# Structure of Matter/Energy Crazy Idea

1. Apr 29, 2004

### Russell E. Rierson

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?

2. Apr 29, 2004

### 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.

Last edited: Apr 29, 2004
3. Apr 29, 2004

### WWW

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.

4. Apr 29, 2004

### AWolf

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 theorised to be emitted from a black hole.

5. Apr 29, 2004

### 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.

Last edited: Apr 29, 2004
6. Apr 29, 2004

### AWolf

If the singularity exists at the centre of a blackhole, 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 blackhole's graviational field.

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

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

7. Apr 29, 2004

### 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.

8. Apr 29, 2004

### Russell E. Rierson

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!

9. Apr 30, 2004

### WWW

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.

10. Apr 30, 2004

### Russell E. Rierson

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 ...?

Last edited: Apr 30, 2004
11. Apr 30, 2004

### WWW

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)

Last edited: Apr 30, 2004
12. Apr 30, 2004

### Russell E. Rierson

13. Apr 30, 2004

### Russell E. Rierson

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/

14. Apr 30, 2004

### WWW

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?

Last edited: Apr 30, 2004
15. Apr 30, 2004

### 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.

16. May 1, 2004

### 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.

Last edited: May 1, 2004
17. May 1, 2004

### Russell E. Rierson

The Schwarzchild 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.

18. May 1, 2004

### 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?

19. May 1, 2004

### Russell E. Rierson

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.

20. May 1, 2004

### 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 existance 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 refered 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 existance of a "beyond center-mass."

What do you think?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen