[PFanalog57]

If particles of energy and matter can be described as spherical standing waves, vibrations emerging out of of the vacuum itself, the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass could be easily explained?

(<-(<-(P)->)->) and (->(->(P)<-)<-) becomes (<-(->(P)<-)->)

A particle is then at standing wave resonance.

If the particle is moving at a constant velocity, it is at a balanced equilibrium.

If the particle is accelerated, or is in the presence of a massive object it experiences time dilation and length contraction:

(<---(->(P)<---)->)

A damping effect?

 

[Antonio Lao]

I am working on an idea that says closed volume cannot exist in the real world (for every sphere, there is at least one hole in the size of a mathematical point). In cosmology, the concept of closed volume is tantamount to the formation of a black hole which is nearly the same as saying the possible existence of a singularity.

To theorize a black hole, a concept of horizon is needed. This horizon separates the black hole into an inside and an outside and furthermore no information can be passed from the inside to the outside, although the outside's information can fall inside. This is the same as saying that the divergence of a vector field is zero and not zero at the same time. This is impossible even in mathematics. if the divergence is not zero then a source exists. If the divergence is zero then a source of the field does not exist. Both the electric and magnetic field are sourceless in vacuum an locked into an electromagnetic field. This is the same as saying that the divergence of the vacuum's electromagnetic field is zero yet in a black hole, this should not be zero but since no information is coming out of the black hole, we really can't be sure whether the vacuum's divergence is zero or not zero.

 

[WWW]

If particles of energy and matter can be described as spherical standing waves...

I think that first you have to find what are the natural laws that holding this standing wave in a stable (P) state as we can find in our obsereved universe.

 

[AWolf]

To theorize a black hole, a concept of horizon is needed. This horizon separates the black hole into an inside and an outside and furthermore no information can be passed from the inside to the outside, although the outside's information can fall inside.

Not true.

The horizon of a black hole is the distance at which light cannot escape. There is nothing that says that higher energy photons cannot escape from deeper within a black hole.
The horizon for radio waves will extend beyond that for xrays.

Hawking Radiation is one such energy that is theorized to be emitted from a black hole.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The naked singularity is what I have in mind. This naked singularity has an infinite divergence instead of zero. The naked singularity is somehow clothed by the horizon but there are also Cauchy horizons to think about.

If the horizon is a surface (closed), then Hawking radiation is restricted only to this surface.

 

[AWolf]

The naked singularity is what I have in mind. This naked singularity has an infinite divergence instead of zero. The naked singularity is somehow clothed by the horizon but there are also Cauchy horizons to think about.

If the horizon is a surface (closed), then Hawking radiation is restricted only to this surface.

If the singularity exists at the centre of a black hole, then it is just that, a singularity. It is a pythagorian point - dimensionless. As such it would have no mass.

The moment you move beyond this dimensionless coordinate, you would have mass.

The generally accepted horizon is the point at which light does not escape.
For higher energies, the horizon would extend from the singularity all the way out to the extent of the black hole's graviational field.

If you consider the graviational field of the black hole and the increase in graviational force the further you travel into the black hole, there is no reason to suppose that the force wouldn't just keep increasing exponentially.

The black hole would be extremely dense at its core, but not necessarily a singularity.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Obviously, the source where you got your information from is far more superior than mine for such command of confidence coming from your posts. Thanks for sharing them with me. I am not a practising cosmologist so I can say no more.

 

[PFanalog57]

I think that first you have to find what are the natural laws that holding this standing wave in a stable (P) state as we can find in our obsereved universe.

The natural laws arise as a consequence of fluctuations/vibrations of space itself. A consequence of the absolute necessity of logical consistency.

The Universe is therefore the largest quantum particle:

(<-(->(<-(U)->)<-)->)

A self including set!

 

[WWW]

...A consequence of the absolute necessity of logical consistency.

Please give a simple example of what kind of logic you are talking about.

Please be aware that there are at least two basic points of view on what is called logic, which are:

1) Excluded-middle logic.

2) Included-middle logic.

 

[PFanalog57]

Please give a simple example of what kind of logic you are talking about.

Please be aware that there are at least two basic points of view on what is called logic, which are:

1) Excluded-middle logic.

2) Included-middle logic.

A non-contradictory description of a phenomena, must ultimately rely on[be interpreted in terms of] an excluded-middle, 2-valued logic.

For example, the statement: "All white cats are white" must be accepted as a true statement. An analytic proposition.

Yet, physical science is currently based on the concepts of particles and forces in Space and Time, which assumes the existence of four separate things. The necessary connection between these quantities is unknown.

Yet if these things are actually properties of a unified whole, the different aspects of reality must be explained in terms of one unifying principle, or idea...?

So while X, and not-X, are distinctly separate, they are both aspects of a higher level of symmetry ...?

 

[WWW]

So while X, and not-X, are distinctly separate, they are both aspects of a higher level of symmetry ...?

In an included-middle logic there is a simultaneous interactions between
(A AND NON-A) AND (A XOR NON-A) ( contradiction does not exist form this point of view, for example:http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/BFC.pdf ).

AA=(A AND NON-A) is the symmetrical side AND AX=(A XOR NON-A) is the broken symmetrical side.

A meta point of view on the above will be:

AA AND AX (included middle)

AA XOR AX (excluded middle)

What is your point of view about (<-(->(<-(U)->)<-)->)?

