Matter is made of only waves?

[junglelord]

1) Field
2) Pressure
3) Gradient
4) Scalar
5) Vector/Divergence
6) Curl

[junglelord]

I think that to find the solution to what is angular momentum and why is it fundamental to reality we need to finish the debate about the electron structure. APM onta is not a Wave, yet has properties of a Wave and yet not a Particle but has properties of a Particle (If I understand the Onta properly). Carver Mead says Wave and not a Point Particle.

I think its clear from Feynman and Mead and the people that truly understand modern physics (which is not classical mechanics), they all say it is not a point particle. It just is'nt. It is a Wave a least, in APM slightly more.

Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics.

Magnetic Interaction of Steady Current.

I Feel That It Is a Delusion to Think of the Electrons and the Fields as Two Physically Different, Independent Entities. Since Neither Can Exist without the Other, There Is Only One Reality to Be Described, What Happens to Have Two Different Aspects; and the Theory Ought to Recognize This from the Start Instead of Doing Things Twice. Albert Einstein

In Atomic Theory, We Have Fields and We Have Particles. The Fields and the Particles Are Not Two Different Things. They Are Two Ways of Describing the Same Thing, Two Different Points of View.
P.A.M. Dirac (squared)

Model System
our model system, is a loop of superconducting wire-the two ends of the lube are collected in space in either shortage, or insulated, depending on the experimental situation. Experimentally, the voltage V. between the two ends of the loop is related to the current I and flowing through the loop by

L I = delta V dt = PHI

Two quantities are defined by this relationship: PHI called the magnetic flux, and L, called the inductance, which depends on the dimensions of the loop.

Current is the flow of charge. Each increment of charge carries an energy increment into the loop as it enters. The total energy, W, stored in the loop is thus.

If we reduce the voltage to zero by, for example, connecting two ends of the loop to form a closed superconducting path, the current I will continue to flow indefinitely: a persistent current. If we open the loop and allow it to do work on an external circuit we can recover all of the energy W.

If we examine closely the values of currents under the variety of conditions we find the full continuum of values for the quantities I, V, and PHI, except in the case of persistent currents, were only certain, discrete values occur for any given loop. By experimenting with loops of different dimensions, we find the condition that describes the values that occur experimentally.

PHI = delta V dt = n PHI0

Here, n. Is any integer, and PHI0 = 2.06783461 X 10 exponent (-15) volt-second is the flux quantum or fluxoid; its value is accurate to a few parts in 10 exponent (9), independent of the detailed size, shape, or composition of the superconductor forming the loop. We also find experimentally that a rather large energy - sufficient to disrupt the superconductor state entirely - is required to change the value of n.

The more we reflect on this equation, the more remarkable the results appear. The quantities involved are the voltage and the magnetic flux. These quantities are intergrals of the quantities E and B that appear in Maxwell's equations and are therefore usually associated with the electromagnetic field. Experimentally, we know that they can take on a continuum of values-except under special conditions when the arrangement of matter in the vicinity causes the flux to take on precisely quantized values. In Maxwell's theory, E and B represent the state of strain in a mechanical medium (the ether) induced by electric charge. Einstein had a marked different view, as illustrated by the opening quotation. At the most fundamental level, the essence of quantum mechanics lies in the wave nature of matter. Einstein's views suggest that electromagnetic variables are related to the wave properties of the electrons. Quantization is a familiar phenomenon in systems where the boundary conditions give rise to standing waves. The Quantization of flux is a direct manifestation of the wave nature of matter, expressed in electromagnetic variables.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... T0#PPA9,M1

[webolife]

webolife wrote:

The spectrum of light in a spectroscope, or the rainbow manifested through raindrops or atmospheric halos from ice crystals, are all examples of this light field pressure gradient. In short, the Newton's Ring images seen in the electron video are seen in any/every situation where light is focused through a narrow "window", such as the reflection off of a "point"-particle, and are the image of the light-pressure field itself. The field vectors manifest according to a redundant geometric principle, which turns out to be related to a series of imbedded/circumscribed hexagons. In other models, this pattern may be described as a "standing wave", though I don't view it as such. The electron video shows an oscillating out-of-focus "point"-particle or particle-pair, reflecting an in-focus light field. Electrons themselves are invisible, only the reflected light field is seen in this picture. The light field itself is invisible except to the detector/receiver which is tuned to the field geometry others would say "frequency" but that implies that the light is waving, so I avoid that terminology, although if the signal being imaged is transmitted and recorded as a pulse, then that pulsing will obviously have its own frequency.

arc-us asked:

Just curious, Gordon. What definitions are you using for these individual terms? Just attempting to reconcile a few thoughts of my own about your model in which a medium of continuity such as an aether is not necessary.

