Matter is made of only waves?

[junglelord]

Sounds to me like two sides of the same coin....yes or no?
Has anyone found a none spinning electron? Can an electron exist if it does not spin? Sounds to me like you cannot have one without the other. Two sides of the same elemental coin.

[bboyer]

<snip>

The processions of real beings, far more even than the positions of physical bodies in space, leave no vacuum, but everywhere there are mean terms between extremities, which provide for them a mutual linkage.

And somewhere in that, my friend, I think is the summation of separations-and-recombinations of charge known as the EU.

[bboyer]

Sounds to me like two sides of the same coin....yes or no?
Has anyone found a none spinning electron? Can an electron exist if it does not spin? Sounds to me like you cannot have one without the other. Two sides of the same elemental coin.

Certainly how it strikes moi. K.I.S.S. (note the punctuation; I'm not gettin' overly friendly ). And I'm not sure I really care whether the thing is spinning, oscillating, or doing aerobics while whistlin' Dixie. Pattern in motions, and motions in pattern. And it's our practical engineers who'll figure out what to make of, or do with, them. In some situations, the patterns probably predominate; in others, the motions. Uh-oh. Sounds like the setting for an intelligent desig... er, engineer.

[pln2bz]

NOTHING EXIST THAT IS NOT MADE OF A MATERIAL ! If its immateriel it is NON -EXISTENT! Or "its no matter".... Matter CANNOT cease to exist!!! It only changes form.

The point is that we see matter change into and out of material existence. Material existence appears to actually be a trait or characteristic of some thing that's more fundamental than just the stuff we observe as matter ...

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News

Number 841 October 2, 2007 by Phillip F. Schewe http://www.aip.org/pnu

THE VACUUM STRIKES BACK. Modern physics has shown that the vacuum, previously thought of as a state of total nothingness, is really a seething background of virtual particles springing in and out of existence until they can seize enough energy to materialize as *real* particles. In high energy collisions at accelerator labs, some of the original beam energy can be consumed by ripping particle-antiparticle pairs out of the vacuum. Sometimes this process is the very reason for doing the experiment, but sometimes it is only a detriment. For example, in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), under construction at the CERN lab in Geneva, a major source of beam losses (particles exiting from the usable beam) for heavy-ion collisions is expected to be a class of event in which the counter-moving ions pass each other and don*t interact except to spawn a pair of particles---an electron and positron---one of which (the positron) goes off to oblivion while the other (the electron) latches onto one of the ions. This ion, bearing an extra electric charge, will now behave slightly differently as it races through the chain of powerful magnets that normally steer the particles around the accelerator. Going a certain distance, the modified ion will leave its fellows and smash into the beam pipe carrying the beams, thus heating up the pipe and surrounding magnet coils.

Fearing these future beam losses, accelerator physicists have sought to observe this effect at an existing machine, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at the Brookhaven Lab on Long Island. And they found what they were looking for, a tiny splash of energy amounting to about .0002 watts, or about what a firefly puts out. The RHIC beam for these tests consisted of copper ions each carrying 6.3 TeV of energy (about 100 GeV per nucleon). According to CERN scientist John Jowett (john.jowett@cern.ch, 41-22-7676-643) this troublesome class of events, referred to as bound-free-pair production (or BFPP, the bound referring to the electron and the free to the positron), will be much more formidable at LHC than at RHIC. First of all, the pair production scales as the atomic number of the nucleus (or the charge of the nucleus, denoted by the letter Z) raised to the seventh power. The LHC heavy-ion collisions will use beams composed of lead ions. The more highly charged nucleus and the larger energies (574 TeV per lead nucleus) mean the BFPP process should be some 100,000 times more prominent than in the test at RHIC. This would amount to about 25 watts, the equivalent of a reading lamp. That doesn't sound like much but, when deposited in the ultra-cold (1.9 K) magnets of the LHC, it could bring them to the brink of "quenching" out of their superconducting state, interrupting the operation of the huge machine.

(Bruce et al., Physical Review Letters, 5 October 2007; journalists can obtain the text from http://www.aip.org/physnews/select; other background material at arxiv.org/abs/0706.3356v2), http://cern.ch/AccelConf/e04/PAPERS/MOPLT020.PDF, Vol. I, Chapter 21 of the LHC Design Report, available at http://ab-div.web.cern.ch/ab-div/Public ... eport.html)

(Emphasis is my own)

For the sake of everybody here, please explain your response to this press release.

ps -- I'm really enjoying the linguistic and philosophical discussion in this thread. I'm actually learning a lot from this.