 

[PFanalog57]

What is your point of view about (<-(->(<-(U)->)<-)->)?

An interesting link, that partially agrees with the theory:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-String-Theory-Waves.htm

 

[PFanalog57]

Sets can be represented by Venn diagrams.

Venn diagrams can be represented as light cone cross sections.

Dr. Milo Wolff's theory of the wave structure of matter is very interesting.

http://www.quantummatter.com/

Dr. Wolff:

My name is Milo Wolff and I am a physicist, astronomer, and explorer of the wondrous cosmology of the universe. I have worked for MIT, Aerospace Corporation, the United Nations, as well as taught at various universities in the USA and Asia.

 

[WWW]

the particle-like nature of matter waves...

By this approach Dr. Wolff simply saying that our universe (in any level of it) is interactions between standing waves, where any partial measurement of them is what we call particles.

Shortly speaking, locality is actually a fractal-like part of a global fractal's self symmetry.

So, (<-(->(<-(U)->)<-)->) is the invariant fractal's self symmetry, and it means that our universe is a local phenomena in a never-ending fractal (all our universe is a single standing wave in a meta universe if we are looking "up", and any stading wave included in our universe is a particle-like local universe if we are looking "down") .

What do you think?

 

[Antonio Lao]

One of the points I was trying to make is that wave phenomena can only be described using surfaces but not volume but the spherical surface with at least one hole-point is the closest approximation to a volume (closed volume). I want to make the point, that closed volume cannot exist in nature. If there is a closed volume, space is separated into inside and outside and no information can pass through between them, complete isolation.

 

[ZelmersZoetrop]

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot allow an abuse of physics to go to. Look here at the metric for a black hole (I'll assume no rotation or charge, and take c=1, for simplicity, also, I use (r,H,I) for polar spatial co-ordinates):

ds^2=(1-2Gm/r)dt^2-(1-2Gm/r)^(-1)dr^2-r^2*dH^2-r^2*sin[H]^2*dI^2

Clearly, the event horizon is the same for all objects or photons or anything, no matter their energy or any other quality. The horizon comes not from the energy or speed or anything else of the infalling matter but rather because from an outside observer, time stops and spatial curvature goes to infinity when r=2Gm.

 

[PFanalog57]

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot allow an abuse of physics to go to. Look here at the metric for a black hole (I'll assume no rotation or charge, and take c=1, for simplicity, also, I use (r,H,I) for polar spatial co-ordinates):

ds^2=(1-2Gm/r)dt^2-(1-2Gm/r)^(-1)dr^2-r^2*dH^2-r^2*sin[H]^2*dI^2

Clearly, the event horizon is the same for all objects or photons or anything, no matter their energy or any other quality. The horizon comes not from the energy or speed or anything else of the infalling matter but rather because from an outside observer, time stops and spatial curvature goes to infinity when r=2Gm.

The Schwarzschild geometry is the geometry of the vacuum spacetime outside
a spherical star. It is determined by one parameter, M = mass.

Of course curvature going to infinity when r = 2GM might not be the actual case when quantum effects are taken into account. The goal is to eliminate the inconsistencies, including eliminatation of the the pesky infinities.

Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman derived the "sum over histories" interpretation of quantum mechanics, where a system does not have a single history, but it has every possible history, and each history has its own probability amplitude. For example, an electron travels from point A to point B by every possible route at once. Each possible route or "path" corresponds to a history.

The amplitude for each history defines the probability of that particular path being followed. The number involves the "action" associated with the history-path, which seems to determine that the path taken, will be the history closest to the "classical" trajectory, in accordance with the law of conservation of energy.

Stephen Hawking explains that when we apply the Feynman sum over histories to particles moving in a background of spacetime, we must also include histories[waveforms] in which the particle travels backwards in time. This generates the spacetime resonance:

If particles of energy and matter can be described as spherical standing waves, vibrations emerging out of of the vacuum itself, the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass could be easily explained?

(<-(<-(P)->)->) and (->(->(P)<-)<-) becomes (<-(->(P)<-)->)

A particle is then at standing wave resonance.

If the particle is moving at a constant velocity, it is at a balanced equilibrium.

If the particle is accelerated, or is in the presence of a massive object it experiences time dilation and length contraction:

(<---(->(P)<---)->)

Distance is a property between objects in space. Duration is a distance between events in time. Spacetime is a relational structure; The structure of space is possibly a Boolean lattice.
Sets can be represented by Venn diagrams.

Venn diagrams can be represented as light cone cross sections.
The "universal set" is represented by the the universal lightcone!
(<-(->(U)<-)->)
Past and future intersect at the present. A system at standing wave resonance.

If the locality principle is not going to be thrown into the trash heap, then a viable option is that space is something analogous to homogeneously distributed wave density function(a perfect fluid?) i.e. increasing density gradients, giving the observed thermodynamic arrow of time. The observed cosmic expansion is a "relative" one! A "perspective effect" from our local vantage point. A shrinking object gives the illusion of receding motion. Increasing *refractive* density gradients give the appearence of a doppler-red-shift. Space increases density as matter is re-sized.

