Structure of Matter/Energy Crazy Idea

[PFanalog57]

Dr. Wolff's theory rings true!

Milo Wolff - Quantum waves were first described by Heisenberg, Schrodinger, de Broglie and others. They originated the word. We use the same name as those quantum waves which are already known by that name because such waves have already been discovered. The special 'quantized' meaning is because the energy transfers always occur in discrete amounts or 'quanta". I suppose we could avoid the use of the word 'quantum waves' if we wanted to. But that would be a sort of scientific plagiarism. I see the problem here: Most people have no feeling for the word quantum so it is useless to use it until they do. We could start off with just 'waves' and then add the less-observable quantum wave meaning later, with a careful explanation. This is a knotty problem.

My book 'Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe' has a chapter titled "All about Waves" which discusses some of your questions. But the clear distinction between vector and scalar waves HAS to be made in the readers mind, otherwise the logic following will have no impact. So we have to bring this out with strong emphasis. I will use examples.

SCALAR WAVES. - Pressure is a scalar quantity because it needs only ONE number at each point in space to describe it. That quantity is always an AMPLITUDE of the quantity at each point. Thus sound waves, Earth quake waves, and underwater waves are all scalar waves where the wave amplitude is pressure in the medium. Money, counting, age, etc are also scalar quantities.

VECTOR WAVES. - These waves are already familiar to you. The most important example is electromagnetic waves which need to have TWO quantities at each point to describe the wave. The two quantities are amplitude and direction. This combination of these two quantities is termed a vector. A vector can always be represented by an arrow where the direction is the way the arrow points and the amplitude is the length of the arrow.
Vector waves simply do NOT have either the physical or math properties needed. Did I tell you of the math saying, "You cannot comb the hair on a billiard ball". This proves in a simple way that spherical waves CANNOT be vector. Combed hair is a vector. If you try to place it on a sphere (ball), you will get a 'cowlick' in one place, so the spherical symmetry is impossible.

 

[Edwin]

I think that is very interesting: ict^2+ct^2=0.

If particles time values can be described in terms of imaginary components, and real components, such that below Planckian time scales, the time value by a variation of the equation you mentioned above: nict^2+mct^2=[-planck time,planck time]; negative Planck time<0<planck time, and n^2+m^2=1={cos(theta), sin(theta)} are variables, then the different time states between sub-planckian time scales could be described by an infinite series of right triangles cos(theta)ict^2+sin(theta)ct^2={x|x=[-planck-time, Planck-time], -plancktime<0<plancktime}. If so, then the transition of a virtual particle between say Planck-time to negative Planck-time, would be a 180 degree rotation of the particles phase. As cos(0)->cos(90), x transitions from Planck-time to negative Planck-time. However, on the complex plane, (x, iy) the transition of Planck-time to negative Planck-time would be described by the rotation of an angle 180 degrees, instead of 90 degrees. So cos(0)->cos(360), would translate to a phase rotation on the complex plane of 0 degrees->720 degrees phase rotation. The question I have is, does the current model describe the transition of a given quantum value of a virtual particle from a real component to an imaginary component, and then back to a real component in terms of a 720 degrees phase rotation on the complex plane?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

[Edwin]

I was working out the equation for three oscillators in a given energy system to incorporate some of the information you had mentioned and stumbled onto something that should easily reveal a potential flaw in my methods of evaluating the math, or the theory itself.

According to Dr. Ivanov, the equation for lively standing wave velocity in alternating electronic circuits is

Ve=c(v1-v2)/(v1+v2), where v1 is the frequency of one oscillator, and v2 is the frequency of another oscillator. I used substitution to reduce the equation to make the equation easier to solve, by allowing v2 to be described in terms of v1, a little trick I learned in Algebra class way back when.

v1=v1,

Let v2=v1-x, where x is the difference in frequency, frequency gradient, between oscillator v1, and v2.

then Dr. Ivanovs equation would read,

Ve=c[v1-(v1-x)]/[v1+(v1-x)=cx/2v1-x

The substituting Dr. Ivanovs energy velocity term Ve into the Lorentz Transformations for relativistic energy,

e=m0/(1-Ve^2/c^2), we get

e=m0/1-(x^2)/(2v_1-x)^2, where x is the frequency gradient between oscillator v1 and v2.

Now if 2v_1=x, the e=infinity, according to the equation.

However, for two oscillators this would require v1 to have a frequency of say 3 htz, and oscillator v2 to have a frequency of negative 3 htz. So for e to equal infinity, the oscillator v2 would have to have a negative frequency.

However, with three oscillators, I have found that, if my equation substitutions were correct, e can equal infinity, while all oscillators have a positive frequency.

The equation is as follows.

$$e=frac{m0}{ frac{sqrt(1-frac{c_0x_0}{2L_1-x_0}-c_1x_1L_1+frac{(c_1x_1)^2}{2}+x_1}{ frac{c_0x_0}{2L_1-x_0}-c_1x_1L_1+frac{(c_1x_1)^2}{2}+x_1}$$

if 2L=x_1, then e=infinity

If L1 has a frequency of 3htz, L2 has a frequency of 7Htz and L3 has a frequency of 1 Htz, and the lively standing wave has mass m_0, then e=infinity.

What do you think?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen