View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 17th, 2014, 9:35 am



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
 Why do we assume 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: December 26th, 2009, 6:04 pm
Posts: 6
Post Why do we assume
that all mass and energy is quantized.

Many observations of the quantum world suggest the existence of a continuous non-quantized form of mass and energy.

For example in 1924 Louis de Broglie theorized that all particle posse wave properties. Science does not question the validity of this concept because it is the foundation of a theory known by the name of wave mechanics, a theory which has utterly transformed our knowledge of physical phenomena on the atomic scale.

However, its also means that a continuous medium exists because according to his theory even the smallest particle has a wave component.

Additionally there are many observation suggesting a particles are made up of a resonant system in a continuous medium.

For example the particle interaction observed in chemical bonding is described as "Proton Nuclear Magnetic Resonance"

This is the reason for assuming below in the The Imagineers Chronicles http://www.theimagineershome.com/blog/ that field is not made up virtual paricles as Quantum Field theories suggest but are physically made up of a resonant system or structure in a continuous non-quantized medium.

*******************************************************************

We have shown throughout "The Imagineer's Chronicles" that observations of our environment suggest that the universe is made up of a continuous non-quantized form of mass and four *spatial* dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time.

However, many scientists assume that all mass is quantized or made up of particles in part because of the success modern quantum theories have had in predicting and explaining the observable properties of mass.

But as was pointed out in the article "What is Dark Matter?" Sept 10, 2007 there are several observations of our environment that would seem to contradict that assumption.

However, what is even more damaging to the assumption that all mass is quantized is the fact the existence of a continuous non-quantized form would enable theoreticians to derive the quantum properties of mass in terms of a Classical Newtonian resonant system.

In an earlier article "The Photon: a matter wave?" Sept 27, 2007 it was shown the wave characteristics of a photon could be explained and predicted in terms of a matter wave in a continuous non-quantized form of mass moving on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it can be shown that a matter wave on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would generate a classically resonating system or “structure” which is responsible for the quantum properties of all other particles.

There are four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical Newtonian environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial
.
(In a latter article "The geometry of quarks" it will be shown how and why quarks join together to form these resonant systems in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.)

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a continuous non-quantized mass component of space the ability to oscillate spatially on a "surface" between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, these oscillations in a continuous non-quantized form of mass caused by such an event could generate a resonant system or "structure" to be established in a continuous non-quantized form of mass. These resonant systems are known as particles.

The suggests the mass of a particle is not the result of its wave properties but the fact that it generates a resonant system in a continuous non-quantized form of mass which would cause the relative density of a continuous non-quantized form of mass to be greater in volumes it occupies relative to the adjacent volumes. This increase in the relative density of a continuous non-quantized form of mass is the causality of a particle's mass.

The only way to dampen the frequency of a classically resonating system is to add or remove energy from that system which results in changing the characteristics of that system. If energy is added or removed from a classically resonating system the characteristics of that system does not change.

Additionally the magnitude of energy of a classically resonating system is discontinuous and cannot only take on the discrete values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

However, these properties of a classically resonating system are the same as those found in a quantum particle in that they are made up of discreet or discontinuous packets of mass/energy and when energy is either added or removed from it, its characteristics changed.

However, it also defines a mechanism in terms of classical mechanics for the probability functions, Planck's constant and the uncertainty principal of Quantum Mechanics. There would be an inherent uncertainty in one's ability to define the exact position or momentum of a particle because it is distributed over the finite volume associated with the wavelength of its resonant frequency. Therefore, one could only define its specific position or momentum in terms of a probability related where relative to its wavelength an observation is made. A classical interpretation of Planck's constant would be that it defines magnitude of the incremental energy deference between harmonics of the resonant frequency of a continuous non-quantized form of mass with respect to four *spatial* dimensions.

The electron diffraction observed by Davisson and Germer confirmed that all particles are composed of an oscillating medium and therefore could be defined in terms of a resonant relationship. The boundaries of these resonant "structures" formed by these oscillations would define the spatial volume of particles and the quantity of a continuous non-quantized form of mass they contain would define their mass.

This shows that it is possible to logically and consistently explain and predict the properties of particle in a microscopic environment in terms of a resonate system in a continuous non-quantized form of mass and four *spatial* dimensions which obeys the laws of classical resonance in a macroscopic environment.

These arguments would not be valid in a unversed consisting of four dimensional space-time because time is only observed to move in one direction forward and therefore would not support the bi-directional or oscillatory movement of a continuous non-quantized form of mass required to establish a classically resonating system

_________________
The universe's most powerful enabling tool is not
knowledge or understanding but imagination
because it extends the reality of
one's environment.


December 27th, 2009, 8:33 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2009, 10:09 pm
Posts: 9
Post Re: Why do we assume
imaginationrules wrote:
suggest the existence of a continuous non-quantized form of mass and energy.


So this is just a theory based on observations made by others, or have you published peer reviewed experimental results yourself?

Seems like you have backed into this theory because it explains certain things.

(Don't misunderstand . . . don't mean to be abrasive in tone, nor am I attacking your credibility, just wondering).

_________________
BJ


December 30th, 2009, 8:49 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: December 26th, 2009, 6:04 pm
Posts: 6
Post Re: Why do we assume
Yes and no. Yes it is a theory based on observation made by others and no we have not done any experiments to support our hypotheses.

Theories such as the one we are proposing are designed to define a connection between different aspects of our observable environment such as how and why mass and energy can have the properties of both a wave and a particle. These observations may have been made by others but the underlying question of how and why we observe what we do has not, in our option been successfully answered.

Jeff

_________________
The universe's most powerful enabling tool is not
knowledge or understanding but imagination
because it extends the reality of
one's environment.


December 31st, 2009, 1:06 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2009, 10:09 pm
Posts: 9
Post Re: Why do we assume
imaginationrules wrote:
the underlying question of how and why we observe what we do has not, in our option been successfully answered.
I agree that the question has not been answered, but are you saying that what you propose as an answer is just a possibility (I think that's the definition of a "Theory" anyway), or a certainty (which I guess would make it a "Law")?

My guess would be that you would put this in the category of "just one possibility".

Curious though . . . what are the details of criticisms of this "Theory"? Have you published this in a peer review PRINT journal?

_________________
BJ


December 31st, 2009, 1:31 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: December 26th, 2009, 6:04 pm
Posts: 6
Post Re: Why do we assume
[quote="BobJam
My guess would be that you would put this in the category of "just one possibility".

quote]

No we have not had it published in peer review possibly because we have absolute no idea how I would go about doing such a thing. :cry: I do not have a degree nor am I a member of a research team with buildings to house the equipment they get using government grants. My laboratory is my basement, my funding consist of a monthly Veteran's disability check, do my research on a 8 year old computer in my basement and my carry all of my research equipment in my head.

We have received several positive comments what I think may be professional. However, it is hard to distinguish who a person is through an email or a comment on blog.

Jeff

_________________
The universe's most powerful enabling tool is not
knowledge or understanding but imagination
because it extends the reality of
one's environment.


December 31st, 2009, 2:05 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2009, 10:09 pm
Posts: 9
Post Re: Why do we assume
So where are you going with this? I understand that you have meager (none really) resources except for your blog, but it would be nice if you could get wider dissemination so that you could get more comments on this idea. But it seems that for now you won't.

Perhaps, though, posting your theory on this forum will produce comments that will help you "get the word out".

Will be interesting to see what other comments may be in this thread once this thing gets launched . . . with members other than just our small group.

Hopefully, someone will give you something substantive to chew on. Unfortunately, all I have are questions.

I do however have a degree in Chemistry, did NSF undergraduate research in Physical Chemistry, so if I can recall any of my education on Heisenberg stuff, maybe I'll come up with something more substantive than just questions about methods. Lest you think I'm bragging, let me point out that this was some 40 years ago, and I've long since forgotten most of it.

(Found my research paper on "Critical Region Phase Transitions" recently, and I didn't understand any of it . . . thought to myself, "Did I do that? Wow, I must have been smart back then". Am dumb now!)

_________________
BJ


December 31st, 2009, 2:52 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: December 26th, 2009, 6:04 pm
Posts: 6
Post Re: Why do we assume
BobJam wrote:
So where are you going with this? I understand that you have meager (none really) resources except for your blog, but it would be nice if you could get wider dissemination so that you could get more comments on this idea. But it seems that for now you won't.


I'm not so sure.

Kevin Costner in the movie Field of Dreams heard a voice telling him "If you build it they will come".

I believe Science hears a similar voice "If you theorize they will understand." but that will be true only if you give them something they want.

In "Field of Dreams" people came because they have a need or wanted to remember a time when the world was simpler and easier to understand.

I believe science will come to a new paradigm because they have a need for a simpler way of describing what seems to be a very complex environment.

Kevin Costner did not have to advertise or disseminate his concept of a simpler life to get people to come. They came in such large numbers because its perceived advantages were spread by word of mouth from one to another. Many may have arrived sooner if he had but they all still arrived.

Granted we may be able to get a wider discussion of these ideas by disseminating them in peer review journals. However, if scientists feel the concepts it presents do satisfy their need to simply the environment the need to comment on them will be spread by email from one to another.

Jeff

_________________
The universe's most powerful enabling tool is not
knowledge or understanding but imagination
because it extends the reality of
one's environment.


January 3rd, 2010, 4:22 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2009, 10:09 pm
Posts: 9
Post Re: Why do we assume
imaginationrules wrote:
I believe Science hears a similar voice "If you theorize they will understand." but that will be true only if you give them something they want.
Perhaps . . .

But I'm not so sure that physicists/astro-physicists (with the notable exception of Steven Hawking) "want" or "need" the unwashed masses to understand their manipulations on the Universe. It's fine that everybody is fascinated with black holes, for example, but a simplistic explanation, while understandable to Joe-Six-Pack, leaves a lot out.

And as far as the scientists themselves . . . well, your optimism is refreshing to this old cranky observer. Hope you get some feedback on the details of your theory here. May help you to refine it further.

_________________
BJ


January 4th, 2010, 4:57 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr




Home | Comm. Center | Space Weather Center | Galleries | About Us | FAQ | Site Map | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service