Spacetime then "remembers" the input! A quantum measurement is made, the action principle demands the shortest distance between two points be taken, whatever that may be. There is no instantaneous action at a distance!
So what we observe as an absolute spacetime expansion is not really true. The expansion is relative. From a local perspective, the universe appears to expand with radius R. From a global perspective energy density is compressed with radius 1/R. The only real constant for the universe is "h", which is Planck's constant. All other physical constants are related to this basic evolutionary parameter

At the Planck scales space becomes a type of Bose Einstein condensate...?

A quantum mechanical theory of black holes could point towards a type of bose Einstein condensation instead of a singularity.


Richard Feynman explains that a positron which is an anti matter particle corresponding to the matter particle called the electron, can also be interpreted as an electron moving backwards in time. This points towards a system[universe] at temporal "standing wave" resonance.

Quantum mechanics leads us to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never decreases.

The analogy with black holes is an interesting one but if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be. So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the universe is increasing. We see it as entropy, but to an information processor with huge computational capabilities, it is compressible information.

Quantum field theory calculations where imaginary time is periodic, with period 1/T are equivalent to statistical mechanics calculations where the temperature is T. The periodic waveforms that are opposed yet "in phase" would be at standing wave resonance, giving the action.

What kind of waves are possible inside a black hole? The answer is standing waves, waves that "fit" inside the black hole with a node at the event horizon. The possible wave states are very similar to standing waves on a circular drum; they aren't quite the same because the black hole standing waves exist in three dimensions instead of just the two of the drum head.
These waves intersections are increasing with time. A type of compression force.

Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of spacetime itself.
Space is at right angles to time.

Electricity is at right angles to magnetism.

Gravity is at right angles to inertia.

All are aspects of one unified field.

Wavefronts = cotangent vectors = one forms
The wave function for a the quantum compression wave could be analogous to the quantum spring equation:

psi = exp(-beta x^2 / 2),

with beta = 2 pi * square root(mk) / h, with m being the mass of the particle attached to the spring,

k is the spring's force constant, and h is Planck's constant.

x is the compression or extension of the spring from its equilibrium position.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Wave properties are but not limited to frequency, wavelength, amplitude, phase (angle).

Particle properties are but not limited to mass, charge, density, volume.

Frequency, amplitude are scalars but wavelength and phase are vectors.
Mass, density, volume, charge are all scalars quantity.

Only vector quantities can be used to describe motion and direction. And scalar quantities can only be used to describe magnitude.

Is time a scalar or vector quantity?

 

[PFanalog57]

Is time a scalar or vector quantity?

The increase in mass of a body moving at relativistic speeds can also be interpreted as a type of rotational perspective effect, and when time is explained as a dimension, "ct", by combining one of the c's with time to convert it to a length, E = m_0 c^2 becomes m_0 c , a momentum, specifically, a momentum of an object's motion down its time axis.

A being's conscious awareness is what is really moving along its time axis, or world- line, which is the fourth dimensional extension of its 3 dimensional self.

m_0 c is a momentum along its time axis.

If we stopped moving through time the rest energy of objects would be zero?

Interesting...

(mc^2)^2 = (m_0 c^2) + m^2 v^2 c^2

becomes

(mc^2)^2 - m^2 v^2 c^2 = (m_0 c^2)^2

A hyperbolic equation of the form:

c^2 t^2 - dx^2 = K

Time is be a vector quantity also. A quantity with magnitude and direction.

 

[Edwin]

Your concept of open volume is very interesting indeed, and is related, in essence, to a mathematical concept I was working on a few years back:the existence of a negative region of 3-space, with extensions to certain hypothetically unlikely models as 4-space with the fourth time dimension being a radial dimension of a sphere, residing beyond the center of a sphere. I referred to this concept as "beyond centermass." I gave several analogies, one of which is as follows: suppose one looks out over a lake, and sees a pole standing 10 feet above the surface of the water. At first glance, if one didn't know any better, one might presume that the pole is 10 ft high. However, upon closer examination of the pole, one might realize that there is an additional 10 ft of pole below the surface of the water that one was previously unaware of. So then one postulates that the height of the pole is 20 ft, 10 feet above the water, and ten feet below the water. In this case, the surface of the water is analogous to the center point at the center of a sphere, and the pole is analogous to the radius of the sphere. At first glance, one might presume that the radius of a sphere starts at the sphere's center, and extends out as a ray in three space to infinity. However, upon closer examination, one, such as yourself, may realize that a sphere is not entirely closed, and thus perhaps radius extends beyond the center of the sphere to a negative region of space that is not percievable from our perspective. Perhaps the radius extends to positive infinity in positive space, which we see, and negative infinity beyond the center of the sphere, which we do not see. In this case, the radius of a sphere is not a ray, but a line extending from negative infinity to positive infinity. If you are correct and can prove that a sphere can not be closed as the center-point of the sphere causes the sphere to be open, then perhaps the next step would be to evaluate whether such a proof implies the abstract existence of a "beyond center-mass."

What do you think?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

[Antonio Lao]

Will reply as soon as possible giving some time for digestion of these materials.

 

[Edwin]

That is always good. I like to spend a healthy amount of time digesting these concepts as well. There is no substitute for good, thurough research.

Best Regards,

Edwin

 

[Antonio Lao]

Edwin,

If we extend one radius to infinity and turn back on itself to form a closed loop the radius had turned itself into the circumference of an infinite circle. If each point on this circumference is to be the center of another infinitely extend circle then the two infinite circles are related to each in the sense that one circumference are the connected center points of an infinite number of infinite circles and vice versa. If we then specify a direction of motion for one center we can basically create two non-equivalent topological links. One signifies the positivity of space and one for the negativity. These spatial polarities can give meaning to gravity and antigravity forces.
Further we can theorize that gravity is just the vector difference of a timelike (moving) force and a spacelike (resting) force.