1) field
2) pressure
3) gradient
4) vector

My unified field is composed of two essential elements (what folks here are calling "dimensions"):
the locus, or centroid (particle, nucleus, star, planet, galactic core, etc....), and the forces holding it in place.
Forces don't move... they act. This action in my UFT is centropic, ie. acting upon the centroid from "outside". The (spherical) space defining the "outside" of the locus is what I refer to as the field (but this field is filled with force therefore a force field, not just "empty" space).
We experience the/any "field" typically from the peripheral aspect (eg. gravitation toward the center of the earth) so we feel a "tug" in that direction, which is the definition of vector. If the tug was actually "coming fom" that centroid, we might look for gravitons imbedded in or being emitted from atoms, but that is not the case. Instead, we see that the field vectors are pushing (us) from "outside", eg gravity is pushing us down to the earth! Think of any hollow sphere (eg. a basketball) and you can see that the centroid is not an emitter of anything! Now every object that is acted on by a force vector actually occupies some amount of surface area on the field sphere, hence vector (which has infinitesmal diameter) is inadequate to describe the effect of the force field, rather we experience pressure. Here's where my idea gets tricky for many folks on these forums: The unified field applies the same to light as to gravity. Light sources act as a field centroid, with light rays focused on that source. Radiation is a perfect descriptor here but the direction of the rays (vectors) is toward the source, as a sink, versus photons (as waves or particles) being emitted from the source, as in the traditional view. Now the direct line of sight has the maximum vectoral quantity of the light pressure beam (not ray, since a ray has infinitesmal diameter), but a "circular" field around that central line is a pressure gradient, and manifests as the visible/invisible spectrum, a "diffraction" pattern, also as Newton's rings in micrographs of atoms, electrons etc. How much, or which part, of the spectrum shows up is determined by the field strength, properties of the centroid particle(s), intervening particles which absorb or block parts, ie. vector sectors, of the gradient, or which by their own field properties alter the vectors of the primary field. Considering the direction of light as centropic, and recognizing that it operates according to the same field geometry as gravity, shows why it is describable as instantaneous action across a distance. A typical scenario for light action would be the drop of an atomic/electronic field to a lower potential state, instantly changing the field geometry and producing a net "tug" felt immediately at the field periphery. Our retina sits right there at the periphery, detecting the tug as light. No photons needed to be emitted in the electron collapse, as potential drop was itself the "tug" in the field. The mere non-particality of this process gives rise to all manner of themes and theories regarding wavishness of light, but in this view is unnecessary.
A side note: to picture this gradient in the gravitational sense, vector out the forces of a swinging pendulum.

Keeping the discussion electrical, "voltage" is the term used to describe the unified electrical field potential, manifested again as a (virtually) instantaneous action through (or more accurately across) a wire, capacitor, or any circuit...(?) Elsewhere I asked if lightning had ever been seen to "travel" from cloud to ground or vice versa... my quest is to understand what I intuitively see as an instantaneous phenomenon across the atmospheric field "capacitor", with the idea that the apparent movement of lighted air in a lightning stroke (as seen in your logo, Bryan) is due to differential heating of air molecules due to air density/resistance considerations, not necessarily to the "flow" of electrons through space... this is also why, in another post, I inquired about the action of plasma in space, ie. what part of astronomical electric action is instantaneous, eg. as a function of voltage, and which part of it is due to flow of charged particles?

Another point I'm in the process of figuring out: JL's energy vortices are a natural expression of the fact that a unified field "beam" is actually conically shaped, the base being the peripheral area of action and the centroid being the apex of the cone. As vector density increases toward the apex/centroid, naturally the motions of particles being affected by the field would manifest as vortices, I think.

[junglelord]

Here is a reply to a question I asked of Dave Thomson and APM vs my current knowledge.

To me Aether models solve these problems. Each of these is a Wave Model, yes? how is APM different?

Yes, the Aether explains the non-material and higher dimensional aspects of existence, which particle physics chooses to ignore. As for the wave model, the wave models are Quantum Mechanics, the Aether Physics Model (as I have presented it) is Quantum Structure. The APM says the Aether is structured as two spheres (hence the 16pi^2 geometrical constant) and in five dimensions. The Wave Models describe the behavior of subatomic particles in terms of spherical dynamics. Now tell me, how hard is it to connect the dots from spherical dynamics to spherical structure? If spherical mechanics work for describing subatomic mechanics, then why would people not be interested in a theory that describes the structures that produce these mechanics?

It is only a matter of time before the APM and Spherical Wave Models are united into a single theory. Perhaps you will be the one to do that?

[junglelord]

Particle form, the electostatic 360 degree spin charge
Wave form, the electromagntic 180 degree spin charge
The electron is made of both.
There is in essence due to how we see things why we see a wave/particle duality.
The electron, proton and the neutron are dual charge entities with two complementary but opposite structural charges.
That for me solves all the questions and gives me a structure in which I can quantify the charge dimension.

[junglelord]

So I am reviewing the quantum constants of APM, looking at Compton wavelength, went to the link at De Broglie Wavelength and found this. Buckminster Fuller....yet again implicated in quantum models.

Waves of molecules
Recent experiments even confirm the relations for molecules and even macromolecules, which are normally considered too large to undergo quantum mechanical effects. In 1999, a research team in Vienna demonstrated diffraction for molecules as large as fullerenes[8].

In general, the De Broglie hypothesis is expected to apply to any well isolated object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_wavelength

The insistance of StefanR that Tensegrity was such an important concept did not reveal itself to me in its fullness till two weeks ago. Now Fuller is popping up everywhere.

I was not fully aware of the quantum implications of tensegrity, although I was fully aware of the molecular implications. Now that I see a Tensegrity Principle in action in all my studies plus making Dave Thomson aware of its implications in APM, I am not surprised to find this today. The universe is quite orderly with only a few very basic constants. Everything else evolves from those basic quantum constants. Wave-particle duality is only an illusion. At the level of subatomic existance, nothing is solid and there are no particles.