Prev: Atomic clock behaviour in a gravitational field explained with 1905 Relativity
Next: The force of Gravity
From: Thomas Heger on 3 Jul 2010 00:36
glird schrieb:
> On Jul 2, 5:15 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> Thomas Heger schrieb:
...

> A "wave" is a configuration. As such, it requires a material to be
> the thing so configured. In that sense, then Yes (sort of) a wave is
> kind of a wrapped up matter. (But I doubt that matter is a wrapped up
> wave.)
>
>>> And we don't need particles at all!
>
> We never did! A "particle" is a self-sustaining matter-energy
> configuration that owns the matter it is made of. Neither a quantum
> of action or a photon is that kind of thing. Planck's h is a quantity
> of action and his e_o is a quantity of energy=hf. Neither of them is a
> particle once released from an atom.
> Indeed, I am increasingly sure that an electron is not a particle
> either! !! When inside an atom, it is a "wavicle". (A wavicle is a
> circulating grad s-d that is a configuration when in the less-dense
> part of the shell-layer around a nucleus and becomes an unbounded bit
> of moving matter when in the denser part near the nucleus.)
>
If we think about electrons as 'charged' and charge as a potential
relative to some core, than the electron could be the outermost point of
a standing wave, while the nucleus the return point, this waves is
circling around. This is like conserved angular momentum, that exchanges
with velocity. The outermost shell has potential, because there the wave
stands still. In the core we have the opposite relation.

>>> <This 'turn inside out' is provided by a scheme called Wick rotation or to multiply an atom by i. That turns the timeline to the side and contraction is then expansion. >
>
> The "timeline" is a mental construction that doesn't exist other
> than as a mathematical tool. If you want to plot a contraction as an
> exopansion, you don't turn the timeline to theside, you REVERSE it.
>
No, 'reverse' means pointing in the opposite direction, what is not,
what perpendiculars means.
That timelines have a meaning and that they could be altered, that
should be obvious from the experience of moving things. From relativity
stems the connection of those worldlines to coordinate systems, if we
measure time locally and call space, what is timeless seen in this
coordinate system. (The FoR is stationary to its origin and that is the
observer).

>> here some random picks about Wick rotation:http://reperiendi.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/the-partition-function-wic...http://www.physics.thetangentbundle.net/wiki/Quantum_field_theory/Wic...http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=714http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation
>>
>> < The idea is, to multiply a solution with i. That is like shifting something by 90� to the side and replace spacelike with timelike.>
>
> You are trapped in the lingo of Minkowski.
> If you want to UNDERSTAND what's actually happening, instead of merely
> calculate how much of thuhbt happens when you do thiop to it, you need
> to study metaphysics, not just physics. And if you want to understand
> only physics, you'd better not be misled by Minkowski's relativistic
> language, in which i=sqrt(-1) is "i"maginary.
>
I had the idea of pointlike states to being interlocked like
quaternions, that twist each other. That is a multiplicative connection
of imaginary 'elements of spacetime'. The i represents then something
like an angle and the connection could be described as anti-symmetric
rotation. The i is used in the Euler equation and that could be
formulated with arc-functions, too.
Since the connections of the points is multiplicative, a line refers to
a series of those complex multiplications or an exponential function of
i. The waves in turn refer to the arc-functions.
If that line is timelike, the waves circle around that line and we have
timelike stable structures, that is what I suppose to be matter .
If we turn the timeline a bit, that matter starts to radiate.
This scheme treats particles and waves on the same basis as 'structures
in spacetime', where the basic building blocks are not a thing or a
medium, but possibly nothing.

>> <If matter is timelike, than fields could be spacelike. But we could shift this relation 'sideways' and radiation turns to matter, for a timeline 'perpendicular' to ours - or: t'=i*t. "
>
> Matter existed forever and always will. If you wish, you could call
> its EXISTENCE "timelike". A "field" is a volume of space, which could
> be called "spacelike". The only "relation" between the two is that a
> *material* field (a volume filled with matter) can undergo a
> structural change as time passes. Since there is no way to "shift this
> relation 'sideways'", the rest of your sentence is correct; i.e.
> _i_maginary.
>
Nope, matter doesn't exist forever. From big-bang cosmology comes the
idea of matter being created and from nuclear decay stems the idea of
disintegration of matter. So matter could age and undergo a large circle
from kind of energy to light elements, heavy elements and back to
radiation again. That is the circle of our universe, too, that creates
matter with expansion.
More matter means in turn is contraction of the waves, that get kind of
wrapped up.
My idea is like yours, that more important than the cores are the
connectors. This is what connects the cores in e.g. a lattices. The
cores function as a 'trap', that kind of catch the energy and make atoms
transmute until they finally break apart.
Even if this is violating an important principle of chemistry,
observations seem to suggest such an idea. This is the location of the
heavy elements on the Earth, near the surface or even on mountains. If
the elements wouldn't age, they had to have sunk into to Earth long ago.

TH

>> <If we would play around with those i and timelines, then we could see that what we call space is spacetime without time and matter is
> spacetime without space. >
>
> If we do what you say, then do do it;
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Atomic clock behaviour in a gravitational field explained with 1905 Relativity
Next: The force of Gravity