 

[Edwin]

You might be on to something! Around a year ago I analyzed some work accomplished by Dr. Ivanov, and extrapulated some mathematical models based on his work that is right along the lines of what you mentioned above. Below is a copy of the research paper. It may have particular applications in the portion of your theory related to defining progression of a path defined by the equation

V_e = \frac{c[v_1 - (v_1 - x)]}{v_1 + (v_1 - x)}

where c is a constant, to infinite global loops.

This equation describes a non-linear path, a closed loop, on an infinite torus.

Please note: I wasn't able to include the graphics, it just takes up to much space;)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of one of Dr. Yu. Ivanov's Equations describing his Discovery of Lively Standing Waves

According to Dr. Ivanov's publication, in the late ninety's, Dr. Ivanov discovered the existence of standing wave compression while conducting a series of accoustical experiments using interferrometric techniques. His discovery of this previously unknown interference pattern of wave phenomenon, which he deemed spider waves based on the interference pattern's resemblance to the shape of a spider, is detailed in his papers posted on www.keely.net/spider/htm[/URL]. Dr. Yu. Ivanov, and his team, discovered the existence of another related wave phenomenon of moving standing waves which they termed "Lively Standing Waves"(LSW's). According to Dr. Ivanov's research, lively standing waves arise between two or more oscillators in a "united energy system" in which case standing waves move from the oscillators with a higher frequency to oscillators of a lower frequency. Dr. Ivanov and his team of physicists discovered an equation that describes the transfer velocity of "lively standing waves."

For sound, his LSW equation is as follows:


Lively Standing Wave Velocity=v1-v2/v1+v2

Where v1 is the frequency of the first oscillator, and v2 is the frequency of the second oscillator.


Dr. Yu. Ivanov equated the movement of lively standing waves through a system as movement of energy through a system. He defines an "Energy Transfer Velocity"(ETV's) in terms of LSWV's(Lively Standing Wave Velocities).

For electrical systems and light Dr. Ivanov describes a similar equation for both the LSWV's and ETV's. His equation is as follows:

$$V_e = \frac{c[v_1 - (v_1 - x)]}{v_1 + (v_1 - x)}$$


Lively Standing wave Velocity is equal to Energy Transfer Velocity which is defined by the following equation:

$$V_e = \frac{c[v_1 - (v_1 - x)]}{v_1 + (v_1 - x)}$$




Where v1 is the frequency of the first oscillator, and v2 is the frequency of the second oscillator, and c is the speed of light constant.

Analysis of the equation c(v1-v2)/(v1+v2) has been conducted by Edwin G. Schasteen of TAP-TEN Research Foundation International. His results are as follows:

Let us set up a traditional (x,y) Graph and allow the x-axis to represent the frequencies of two oscillators v1, and v2, and allow the y-axis to represent the ETV, and LSWV of this given system. As, according to Dr. Ivanov, the frequency of oscillator v2 approaches zero, the standing wave velocity approaches the speed of light in a direction of probagation from v1 to v2.
Now if we let v1 be a constant frequency of 1htz, and let v2 be a variable frequency, then v2=v1-x, where x is the difference in frequency of oscillator v2 from v1 and is also known as the frequency gradient. We can use substitution to define the graph of ETV and LSWV as follows:

ETV=LSWV=c(v1-v2)/(v1+v2)

Substituting v2 for v1-x, we get:

ETV=LSWV= $$V_e = \frac{c[v_1 - (v_1 - x)]}{v_1 + (v_1 - x)}$$



If v1 is 1htz, then as x approaches zero, ETV and LSWV approaches zero. When x is zero, v1=v2.
As x approaches -1, ETV approaches the speed of light, c.

As x approaches -2, ETV approaches infinity(c).
As x approaches -3, ETV approaches -3c from negative infinity, which means that the direction of the energy velocity has reversed, and is flowing from v2 to v1, instead of from v1 to v2.

The above geometric conceptualization is described by two types of curved infinities that form both a mobius path and a torus. In the second from last illustration at the bottom of these pages, a section has been cut out along the cylinders length before the cylinder is rapped into a torus to represent the velocity ranges from 0 to
positive c.
The curved length of the torus's rap in the last illustration represents the frequency range from negative infinity to positive infinity, and the circumference of the torus represents all possible velocities.

According to the analysis, the equation describes a topology that implies the range of velocities that exist for lively standing waves as a mobius path. Namely, as v2 approaches negative infinity, the velocity of the standing wave from v2 to v1 approaches -c, because -c is where the mobius path crosses the infinite and -infinite frequency portion of our torus.The circumference of our torus representing frequencies +infinity to -infinity is infinite as is the circumference of the part of our torus representing the velocity range -infinity to +infinity.

