Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The new Matter theory

  1. an important theory on matter

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  2. fascinating

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  3. nonsense

    4 vote(s)
    33.3%
  4. no difference from other boring theory

    5 vote(s)
    41.7%
  1. Jun 17, 2003 #1
    Matter Theory

    I hope you can have the patience to read this thread. Thank you!

    This theory is a revolutionary theory on the reality of matter which i thought of. In my theory, the entire universe is filled with a sea of 'energyless particles'. I call these particles 'empty spheres'. When these particles receives energy(e.g. from vaccum fluctuation), they would vibrate and to observers, they appear as matter. They are called heavy spheres now when they receives energy. When a particle moves from point A to B, the heavy sphere(s) of the particle transfer their energy from A to B through vibration.

    Different particles have different quanta of energy(frequency) in their heavy spheres. These heavy spheres can split their energy into two by splitting into two waves of energy in two directions. The enrgy of the spheres are measured by their frequency of vibration. This explained the particle-wave nature of matter.

    The wave of heavy spheres disfracts into the surrounding empty spheres, which is also the characteristic of waves.

    In gratitude,
    Physicskid
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 18, 2003 #2

    mathman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It would help if you told us what this theory is, or at least give a reference. I don't think it's common knowledge.
     
  4. Jun 18, 2003 #3

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Seems reminiscent of Dirac's original conception of antimatter. He envisioned a sea of particles with negative energy, which can be promoted to a higher energy level of existence, creating a particle - the new energised particle and a "hole" which would be the antimatter. Annihilation thus occurs when a particle falls into this "hole".

    The trouble is that conventional analogies don't translate very well to the quantum scale. Quantum concepts of spin, for example, are nothing like conventional spin of particles. I am unsure whether this theory preserves the theorem of superposition...
     
  5. Jun 22, 2003 #4
    I think you should look more into classical aether theory, or jellotivity.


    What you have defined is the ultimate attempt of matter-particle theory to become matter-wave theory.

    Scientists today are deluded because they chose not to heed their ancestors of only a century prior, but thankfully, many scientists are discovering that the theory post Einstien works less and less, and evnetually, (hopefully) it will be thrown out entirely.

    The math may have worked in the 1920s, but i haven't heard anyone explain it to me lately in a way that logically made sense, with the evidence I've seen.

    Is the universe a sea ? in some respects it is.
    Does it loop back over itself ? I have no idea, that kind of thinking takes us into a zone of science fiction and speculation, which honestly, we dont have enough grounding in to deal with just yet (even my own crackpot theory of Quantum Vortex Fractals, though having perfect symmetry, felt "wrong" even to me- another example that math isn't always the substance we should look to for the perfection of a theory)

    If we stop thinking of matter as "dense" and think of it as "less dense", if we think along the lines of comic book phase theory (highly vibrating objects can pass through each other as if intangible), then the unsubstantiability of matter becomes evident, relative to spacetime- the only true substance.

    If we stop thinking of spacetime as "negative matter", "zero point energy" , or "cosmic background noise", but instead, the only true substance, then everything works out fine, including the math.

    In an attempt NOT to hijack this thread, I will conclude by saying " your theory makes only a little bit of sense to an Aether-Wave Theorist, which means it probably makes NO sense to a particle Theorist "
     
  6. Jun 28, 2003 #5
    Truth cannot be explained it will be an experience to anyone who truely questions it. I could show you logic proof of what matter is and gravity this I figured out in 1991 becuase "I needed to know" hint I do not place things in quotes often. If I showed you it's simplist cause you would believe but would it be a direct understanding to you. You would stop short. I gaurantee it. You would never push youself to that point. Some of you would create better tech with it. This is what is destroying the planet, human kind allways works with what it does not understand and is irresposible. The understanding itself is all you need. If you "think" you understand you do not. I am actying like a jerk, I am trying to get points accoss with quotes.
     
  7. Jun 29, 2003 #6

    Eh

    User Avatar

    Enlighten us, oh Jedi Master.
     
  8. Jun 29, 2003 #7
    It is not within the power of any human being or any being to be able to do such a thing. You may sometime interact in a way which yeilds an answer, but the work to get there is all on their own.
     
  9. Jun 30, 2003 #8
    physicskid, is this your a summary of your own model or something? Well anyhow, I don't really see where there's a gain in benefit from using this model over using one of the more popular ones. I there are any, you might want to state them. I think it would perhaps accredit a bit more justification for learning it.

    So TENYEARS, you say you could show us with "logic proof" what "matter" and "gravity" are. This find intriguing, because I to believe I may have a better understanding of such things, in that I may understand the underlying principle for the existance and behaviour of matter. I started to explain it a while ago, near the end of last year. I have since withdrawn from that attempt, and determined it would be best that I did not share the knowledge of my theorm with those who I felt would not appreciate it, or respect the governing knowledge of it finer details. However I'm still skeptical concerning the truth of my model. Although there would appear to be no holes in logic, I think it only wise not to sign ones own certificate. After all, I may be generally acquainted with some of the failures of others, but it is the multitudes of my own fallacies and errs, which I know in intimacy.

    If your interested, I would like to exchange information. We can sort out the how's by private messagging, you know, as not to hijack the thread.
     
  10. Jul 1, 2003 #9
    is there a place where crackpots convene ? like a club-crackpot or something ? If so I would like to join.

    I may have gotten 100% Credits/Straight A's in my physics Course on Relativity, but that was 10 years ago. Today, I think its all bunk, even though the previous ten years filled me with more questions than answers, living in a limited universe consisting of a limited light speed.

    I used to think alot of things.


    My thoughts on Paradigm shifts (boy was I wrong)

    I used to think that everything was matter, and had mass.
    I believed that spirits were also matter and had mass.
    I believed that the speed of light was constant, and moving near the speed of light, or faster would distort, if not reverse time.
    I used to think that photons had mass, and matter could be converted to energy
    I used to believe that vacuum really was vacuum, and that anything out there away from the radiation of a nearby sun would be reduced to absolute zero temperature.
    I used ot believe Einstien was a Genius, and Tesla was just a Fantasy, a Mad Scientist
    I used to believe that lasers cut by pressure of concentrated photons, and you could create an infinitely accurate beam by creating a spinning liquid mercury mirror.
    I used to believe that light had so little mass, that crystal reflection laser thrusting would be impractical, as it would be unable to accclerate the craft to fast speeds
    I used to use the idea of Solar Sails to back up my “photons have mass” theory.
    E=mc^2 used to mean something cosmic.
    15 billion lightyears used to be the cosmic radius
    15 billion years (later 13.7) was the standard age of the universe
    Carbon dating was once accurate
    Our planet was over 4 billion years old
    Black holes sucked things in with infinite power growing forever until the universe ended
    Only stars of 5 solar masses or greater could turn into black holes
    I used to believe that you could not create something from nothing
    I used to believe there was no possible sound in space
    I used to believe that you could not completely annihilate anything, as the object at best would convert to energy and flash out of existence with light.
    I used to believe that antimatter wasn’t really anti, only posive/negative charged, and the two together would only create an energy explosion
    I believed that these energy particles would eventually come together because of gravity, form masses, and eventually create chain reactions which destroy themselves again through chain reactions such as solar life cycles.


    How many of these things did YOU once believe ? how many of them do you still believe ?
     
  11. Jul 1, 2003 #10
    What exactly is the point of post? No, seriously, I don't think I got it.

    I still believe Einstien was a Genius. I just see where he threw a pacth on physics. Just enough to get by until he or some one else came up with a complete TOE or atleast a working model that could accurately explain the various behaviors of quatum particles, if not giving a hypothesis for there existence. After all, if I'm correct I believe Eistien said not to use E=mc^2. An as for the speed limit it seems like that might have just been thrown in to appease any possibly pestering critics. Maybe I'm giving him to much credit, but then again I'm familiar with the possible effects having to conform to some one of lesser competence can have on the way you present your theory, even to the point of excluding details and/or alterring or replacing them all together.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2003
  12. Jul 1, 2003 #11

    Eh

    User Avatar

    I'm sure you can start a crackpot group on MSN. That way, you and other cranks can talk about perpetual motion machines all day long and not accomplish a single thing for science in peace.
     
  13. Jul 1, 2003 #12
    I do not think I understand what gravity is, I know it. There is a difference. If I tell it on this forum what would the point be? If I e-mailed you would know and what would the point be? I have had a vision last summer concerning an event which will come to pass. I just do not know when, but I do know a precursor to the event in my personal life in which this vision will happen. This event in my interpretation will be the proving ground for that which is not understood or acknowleged.

    I belive nothing that I have not questioned into existance wheather or not 5 billion believe it or not.
     
  14. Jul 1, 2003 #13

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Except that half the things you stated are in fact rooted in Quantum mechanics, which Einstien did initiate, but is not covered by the relativity course.

    And notice that skepticism alone is absolutely useless scientifically - and that science never has anything to do with belief as you label it. So, one might ask, why did you believe all these things. Why do you now believe them to be wrong? The word is not believe, but understand, or conclude, or warily assume until shown otherwise. If you learned them all by rote as a matter of belief, you never understood or had answers in the first place. And may never will.
     
  15. Jul 1, 2003 #14
    Semantics...
     
  16. Jul 7, 2003 #15
    FZ.... obviously i listed so many things that it would take years to disect them all, especially with only one paragraph transferring back and forth a week.

    Concerning belief.

    It used to be a scientific fact that the world was flat. It used to be a scientific fact that the speed fo sound could not be exceeded. It used to be fact that lightspeed was constant in vacuum.

    If we, in our process of learning, should draw conclusions based upon observations (emprical science), then we can conclude many false things to be fact (a greater sin), and many temporary or situational things to be universal (a lesser sin)
    For instance, the idea that magnetic north will always be so. THis is not true, but much of our world for centuries was based upon this "fact". The concept of "lightspeed is constant throughout the space of the universe" was once thought to be fact but as i have posted many websites pointing to the counter, in the research field, including NASA as well as Australian observatories, allow me to say that:

    Simple statements assumed to be fact, when inserted into the equations of logic, can create a cascade, nay, an exponential spiral of falsifications, growing ever more erroneous, when you deviate from the medium (middle ground) or situations in which that first "fact" was laid to ground.

    Concerning the mathematics ? the proof ? proof is irrevelant. If I see a shiny metal object in the sky, and you see it too, is it a mass hallucination ? a weather balloon ? a magnetic ripple like Aurora Borealis ? Or perhaps an alien ? a military spacecraft ? a peice of glitter ? When a few scientists get together, and make these observations, they do NOT always agree, but they usually do agree with the idea of "majority rules", even though their "evidence" and proof is purely empirical.

    So, I will say, I am currently scrapping all the old stuff, I'm even rethinking my way of looking at mathematics. Things will fall in place- that's one of the jobs of the subconscious. Toying with Quantum Arithmatic, Phi, Fibbonacci, wave harmonics, Tesla, Walter Russell, and a serious look at creation myths from Australia to India, I think I'm beginning to get a big picture.

    I wouldn't recommend a normal scientist follow these trails, its an awful lot of work, and pays terribly, but I always seem to come away with more answers than questions, and the biggest questions I usually have are " so.. what should the next question be ?"
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The new Matter theory
  1. New theory? (Replies: 3)

Loading...