[Sparks]

I think we can WAVE goodbye to conventional physics

DVD
http://www.plasmacosmology.net

[Tzunamii]

If said object is spinning, I could only be led to the question," what caused it to spin?". That there is action at all can only lead to seeking its cause, right?

If said spin is an object, it could only lead to the question, "what caused it to be an object?" That there are objects at all can only lead to seeking their cause, right?

I'm on a roll.

It makes no sense to turn an action into an object.
Its like saying Dancing is an object, or Flying is an object.
Now I'm sure, from some bizarre perspective, you can turn anything into anything, and we have!
Today they are called Black holes, and Dark matter, and strings, and if these are any indicator as to how far nonsensical ideas like turning "Spin into an object" will take us out of our way from a better grasp of reality, I'll gladly seek wisdom from those that have learned that lesson.
And yes That there are objects at all can only lead to seeking their cause.

[Plasmatic]

Now I'm sure, from some bizarre perspective, you can turn anything into anything, and we have!
Today they are called Black holes, and Dark matter, and strings, and if these are any indicator as to how far nonsensical ideas like turning "Spin into an object" will take us out of our way from a better grasp of reality, I'll gladly seek wisdom from those that have learned that lesson.

Well "praise the lord and ,pass the amunition"!!!! There is somebody who gets it!!!!!!!!

TZU may I humbly point you to the person who has taught me that lesson so well. I double dog dare you to read
INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY by Ayn Rand

[StevenO]

NOTHING EXIST THAT IS NOT MADE OF A MATERIAL ! If its immateriel it is NON -EXISTENT! Or "its no matter".... Matter CANNOT cease to exist!!! It only changes form.

The point is that we see matter change into and out of material existence. Material existence appears to actually be a trait or characteristic of some thing that's more fundamental than just the stuff we observe as matter ...

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News

Number 841 October 2, 2007 by Phillip F. Schewe http://www.aip.org/pnu

THE VACUUM STRIKES BACK. Modern physics has shown that the vacuum, previously thought of as a state of total nothingness, is really a seething background of virtual particles springing in and out of existence until they can seize enough energy to materialize as *real* particles. In high energy collisions at accelerator labs, some of the original beam energy can be consumed by ripping particle-antiparticle pairs out of the vacuum. Sometimes this process is the very reason for doing the experiment, but sometimes it is only a detriment. For example, in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), under construction at the CERN lab in Geneva, a major source of beam losses (particles exiting from the usable beam) for heavy-ion collisions is expected to be a class of event in which the counter-moving ions pass each other and don*t interact except to spawn a pair of particles---an electron and positron---one of which (the positron) goes off to oblivion while the other (the electron) latches onto one of the ions. <...>

First of all, the pair production scales as the atomic number of the nucleus (or the charge of the nucleus, denoted by the letter Z) raised to the seventh power.
<...>

For the sake of everybody here, please explain your response to this press release.

ps -- I'm really enjoying the linguistic and philosophical discussion in this thread. I'm actually learning a lot from this.

1) About the philisophical aspects of existence, I like the logical explanation that a "void" cannot exist since that would be a contradiction: http://www.quackgrass.com/space.html

2) On the creation of matter:

Electron/positron pairs are only created at sufficient energies close to already existing matter. There must be a divergence of energy that stretches the vacuum beyond its limits of flexibility (since it must be a flexible medium to propagate EM waves). Then two "particles" are created that dissipate the energy in the flexible state. A process that look a vaguely similar to the creation process of a binary star in the EU when the current density get too high.
I was amused by the remark that the positron goes "into oblivion". The positron is basically the "other side" of the electron moving backwards in time. This was suggested by Richard Feynman (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/phys ... cture.html). And it could be that we find these positrons inside the nuclei and that nuclei and electrons are actually connected entities inside and outside atoms if we would see them from a higher dimension. Maybe if we finally find the end of our universe we will see the inside of our atoms and quantum mechanics can finally be explained to regular folks ....

Which brings to the next interesting remark:

3) "scales with the 7th power."

I remember seeing a dimensional analysis that stated that we would need 7 dimensions to describe our physical universe:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp

The same author also presents an analysis that a universe with 7 dimensions would be the most efficient:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-hds.asp

Higher than 2/3 dimensions is hard for us to visualize. A lot of confusion about EM waves and Maxwell equations arise from the fact that they are defined by a four dimensional relation in spacetime that is hard to model in two dimensional pictures.

Keep on bringing the interesting news!

[junglelord]

I get it but I still say its two sides of the same coin. We all know the difference between a noun and a verb. At the same time everything that is made of atoms spins at the atomic level and at the galactic level. Therefore spin, verb or noun, is intrinsic to the properties of matter.
yes or no?

[Plasmatic]

CONCEPT IDENTEFICATION AND REALITY INTEGRATION:

The fact that a coin has 2 sides DOES NOT obviate the fact that one side is NOT the other side. You know why???? Because A = A , my friend ,Side A CANNOT be simultaneously Side B . Aristotle called it THE LAW OF NON CONTRADICTION. Ayn Rand Calls it THE LAW OF IDENTITY. Things are what they are and they are NOT what they are not.....

[David Talbott]

Just a thought for you folks before this thread grows more heated.

Words are just words. People will, in fact, use the word "reality" in different way. At its root, in philosophical contexts, the word refers to what is permanent in contrast to what is impermanent. Is anything in the world of our three-dimensional perception permanent? Not that I know of . Philosophically, the word "reality" will always draw one toward the language of something more fundamental than perception, but perhaps implied, or event quantifiable within some intermediate zone between the solid unchanging ground-- reality--and the ever-changing surface of perception.

For almost a year now I've wished to high heaven that I had more time to explore David Thomson's work. It must not be dismissed, even if some perfection of the language would reduce misunderstanding at the introductory level. In common parlance, we use the phrase "angular momentum" in relation to a quantifiable observation of movements and calculated "mass". But we are in fact describing objects whose deeper essence is entirely unknown to us, and the underlying meaning of mass remains mysterious.

At the quantum level, where does angular momentum come from? It is dangerous to assume in advance that "matter" is not coming into and fading out of existence. If David Thomson is correct in claiming that such a process is not just verifiable but quantifiable, it is in our interest to be as thorough as possible in coming to understand what he has quantified. He is a completely reasonable, feet on the ground fellow. He is not working with mathematical abstractions from the top down, but with known quantum measurements. It does appear that there is a geometry at work, supporting the natural world prior to its three-dimensional expression. This geometry can be expressed first in one dimension, then in two, and there is nothing inappropriate in these terms. Nor is it inappropriate to speak of angular momentum being imparted to three dimensional objects through this process. Personally, I would urge all who are contributing to this discussion to start at the beginning, not at the level of subjective and contradictory uses of words. The proper beginning is David Thomson's book. Well qualified people are now investigating his work with a no-nonsense attitude, to determine whether it really does achieve what it appears to achieve--a quantifiable description of quantum forces by means of geometric relationships that, if true, would have far reaching implications for the Electric universe.

An example: the elementary orthogonal relationship of "electromagnetic charge" and "mass," as noted by David Thomson in a recent private communication:

As the Unified Force Theory (from APM) shows, electromagnetic
charge is orthogonal to mass. In fact, there is a constant mass
to strong charge ratio that is a permanent fixture of the
Universe. The mass to strong charge ratio is:

m.e/e.emax^2 = 6.508 x 10^6 kg/coul^2

In the case of the electron, the electron mass to electron strong
charge is equal to 6.508 x 10^6 kg/coul^2. The same is true for
the proton and neutron. Thus, whatever force applies to mass
(gravity) will be exactly proportional to the force that applies
to electromagnetic charge (strong force). The strong force
manifests at different scales of existence as permanent
magnetism, strong nuclear force, and Van der Waals force."

So, whereas I love philosophy, an inescapable occupation, it's not accurate to dismiss anything in David's work as metaphysics or mysticism. And again, being a mystic of sorts myself, there's no finger pointing in any direction here, just a desire that we look at the underpinnings of the work itself before we worry as to whether it might carry "mystical" implications.

David Talbott

[junglelord]

CONCEPT IDENTEFICATION AND REALITY INTEGRATION:

The fact that a coin has 2 sides DOES NOT obviate the fact that one side is NOT the other side. You know why???? Because A = A , my friend ,Side A CANNOT be simultaneously Side B . Aristotle called it THE LAW OF NON CONTRADICTION. Ayn Rand Calls it THE LAW OF IDENTITY. Things are what they are and they are NOT what they are not.....

Your trying to twist what I said...and I never said that or claimed that. I ask you can a coin have only one side? No. Therefore one side is not the other, thats ovbious, but having two sides does it make it two things or one thing? Now thats apples and oranges to atoms and spin but like I said spin is intrinsic to matter at the atomic level. I still ask if a electron can exist if it does not spin? Can a star have planets that do not orbit? I think no. If spin is intrinsic to sub atomic particles then its not a big step to imagine that they are made from spiral vortex's, at least not in my mind or the mind of Meyl and Tewari, Tesla and Lord Kelvin and Maxwell.

A really good starting point here is to quote Ida Rolf on Structural Integration and Fuller on Tensegrity. You Cannot Seperate Structure From Function. A very powerful statement that certainly applys here.

Structure is the noun, Function is the verb. That is a universal fact and I would state that you cannot seperate electrons from spin. Just like double layers always create spiral vortex forms....these things are self evident. Would it be such a leap of logic for the Structure to be therefore equal to the Function? Ie the Vortex is the Electron. Or the Electron is a Vortex. To me a Vortex is a scalar wave and certainly is not a point which is fundamentally what this thread is about, if matter is a wave. I say yes and I say its a scalar vortex wave.

By the way people I am enjoying this so please understand that I am happy and not taking this seriously or heavy. I know we are all good insightful people here and because its the web even we can misunderstand web talk vs face to face coffee shop talk. I think we are all aware this is coffee shop talk and that we are good friends here.
Cheers.

PS Neil Peart loves Ayn Rand which influenced his song lyrics. I read Ayn Rand stuff in highschool in the 70's because of Rush and Neil Peart (*I'm a drummer from Canada*)

I'm going for a donut and a coffee and sit down by the St. Lawrance River and watch double layers make whirlpool vortex's and your all invited! Cheers.

[klypp]

StevenO says that "higher than 2/3 dimensions is hard to visualize." Really? It doesn't seem like a prominent problem in this thread...
We learn from Einsteinian Relativity that it only takes 4 dimensions to create a universe of absurdities, so I must say I symphatize with Plasmatic in his efforts to keep spin out of the list. Do we really need more dimensions...?
On the other hand, I can easily find some arguments to keep the spin going. Or as a group of "A bigger bang"-cosmologists would say about matter: It's only rock and roll!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qra_w0H0 ... re=related
Seems to me they've got a multidimensional string theory that is actually working!

Enjoy, relax... and get back on track!!!

[BlueCrab]

Wow! I love all of the great conversation!

There are several things about this thread that I find quite intriguing.

1. An object is spin.

Well, if an object is spin then it must be bi polar; positive negative? Yes? Is this any different than a statement saying that all things are wave forms? All wave forms are made of positive negatives crests and troughs? http://www.beatlesagain.com/images/sinwav.gif

If a building block such as an electron can be characterized as a wave form only, then all that's left would be the linking to a proton. If a proton can be characterized as such, then we have Hydrogen.... and all other things?

Here is an interesting website on the topic.... http://theresonanceproject.org/research.html

So I guess my original point has been addressed in some way? Is there ever neutral. Is there ever, really, a point? One could say that a human being is a singular, but is this the case? Is not the being sustained in the greater singulars and waves? A human is not an island, and is constantly interacting and needs other wave forms... light, water, solid material on which to stand, air to breathe....

So where is the neutral? Is it the aether which is continuously referred to? The thing in which all things are? If this is what we are searching for (insert theology) all the great spiritual traditions contend that this thing cannot be conceptually expressed. Is it also the great scientific traditions contention? Can the aether be quantified? If all things are wave forms.... It must be waving through something, no?

Ahh well that's my lunch break. Love the website, and TPODs

Oh one other wrinkle for those more scientifically trained minds....

What is the EU's answer to the classic two slit experiment? It seems to me that science has floundered for answers ever since it was performed. Does this experiment have anything to do with our conversation in this thread?

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java ... igure1.jpg

[junglelord]

The wave model I have has only three dimensions of space...time is not a dimension in the model. We can consider the three fields that fill that space to be three more dimensions but thats not a necessity. Therefore would StevenO be happy with just three dimensions and three fields? I know I am. Its a wave model that can be considered as only three dimensions....how am I doing so far?


Ps I waited for you guys by the river and no one came, but I bet I am the only one on a medical pension but I digress. All I saw was waves...and where there are double layers (currents going in two directions) are vortex whirlpools *scalar waves* in the middle of the double layers. That seems to be the fundamental form produced by two layer systems and hence is the Archetype Primary Wave of the three fields that inhabit the three dimensions of space and not the transverse waves that are more abundant in science and rivers.


Also the vortex spin is a dipole as Meyl so clearly points out. The dual opposite spiral vortex scalar waves combine together (an electron and a positron) to form different geometric relationships to create electrons, photons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos. Therefore all subatomic particles are composed of a dipole of at least two opposite spiral vorticies (or more) in one of several geometric relationships of structure and function. Clearly a wave model and not a particle model with only three dimensions. You don't even need a bleedthrough from higher dimensions aka Klauza Klein etc and gravity is not a primary field but is a superposition wave byproduct of two fields.

As far as people and point objects, I heard it said yesterday that we are fields with bodies and not bodies with fields.