A translation of this concept can describe the nature of time direction, and why light waves closer to their source are emmitted after (to the future of) light waves that are further from their source, by defining light waves further from their source as being negative oscillators relative to light waves closer to their source as shown by the diagram and equations below, and simultaneously defining each light wave's velocity through the right-handed universe, and left-handed universe indepentantly, results show three different time values for a position in space-time. Let four light waves be emmitted from a common source. Let the first light wave be emmitted at t=0sec, the second at t=1sec, the third at t=2sec, and the fourth at t=3sec. When the fourth wave is created, the first wave has traveled at a velocity of light a total of 3 light seconds. Therefore, let t0 represent the position of the first lightwave's wavefront. Let t1 represent the position of the second lightwave's wavefront, and so on. Then t sub(n-1)=t sub(n)-v, and t sub(n)=t sub(n-1)+v, where

v=LSWV=TSV= $$V_e = \frac{c[v_1 - (v_1 - x)]}{v_1 + (v_1 - x)}$$



Let t0=0sec, t1=1second, t2=2seconds and t3=3seconds.

t=1-(-1)=2seconds,
t=1-(0)= 1seconds,
t=1-(1)=0 seconds.

In order for a standing wave to travel from a light-wavefront back to it's origin at a plus and minus infinite velocity, the frequency gradient x between the light-wave front, and it's origin, would have to be 2 if v1 is 1htz. Plus, and minus infinity loop into each other the way that 0 degrees loops into 360 degrees in a circle. Our mobius path meets two unique infinity's at two different parts of our torus. Our mobius path crosses -c, at a frequency of +/- infinity, and our mobius path crosses a velocity of +/-infinity at
v2=-1htz when v1 is 1htz.

The larger circle represents an extended imaginary interval from the surface of the light field, whose value = the square root of negative one, 1i, or just i. Tangent to the circle is real number whose length =1.
Using the pythagerean theorum, we calculate the length of the diagonal c^2 of the right triangle representing the lowest triangle.

(a^2+b^2)^1/2=(c^2)^1/2, where a=i, and b is tangent to the circle, and equals 1.

[(i)^2+(1)^2]=(-1+1)^1/2=(0)^1/2=0.

Since the diagonal c^2 equals zero, the area of the square converges to a point on the surface of the light field leaving only upper right triangle existing in the real number portion of our universe.


The graph below represents the graph of Dr. Ivanov's equation for velocity of energy transfer, and lively standing wave velocity.

$$V_e = \frac{c[v_1 - (v_1 - x)]}{v_1 + (v_1 - x)}$$



The following proposed geometry is consistent with the model listed above, and can be shown to be described by the equations above, and shows that movement through space-time corresponds to velocities graphed as a mobius path on our infinite torus. This describes the nature of time progression, and is the underlying foundation for the formulation of the lorentz light cones in the differential space-time geometry described by general relativity.


Left handed wave front=sub(n)=t sub(n-1)-(-v)c=t sub(n-1)+vc
Right handed wave front=sub(n)=t sub(n-1)-vc.

Let n-1=0, and n=1, and c=1. Left handed velocity is -v= -1c, and right handed velocity is +1c.

Lh=t sub(n-1)-(-cc)=c^2=c
Rh=t sub(n-1)-(cc)=-(c^2)=-(c)=-c, when c=1 abu.

Left hand universe extends to toward the future, and the Right hand universe extends toward the past.

t sub(1-1)=t0=0,

t sub(1)=t1=1,

Lht1=t0-(-vc)=0-(-1)=1,
Rht1=t0-(vc)=0-(1^2)=-1(1)=-1
Therefore left handed t1 is equal to plus one arbitrary unit of time, and right handed t1 is equal to minus one arbitrary unit of time.

This means that point t1 exists both in the absolute past, and absolute future. In reality, the absolute past time value of this equation represents the time that has progressed since the light field past your particular position in space-time. The absolute future part of this equation represents that time that will pass before the light wave reaches your position in space-time.

 

[Edwin]

(Continued from last post)

The image on a light field is a two dimensional representation of the three dimensional space (x, y, and z) the light propogates through from it's source. If it were possible to see the back of the image (which we can by reflecting the light off of a mirror) contained on light, we would see the mirror image. We can see that we have two types of representations of a given region of space. We have a right-handed image of our three-dimensional space representing right-handed space, and we have a left-handed image of our three-dimensional space representing a left-handed space. As it turns out, one can give the two-dimensional image an added third imaginary dimension without changing it's real two dimensional nature described on the real number line by expanding the forward edge of the field in two directions. One extends the front edge of the light field by one imaginary unit=i, and the back end of the image by one imaginary unit of i.
When we plug in the pythagerean theorem, we find that the diagonal length of both numbers reduces to zero, giving us our original two dimensional light field that we see in our real number universe. However, if we represent the image in this third imaginary dimension, we find that we have both a left-handed space seen from the origin point of light field, and a right handed space seen from the left-handed portion of our universe. It is important to note that no matter whether you are looking into the left-handed image from the origin point, or into the right-handed image from the outer most side of the light field, you are always looking in a direction that points toward the origin in real number radial axes. This means that two equal-opposite radial vectors in our real number universe translates into the right and left handed parts of our universe with a common real number radial vector that always points toward the origin point of our field. Let us assume that an irradiator radiates a light field in all directions as a sphere with an oscillatory frequency equal to 1htz. Those looking at the light field approaching them sees the right handed version of the light's movement away from lights source, which is +vc. However, after the light wave has past those persons particular reference points so as to be traveling away from those persons in real radial axes, those persons see the left-handed version of light's movement away from light's source, which is -(-vc)=c^2=c.Recall, that the difference between a frequency v1, and v2, is the gradient x. Recalling the topology of our mobius path of velocities, and torus of faster-then-light velocities, and other velocities, in this case, the gradient x of our light field that is traveling through real space at c, would have to have a gradient x=1 An example is shown below:

Ve=c[v1-(v1-x)]/[v1+(v1-x)]

Let c=1, v1=1htz, and x=1.

Ve=c[1-(1-1)]/[1+(1-1)]

=c[1-(0)]/[1+(0)]=c(1/1)=c.


This shows that there is definitely a difference between the standing wave velocity through right and left handed space, and the speed that light travels through right and left handed space.

When we view the right handed frequency of v1, we see a frequency of 1htz. However, when we view the left handed frequency of v1, we see a freqeuncy of -1htz. This shows that there is a frequency gradient of 2htz between our left handed freqeuncy, and our right-handed frequency. If we plug in the equation, we find that the standing wave velocity between our left handed frequency, and right handed frequency is both plus, and minus infinity. This accounts for the two dimensional nature of the surface of a light field. An interaction between the left-handed frequency coming from the back side of our light field as it moves away from it's source, and the right handed frequency of the irradiator that generated the light field, reveals that a standing wave travels from the back-side of the field, to it's origin at plus and minus an infinite velocity which, as stated above, accounts for the two dimensional nature of the image contained on our light field. This accounts for the absolute present state of every point in the universe, and is what makes up the space-like part of our universe. If we plug in an infinite velocity into the lorentz transformation, we find that the spatial dimension of our standing wave is infinity(i) which confirms that our standing wave is moving through imaginary space.


rhfrequency=v1=1htz
lhfrequency=v2=v1-x=-1htz, x=2


c[1-(1-2)]/[1+(1-2)]=c(1-1+2)/(2-2)=c(2/0)=infinity

If we look at our torrus, we find that the velocity of our standing wave only achieves infinity at one point on the mobius path of all standing wave velocities described by Dr. Ivanov's equation. We see that plus, and minus infinite velocity loop into each other, so as it turns out, topologically speaking, we have two values for our standing wave velocity. Namely, positive and negative infinity. See example illustrations below.

What is your take on it?

Inquisitively,

Edwin

 

[Edwin]

Another interesting concept I forgot to mention based on the above model, is the concept of space-time distortions that may arise in the presence of oscillators where one oscillator has a negative frequency gradient.

As is well documented, the Einstein limit prevents faster-then-light propogation of energy. In the model above, the energy transfer velocity between an oscillator with a negative frequency and an oscillator with a positive frequency is greater then the speed of light. According to Dr. Ivanov, when a system of oscillators give rise to the interference patterns known as lively standing waves, but the medium through which the standing waves are propogating prevent the transfer of energy, there arrises a stress energy tensor between the oscillators that is measured as a force. It may be that the stress energy tensor arrising between an oscillator with a negative frequency and an oscillator with a positive frequency will act upon space-time to propel space-time, between the oscillators, in the direction of the energy's velocity that allows the energy transfer velocity between the oscillators to remain at, or less then, the speed of light. This also prevents back-in-time travel of the energy and prevents "the Grandfather paradox" from arrising due to the causality problem. If there is any validity to this at all, then it sort of makes me want to start conducting some electronic experiments with Hetero-dyning techniques:)

What do you think?

Inquisitively,

Edwin

 

[Antonio Lao]

Thanks. Will digest and absorb these materials.

 

[Edwin]

I was looking for some more research related to lively standing wave phenomenon, and found the following site that may be of assistance to you reviewing the data:

www.glafreniere.com/sa_plane.htm

Best Regards,

Edwin

 

[Antonio Lao]

Edwin,

Thanks for the additional information on LSW. I'm hoping, with these new valuable information, I can keep the waves of my research move faster but not as fast as light speed, I'm afraid.

 

[Edwin]

V_e = \frac{c[v_1 - (v_1 - x)]}{v_1 + (v_1 - x)}

I was thinking about the energy transfer velocity equation, above, for lively standing waves, and realized that energy transfer velocity may be the same as velocity v term in Einstein's gamma equation below.

\gamma \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}


Using substitution, we find that Velocity squared is defined by the equation below.


V_e^2 \equiv \frac{c^2x^2}{(2v_1-x)(2v_1-x)}


If Dr. Ivanov's energy transfer velocity V_e is equal to the velocity term in Einstein/Lorentz's gamma, V_e=v; then,

Using subsitution, one would be able to insert V_e variable in Dr. Ivanov's equation for energy transfer velocity, which is also the lively standing wave velocity, into gamma's velocity variable v with the following algebraic results.


\gamma \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{1- \frac{x^2}{(2v_1-x)(2v_1-x)}}}

Where v1 is the frequency of the first oscillator, and x is the frequency gradient between the first oscillator v1 and the second oscillator v2 in a united energy system. Notice how the "c" constant seems to work itself out of the equation?

What do you think?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

[Edwin]

Another concept related to the results above are as follows.

I was considering the difference between the characteristics of Rayleigh wave velocities through a medium (X such as a dense plasma), or longitudinal sound wave velocities through a medium (Y such as the low density atmosphere earth).

The main difference between these two different types of waves that caught my eye is that Rayleigh wave velocities through a given medium are a function of the mediums depth and the "frequency" of the Rayleigh wave itself. Transverse waves, Longitudinal waves, and most other types of waves velocity value is independant of those waves frequencies, unlike the special case of Rayleigh waves. Yet, theoretically, all types of waves, including Rayleigh waves, are subject to Dr. Ivanov's lively standing wave interference patterns, which is a universal wave phenomenon. The idea is that if one were to use two Chirp pulse laser transmissions to superpose two Opposite vector Rayleigh chirp signals into a dense plasma that conducts Rayleigh type wave, the velocity of the higher frequency portion of each transmission would travel faster through the plasma, then the lower frequency transmission. If everything were set up correctly, the higher frequency portion of each laser transmission would catch up to the lower frequency portion of the each laser transmission, and all waves within each transmission would "pile up" eventually leading to a single huge pulse within the dense plasma.

Now suppose that one were to set up two lasers as follows:

laser 1, at one end of the plasma chamber were to emit a high frequency laser transmission that decreases in frequency continsuously to a lower frequency laser transmission as time passes.

laser 2 at the other end of the plasma chamber emits a low frequency laser transmission that increases frequency continuously to a higher frequency laser transmission as time passes.

The two laser transmissions meet and interact in the plasma to form "lively standing Rayleigh waves" interference pattern. However; as the frequency of laser 1 is decompressed and the frequency of laser 2 compressed over time, each laser lights' transmission is conducted by the plasma at different phase velocities in such a way as to pile up not only the two laser transmissions into a pulse, but also the "lively standing Rayleigh wave" is piled up into one highly amplified directional energy pulse that would manifest as an extremely powerful laser induced plasma shock-wave that is far more powerful then the same lively standing wave interference patterns would induce in the other types of waves (e.i. transverse, longitudinal,...etc).

If so, then such a concept may have applications in propulsion.

What do you think?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

[PFanalog57]

Dr. Milo Wolff has some interesting ideas:

http://members.tripod.com/mwolff/PNASLast.html

Wheeler and Feynman5 (1945) modeled the electron as spherical inward and outward electromagnetic waves, seeking to explain radiation forces. Unhappily they failed because there are no spherical solutions of vector electromagnetic wave equations. Nevertheless, their work pioneered the concept that every particle sends quantum waves outward, and receives an inward response from the universe. In hindsight, if they had used scalar quantum waves instead, this paper would have appeared 55 years ago! So close and yet so far! "A hair’s breadth separates the false and true."

 

[Edwin]

Thanks Russell,

I spent all morning pooring over Dr. Wolff's remarkable work! I've taken some notes, and will study this over the next couple of weeks as it no doubt compatible with Dr. Ivanov's work. The frequency shift and corresponding lively standing wave patterns Dr. Ivanov stumbled onto in his experimental work may very well be explained by this model as a function of the mechanism in Principle III the Minimum Amplitude Principle. I will study this some more, and try to find out what terms, or if terms, in Dr. Wolff's equations may be substituded with terms from Dr. Ivanov's work so that we can observe the equivalence of the two models. I believe that Dr. Ivanov's work may be a smaller mechanism in the larger more general realm of the physical principles described Dr. Wolff's work.

Best Regards,

Edwin

 

[PFanalog57]

Thanks Russell,

I spent all morning pooring over Dr. Wolff's remarkable work! I've taken some notes, and will study this over the next couple of weeks as it no doubt compatible with Dr. Ivanov's work. The frequency shift and corresponding lively standing wave patterns Dr. Ivanov stumbled onto in his experimental work may very well be explained by this model as a function of the mechanism in Principle III the Minimum Amplitude Principle. I will study this some more, and try to find out what terms, or if terms, in Dr. Wolff's equations may be substituded with terms from Dr. Ivanov's work so that we can observe the equivalence of the two models. I believe that Dr. Ivanov's work may be a smaller mechanism in the larger more general realm of the physical principles described Dr. Wolff's work.

Best Regards,

Edwin

Symmetry forms the basis of truth.

http://www.bigear.org/vol1no4/wheeler.htm

COSMIC SEARCH: You have often commented that the greatest discoveries of science are yet to come. What do you have in mind?

Wheeler: To me, the greatest discovery yet to come will be to find how this universe, coming into being from a Big Bang, developed its laws of operation. I call this "Law without Law" [Or "Order from Disorder"].

A simple diagram/equation:

|{real n-dimensions = ct }
|
|
|
|<--------{quantum vacuum ~ ict}
|
|
|
|
|{ct}

Reality is a damped harmonic oscillation, a system at resonance, [hypothetically speaking]:

{ict}^2 + {ct}^2 = 0

A quantum field unites gravity and electromagnetism.

Gravity becomes a refractive/compression effect, as light cones are rotated near a massive object:

F = m*m'/d^2

F = A/r^4 , Casimir effect

F = q*q'/r^2 electric force

m = mass

A = 2 dimensional area

q = electric charge

r = distance

The Topological spaces are defined as being diffeomorphism invariant. Intersecting cotangent bundles[manifolds] are the set of all possible configurations of a system, i.e. they describe the phase space of the system.

Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of space itself.

As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples continually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as a sequence.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n

Since the ripples are increasing in density they are defined by density gradients. A compression force.

Resonating standing waves.


[<-[-><-]->]

Feynman was able to simplify the matrix calculations, with simple diagrams.

 

[PFanalog57]

At extremely small distance scales(Planck length), does space become a superconductive Bose Einstein condensate? What does quantum chromodynamics say about the possibility?

A distance/metric is a property of space and what exactly is ...space?

 

[PFanalog57]

Dr. Wolff's theory rings true!

Milo Wolff - Quantum waves were first described by Heisenberg, Schrodinger, de Broglie and others. They originated the word. We use the same name as those quantum waves which are already known by that name because such waves have already been discovered. The special 'quantized' meaning is because the energy transfers always occur in discrete amounts or 'quanta". I suppose we could avoid the use of the word 'quantum waves' if we wanted to. But that would be a sort of scientific plagiarism. I see the problem here: Most people have no feeling for the word quantum so it is useless to use it until they do. We could start off with just 'waves' and then add the less-observable quantum wave meaning later, with a careful explanation. This is a knotty problem.

My book 'Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe' has a chapter titled "All about Waves" which discusses some of your questions. But the clear distinction between vector and scalar waves HAS to be made in the readers mind, otherwise the logic following will have no impact. So we have to bring this out with strong emphasis. I will use examples.

SCALAR WAVES. - Pressure is a scalar quantity because it needs only ONE number at each point in space to describe it. That quantity is always an AMPLITUDE of the quantity at each point. Thus sound waves, Earth quake waves, and underwater waves are all scalar waves where the wave amplitude is pressure in the medium. Money, counting, age, etc are also scalar quantities.

VECTOR WAVES. - These waves are already familiar to you. The most important example is electromagnetic waves which need to have TWO quantities at each point to describe the wave. The two quantities are amplitude and direction. This combination of these two quantities is termed a vector. A vector can always be represented by an arrow where the direction is the way the arrow points and the amplitude is the length of the arrow.
Vector waves simply do NOT have either the physical or math properties needed. Did I tell you of the math saying, "You cannot comb the hair on a billiard ball". This proves in a simple way that spherical waves CANNOT be vector. Combed hair is a vector. If you try to place it on a sphere (ball), you will get a 'cowlick' in one place, so the spherical symmetry is impossible.

 

[Edwin]

I think that is very interesting: ict^2+ct^2=0.

If particles time values can be described in terms of imaginary components, and real components, such that below Planckian time scales, the time value by a variation of the equation you mentioned above: nict^2+mct^2=[-planck time,planck time]; negative Planck time<0<planck time, and n^2+m^2=1={cos(theta), sin(theta)} are variables, then the different time states between sub-planckian time scales could be described by an infinite series of right triangles cos(theta)ict^2+sin(theta)ct^2={x|x=[-planck-time, Planck-time], -plancktime<0<plancktime}. If so, then the transition of a virtual particle between say Planck-time to negative Planck-time, would be a 180 degree rotation of the particles phase. As cos(0)->cos(90), x transitions from Planck-time to negative Planck-time. However, on the complex plane, (x, iy) the transition of Planck-time to negative Planck-time would be described by the rotation of an angle 180 degrees, instead of 90 degrees. So cos(0)->cos(360), would translate to a phase rotation on the complex plane of 0 degrees->720 degrees phase rotation. The question I have is, does the current model describe the transition of a given quantum value of a virtual particle from a real component to an imaginary component, and then back to a real component in terms of a 720 degrees phase rotation on the complex plane?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

[Edwin]

I was working out the equation for three oscillators in a given energy system to incorporate some of the information you had mentioned and stumbled onto something that should easily reveal a potential flaw in my methods of evaluating the math, or the theory itself.

According to Dr. Ivanov, the equation for lively standing wave velocity in alternating electronic circuits is

Ve=c(v1-v2)/(v1+v2), where v1 is the frequency of one oscillator, and v2 is the frequency of another oscillator. I used substitution to reduce the equation to make the equation easier to solve, by allowing v2 to be described in terms of v1, a little trick I learned in Algebra class way back when.

v1=v1,

Let v2=v1-x, where x is the difference in frequency, frequency gradient, between oscillator v1, and v2.

then Dr. Ivanovs equation would read,

Ve=c[v1-(v1-x)]/[v1+(v1-x)=cx/2v1-x

The substituting Dr. Ivanovs energy velocity term Ve into the Lorentz Transformations for relativistic energy,

e=m0/(1-Ve^2/c^2), we get

e=m0/1-(x^2)/(2v_1-x)^2, where x is the frequency gradient between oscillator v1 and v2.

Now if 2v_1=x, the e=infinity, according to the equation.

However, for two oscillators this would require v1 to have a frequency of say 3 htz, and oscillator v2 to have a frequency of negative 3 htz. So for e to equal infinity, the oscillator v2 would have to have a negative frequency.

However, with three oscillators, I have found that, if my equation substitutions were correct, e can equal infinity, while all oscillators have a positive frequency.

The equation is as follows.

e=frac{m0}{ frac{sqrt(1-frac{c_0x_0}{2L_1-x_0}-c_1x_1L_1+frac{(c_1x_1)^2}{2}+x_1}{ frac{c_0x_0}{2L_1-x_0}-c_1x_1L_1+frac{(c_1x_1)^2}{2}+x_1}

if 2L=x_1, then e=infinity

If L1 has a frequency of 3htz, L2 has a frequency of 7Htz and L3 has a frequency of 1 Htz, and the lively standing wave has mass m_0, then e=infinity.

What do you think?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen