This post is a continuation of


The comments on the above post have become so numerous that they are slow to come up on the computer.

This post is created to continue with the discussion on Wave Function Collapse.



Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    What is a Higgs Field?

    From Wikipedia:

    The Higgs field is a quantum field with a non-zero value that fills all of space, and explains why fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons have mass. The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field above its ground state…

    In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is the process that gives mass to elementary particles. The particles gain mass by interacting with the Higgs field that permeates all space. More precisely, the Higgs mechanism endows gauge bosons in a gauge theory with mass through absorption of Nambu–Goldstone bosons arising in spontaneous symmetry breaking.


    • fredwx  On May 28, 2012 at 9:01 AM

      Vinay, How is this different than the hypothetical ether?

      • vinaire  On May 28, 2012 at 9:09 AM

        The only difference I can see is that it is supported by mathematical considerations, which i don’t understand very well.

        The proof is in the pudding, I would say. So, I’ll wait and see.


    • vinaire  On July 5, 2012 at 5:37 AM

      I heard yesterday on the radio that they have made discovery of a new particle that might be the Higgs particle.

      Now that would be a ground breaking discovery.


      • Chris Thompson  On July 5, 2012 at 9:57 AM

        I heard the same thing. At least they are calling what they found at the hadron collider a “Higgs” and had a press large press conference with 82+ year old Higgs present to announce with fanfare their success. Nobel prizes on the way.

        This is one more step in the quantization of the universe, so I wonder at your doubt about nuclear measurements. Measuring the energy state of an electron is child’s play compared to this most recent announcement regarding Higgs.

  • Chris Thompson  On May 23, 2012 at 10:21 AM

    I guess we are covering “old” ground.

    • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 10:59 AM

      Do you understand all this?


      • Chris Thompson  On May 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM

        No, I meant that we are not breaking new ground…not that I understand this.

        • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 2:31 PM

          I believe that new ground is broken after understanding existing fundamentals. Any attempt to understand fundamentals should never be discouraged.


    • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM

      I am trying to understand what “mass” is.

      Do you understand it?


      • Chris Thompson  On May 23, 2012 at 2:28 PM

        It was an off-hand remark. This material is difficult, counter-intuitive, and now to begin to realize how much has been worked out that I don’t understand is, is deflating. I doubt I can ever come completely up to speed on what is already known, nevermind understanding a new thing. Regardless, whatever I do understand will be new to me in my own little corner of the universe.

        • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 2:37 PM

          I believe that an overview of the materials through Wikipedia can help one zero in to the essential inconsistency. And then one can start digging into it. One does not have to know everything when follwing a specific trail. One only needs to know enough to spot inconsistencies.


      • fredwx  On May 28, 2012 at 9:04 PM

        Mass is an effect bending space-time somehow linked as well to inertia and the answer may be in that linkage.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 28, 2012 at 10:21 PM

          INERTIA: Intensely interesting this “inertia.” Something is not occurring. Then a Potential Force in some form builds and this force has a vector. Some mass is blocking the path of this vector and this mass represents among other things a counter force in direct opposition to the force acting upon it. As the force builds the mass does not move. At a tipping point, the building potential overcomes the counter force and the mass is moved. Once this counter-force has been overcome, the mass is placed “in-motion” and shall remain so until it is again acted upon again by another countering force or supplemental force. What a very-very curious phenomena!

        • vinaire  On May 29, 2012 at 9:09 AM

          I have a model for INERTIA here:



  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 11:29 AM

    What is spontaneous symmetry breaking?

    From Wikipedia:

    Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a spontaneous process by which a system in a symmetrical state ends up in an asymmetrical state.

    Consider the bottom of an empty wine bottle, a symmetrical upward dome with a gutter for sediment. If a ball is placed at the peak of the dome, the situation is symmetrical. But the ball may spontaneously break this symmetry and roll into the gutter, a point of lowest energy. The bottle and the ball retain their symmetry, but the system does not.

    In particle physics the force carrier particles are defined by field equations with gauge symmetry.*** These equations predict that certain measurements will be the same at any point in the field. For instance, they may predict that the mass of two quarks is constant. Solving the equations to find the mass of each quark might give two solutions. In one solution, quark A is heavier than quark B. In the second solution, quark B is heavier than quark A by the same amount. The symmetry of the equations is not reflected by the individual solutions, but it is reflected by the range of solutions. An actual measurement reflects only one solution, representing a breakdown in the symmetry of the underlying theory. “Hidden” is perhaps a better term than “broken” because the symmetry is always there in the equations. This phenomenon is called spontaneous symmetry breaking because nothing (that we know) breaks the symmetry in the equations.

    ***Field theory usually refers to a construction of the dynamics of a field, i.e. a specification of how a field changes with time or with respect to other independent physical variables on which the field depends… Gauge Theory is a type of Field theory… The term gauge refers to redundant degrees of freedom in the Lagrangian.


  • 2ndxmr  On May 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM

    [Note: I have added the definition of “quantum operartors” also. ~ Vinaire]

    Vinaire, I think it is a very good idea to have a few of the fundamental definitions at the beginning, so I’m copying in one of the last you posted on the previous blog:

    What is a field?

    Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia:

    In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated with each point of space-time… a field can be either a classical field or a quantum field, depending on whether it is characterized by numbers or quantum operators respectively… The field creates a “condition in space” so that when we put a particle in it, it feels a force… “The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy makes it very real… a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have”.


    What are quantum operators?

    To me [Vinaire], these operators allow one to look at a physical state from a different viewpoint.

    From Wikipedia:

    In physics, an operator is a function acting on the space of physical states. As a result of its application on a physical state, another physical state is obtained, very often along with some extra relevant information.

    The simplest example of the utility of operators is the study of symmetry. Because of this, they are a very useful tool in classical mechanics. In quantum mechanics, on the other hand, they are an intrinsic part of the formulation of the theory… The mathematical description of quantum mechanics is built upon the concept of an operator.


    If we want to talk about wave collapse, the importance of grasping the concept of fields cannot be underestimated.

    Field lines are nearly the most magical thing in nature. Static electricity is a phenomenon everyone knows about and has probably played with, but at the physical level I find the phenomenon as or more profound than the concept of alternating fields – the fields we use for all forms of radio broadcasting.

    For the static electric field to penetrate through air is one thing – one could suppose (incorrectly) that it had something to do with the atoms in the air. When we see the static field operate in a vacuum, then the head scratching begins. The first assumption may be that the charge radiates entirely from the charged body’s own electrons or protons – also innaccurate. How then?

    This line from the wiki

    “… a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have”.

    is likely the most correct statement of the mechanism and what it says is that the phenomenon of field propagation is a particle to particle transfer of energy (or charge phenomena) or momentum.

    This says “particle to particle”. Now we get back to a vacuum – an absence of atoms…

    The answer is that a vacuum is not a vacuum but a continuous medium that can magically rearrange itself to be the carrier for the physical phenomena that needs to be carried. It’s the equivalent of – at one moment – being the air necessary to carry a bird, and the next moment being water to carry a fish.

    The really, really magical thing is that it can be like air and water at the same time.

    More later…

    • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM

      Well said.

      I have added the definition of QUANTUM OPERATORS from the previous thread also, because that term appears in the definition of FIELD and these operators are intrinsic to Quantum Mechanics.


  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM

    What is mass?

    In modern physics, all fundamental particles are regarded as localized excitations of fields. The excitation of Higgs field interacting with the excitation of some other fields seems to produce mass terms. This simply means that the production of mass term is consistent with the very few fundamental postulates on which mathematics is based.

    Thus, we can posit that the mass term can be derived mathematically from space, which is depicted as a mixture of fields.

    In layman terms, we may posit that MASS, which essentially is resistance to motion, may be condensed from space.


  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

    In response to 2ndxmr

    (1) It seems that space is a mixture or harmonics of fields that has been there in its ground state even before the big bang.

    (2) The big bang has simply served to precipitate energy and matter out of this space.

    (3) The boundary of this precipitation of energy and matter is what we see as the expanding universe.

    (4) Consciousness arises only upon this precipitation of energy and matter. We may say that Big Bang created consciousness.


    • 2ndxmr  On May 24, 2012 at 2:30 AM

      This may be a very valuable thread in terms of coallescing relevant knowledge in QM into a form that is generally understandable. As much fun as it would be to also discuss consciousness, I’d suggest we try keep that topic out as much as possible as it will derail the hard science groundwork that you’re beginning to establish here. Another day, another gauntlet to throw. 🙂

  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 1:59 PM

    In response to 2ndxmr

    Black Holes seem to be later formations after energy and mass have already been created out of space. Black holes then interact back with space.

    I see no reason to change what I stated before.


  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 3:07 PM

    What is a wave function?

    From Wikipedia:

    A wave function is a probability amplitude describing the quantum state of a particle and how it behaves. Typically, its values are complex numbers and, for a single particle, it is a function of space and time. The laws of quantum mechanics (the Schrödinger equation) describe how the wave function evolves over time. The wave function behaves qualitatively like other waves, like water waves or waves on a string, because the Schrödinger equation is mathematically a type of wave equation. This explains the name “wave function”, and gives rise to wave-particle duality.

    The wave function is absolutely central to quantum mechanics—it makes the subject what it is. It is also the source of the mysterious consequences and philosophical difficulties in what quantum mechanics means in nature, and even how nature itself behaves at the atomic scale and beyond—topics that continue to be debated today.


  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

    What is Schrödinger equation?

    From Wikipedia:

    Schrödinger equation is an equation that describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes with time.

    In classical mechanics, the equation of motion is Newton’s 2nd law… they are used to solve for the motion of a mechanical system, and mathematically predict what the system will do at any time beyond the initial settings and configuration of the system.

    In quantum mechanics, the analogue of Newton’s law is Schrödinger’s equation for a quantum system, usually atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles; free, bound, or localized. It… encases the wave function of the system…

    In the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave function is the most complete description that can be given to a physical system. Solutions to Schrödinger’s equation describe not only molecular, atomic, and subatomic systems, but also macroscopic systems, possibly even the whole universe.


  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 3:25 PM

    In response to 2ndxmr

    Per Wikipedia, ”In modern physics, all fundamental particles are regarded as localized excitations of fields.”

    It seems that electromagnetic wave is associated with one type of field. There may be other types of fields associated with Space. Any source of excitation may produce particle type properties in these fields. I don’t know if interaction of electromagnetic waves is sufficient to cause excitation locally in a field. This needs to be investigated further.


  • vinaire  On May 26, 2012 at 8:32 AM

    To many, higher math might appear to be a barrier in understanding Quantum Mechanics, but it is really not so. In fact, it could be quite advantageous not to know higher math. Basic math would suffice.

    Mathematics is a subset of logic. It starts with a small number of basic axioms, or assumptions regarded as true. From there, it simply builds up a structure that is consistent with these basic axioms. Physicists then feed certain observations into this structure to see what conclusions may be drawn.

    It is perfectly OK to look at higher mathematics as a Black Box. One may then simply examine the observations that are fed into that black box, and the conclusions that are drawn out of it. Just imagine that the function of the Math Black Box is to establish consistency of the output with the input according to the basic axioms of mathematics. Then you simply look at how consistent those inputs and outputs are with your own observations.

    One simply has to trust the mathematicians and the scientists for their consistent aplication of mathematical principles. Just keep in mind that mathematics is an approximation of reality. It is not exact in making conclusions about reality. Exactness can be established only through direct looking.

    So, don’t be shy because of unfamiliarity with higher math. Just know the fundamentals of mathematics and you’ll do fine. 🙂



    • vinaire  On May 28, 2012 at 9:04 AM

      I find that the more inconsistencies are leveled, the easier it becomes to understand mathematics.


  • vinaire  On May 27, 2012 at 6:17 AM

    Finally I finished reading the following book, and I finally understood Maxwell’s triumph, as well as the Maxwell’s equations.

    Amazon.com: A Student’s Guide to Maxwell’s Equations 

    These equations started the era from which Quantum Mechanics emerged. This is one of the greatest triumph of mathematics, which revealed the electromagnetic nature of light. This is what inspired Einstein. It has carried forward the bastion of theoretical physics.

    A change in electric field produces the magnetic field. A change in magnetic field produces the electric field. If a wave is created out of electric field, the wave of magnetic field is produced naturally along with it. The “up and down” of a wave seems to be replaced by electric and magnetic fields.

    Here we seem to be looking at the disturbance in space itself. Disturbance in one direction appears as an Electric Field. Disturbance in opposite direction appears as a magnetic field. When space is disturbed in one direction, conditions set in immediately to restore it back to equilibrium, but then it overshoots the point of equilibrium and then the disturbance occurs in the opposite direction. And so it continues. This disturbance propagates in space as the electromagnetic wave.

    But what causes the disturbance to start with, because the energy of the initial disturbance seems to be conserved as this wave.


  • Chris Thompson  On May 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

    Does the observation have direction either toward the observed or toward the observer or both? or neither?

    • vinaire  On May 28, 2012 at 6:17 PM

      Good question. I have to meditate over that.


      • Chris Thompson  On May 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

        I got the idea to ask while watching my cat watch my mouse’s “cage.” I have him safe in a big aquarium. I get him out and he rides around with me indoors, outdoors, no matter. Rides in my pocket when he wants to take it easy.

        Because of the intensity of the cat’s focus, I notices that the cat did not or would not notice me actually with the mouse on my shoulder in plain sight. I wondered about several mechanics while watching them.

      • vinaire  On May 29, 2012 at 5:09 AM

        It seems that focus provides the direction to the observation.


        “Thus, existence comes about with a manifestation. A manifestation basically means that “something is being.” This fact of being, or existing, may be referred to by a new word BEINGNESS.

        “The fact of manifestation makes it immediately knowable. The fact that something can be known implies AWARENESS. Thus, beingness and awareness occur together. They are the essence of existence.”

        Beingness and awareness are part of the same phenomenon. The observer and the observed are also part of the same phenomenon, it seems. They are in a dance with each other.


  • Chris Thompson  On May 28, 2012 at 6:38 PM

    The wave-collapse is counterintuitive to me because I assume that the environment is “radiating” information in all directions and that I have in my possession only “receptors” to collect and analyze this radiation.

    The notion that the observer is “doing something” to the wave-function and thereby affecting that which he observes is counterintuitive in the extreme. That concept changes the idea of perception more extremely than I could have thought up on my own.

    • fredwx  On May 28, 2012 at 9:10 PM

      Perhaps it is all in our mind and there really isn’t anything out there?

      • Chris Thompson  On May 28, 2012 at 9:34 PM

        I freely admit this possibility. I also think that there may be something “out there” but that maybe the idea of “individual ego” is the biggest lie of all. It may be our “pinched-off little piece of consciousness — encrusted with considerations” which is what is truly contrived… What do you think Fred?

    • vinaire  On May 29, 2012 at 7:25 AM

      What seems to be radiated are:
      (1) Thought waves
      (2) Light waves
      (3) Sound waves
      (4) Matter waves (free particles)
      (5) Objects (bound particles)

      The various receptors are built in the body. Any wave collapse should apply to all these waves. Can wave collapse be defined as “coming into focus”? This happens when what is being radiated comes into contact with appropriate receptors. Nobody is doing anything. This seems to be a natural phenomenon. We call it perception.


      • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2012 at 8:32 AM

        Not sure what you mean by nobody is doing anything.

        • vinaire  On May 29, 2012 at 9:12 AM

          I don’t think there is free will. It may only appear to be so. Nor it is all pre-determined.

          It is simply karma.


  • Chris Thompson  On May 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

    I was just visiting with my oldest son just now and discussing the differences between “will” (some say “free” will — I don’t so much) and “determinism.” We were discussing how an idea appears in our minds and then we go about taking steps if we wish to materialize that idea into the solid universe. There seems to be a rigidity to the laws in the physical universe. (duh, that’s why they are called laws.) But people tend to believe that these laws can be manipulated, altered, acted upon a way to affect their result; However, I do not or canot name an instance of these laws being successfully violated without unhappy consequences. Human myth describes volumes of tall tales describing successful violations of these laws but other than that and rumor lines, I cannot name any occurrence of a successful violation of one of these laws.

    Can you?

    • vinaire  On May 29, 2012 at 7:45 AM

      To a person who has never seen an airplane before, it would seem to violate the law of gravity. But that is not the case.

      Thus, apparent violations of the laws of nature, that we hear through myths, legends, and rumors seems to be due to some ignorance on part of the observer. The actual circumstances surrounding an event were, most probably, not understood fully and some conclusions were dubbed in.

      I now look at mind as a receptor that perceives mental objects. What appears as ‘will’ seems to be a mental formation that has underlying conditions. What appears as ‘determinism’ seems to be the outcome of subtle combinations that also has underlying conditions. These conditions seem to point to some very fine and subtle programming. Call it upbringing, training, or education or genes.


      • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2012 at 8:40 AM

        Yes, there is misunderstanding of natural law and thus wrongly attributing reasons for results. Your example does not speak to my question.

        Maybe if you use examples framed by your ideas, you writing may come across as less vague. Examples will help coalesce your ideas to me, the reader.

      • vinaire  On May 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM

        Question: I cannot name any occurrence of a successful violation of one of these laws. Can you?

        Answer: I do not see anybody actually violating any of the natural laws either, even when it appears to be so in magic shows.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

          Doesn’t this “fact” seem very significant to you? It does to me. Human lore is completely framed in and couched in these tall tales of bigger than life and extraordinary phenomena. Where does all this exaggeration come from and where does it fit in? It too is a natural phenomena and an outcropping of what?

        • vinaire  On May 29, 2012 at 11:53 AM

          That is an interesting inconsistency for sure.

          The first thought that comes to my mind is that Unknowable is like a “blank slate” on which any Knowable may be speculated and visualized (“written down”).


        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM

          . . . speculated and visualized by what? You will now answer it does not need a what and I am thinking about that as the latest counterintuitive aspect of existence. But you know, I can almost get it. It wants to pop out but I cannot quite spit it out. The snake that I am is eating its tale and when I am finished, I will have swirled down into the infinitesimal and gone “poof.”

        • vinaire  On May 29, 2012 at 5:39 PM

          Well, it is like looking at the ground state and wondering how an excitation comes about.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2012 at 5:57 PM

          round and round — me eating my tail . . . The knowledge like the solidity seems fractal to me . . . we “don’t get nowhere” which means we are making progress but the progress is infinitesimal. Still, I feel better, a little bit better about the questions that I ask.

          The last two nights I had wild and dramatic dreaming which was a result of this most recent bout of go-arounds or else my wife’s lasagna sauce.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM

          “Wondering how an excitation comes about” seems to be at the crux of the problem, but then again, how would I know?

        • vinaire  On May 30, 2012 at 7:06 AM

          I am taking a break and reading Isaac Asimov’s “Prelude to Foundation.” You may download it free as an e-book. Just google it.


  • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM

    I am thinking about Hubbard’s “be-do-have” and wondering if this is original to his work or if it is present in other’s earlier works? Do you know of any earlier reference? The reason that I am thinking about it is that it provides just what he promoted: Steps to bring about reality in the solid world. If not this, then something close to this is occurring which makes a difference between imagination and reality.

    • vinaire  On May 29, 2012 at 5:40 PM



      • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM

        haha now you are messing with me but that’s ok as I deserve it.

        • vinaire  On May 30, 2012 at 7:03 AM

          Hubbard basically looked for patterns in existing data, and he did come up with many good ones, but he failed to explore the fundamentals.

          His ego got the best of him. Without understanding Buddhism he declared Buddha to be a mere keyed out Clear. Hubbard was full of himself.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2012 at 7:47 AM

          I wasn’t discussing Hubbard. I was making a reference only. What I wanted to discuss was the concept of “be do have” as a mechanism only; and compare that to the inconsistency of mind vs matter. Your own model has mind being thin matter but I am not seeing that yet unless there is something going on at the micro level which simply does not correlate to the macro level. We see this in QM but I don’t know yet what we are looking at, what it means.

  • vinaire  On May 30, 2012 at 9:03 AM

    Think of abstract to concrete dimension. That has nothing to do with BE-DO-HAVE.

    Love is an abstract concept. It is manifested as an abstract concept in the mind. But when we see a mother nurturing her child, we observe a concrete manifestation of that abstract concept.


    • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM

      I am and that is why I am looking for an understandable mechanic. Is there no such thing as being? Is there no such thing as doing? and is there no such thing as having? These are ludicrous and inconsistent concepts? Ok then. Forget about Be Do Have.

      Now why can’t a physical law be successfully broken?

      In my mind, there are things that I cannot or at least haven’t yet thought of. I find new thoughts every day – abstract thoughts furnished by others. Some of these abstract thoughts have no meaning to me and it is hard for me to put a meaning to them as they are in the abstract. Which leads me to wonder if I can understand your abstract without transferring it first to concrete and back to my own abstract and vice versa.

      • vinaire  On May 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

        In my opinion, one is agreeing with the whole natural system, which is consistent in itself. Disagreement with any part of that natural system would be an inconsistency. When a natural law is broken any time in one’s visualization an inconsistency arises, and one’s visualization no longer represents the natural system.

        The natural system is a consistent system. You cannot have the natural system persist if you break the most trivial of its laws.


        • Anonymous  On June 1, 2012 at 11:40 PM

          How is the universe incomplete?

        • Chris Thompson  On June 2, 2012 at 10:41 PM

          You said it was consistent within itself, therefore incomplete? How do you suppose it is incomplete, I cannot quite wrap my wits around that… not enough time.

        • vinaire  On June 3, 2012 at 5:29 AM

          Yes, it is consistent within itself. It is not consistent with its surroundings. It is like a bubble floating in the void. If you understand it completely, it will become consistent with the void, and therefore, vanish completely.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 3, 2012 at 6:41 AM

          Ah. Good. Now please define void.

        • vinaire  On June 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM

          “Void” is the static of Axiom #1… the unknowable… “neti, neti”… nirvana.

          I plan to write a post on Axiom #1.


        • Chris Thompson  On June 3, 2012 at 8:13 AM

          Cool. I get it.

        • vinaire  On June 2, 2012 at 6:01 AM

          Are you assuming that the universe is complete? In what way?

          The definition of “complete” is missing here, isn’t it?”

          It is like drawing a line in the sand.


        • Chris Thompson  On June 2, 2012 at 10:43 PM

          You said it is consistent and so I just therefore assume it is incomplete…

        • Chris Thompson  On June 2, 2012 at 10:42 PM

          Good post thank you.

      • vinaire  On May 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

        We all have a model of the natural system in our mind to the degree we understand it. Both abstract and concrete are part of this model. Any meaning to that abstract or concrete part comes from consistency within that model.

        If I put forth something abstract that you have trouble giving meaning to, then please look for the inconsistency which that datum produces. Then question me about it.


  • vinaire  On May 30, 2012 at 12:32 PM

    There is no definite ground state at the bottom of the rabbit hole. In fact, if you happen to turn around you may wonder if the bottom of the hole is in the direction that you are coming from. It is quite confusing.

    The truth seems to be that the ground state itself is a wave… a wave of as-isness… the ‘ups’ and ‘downs’ of this wave seems to be ‘as-is create’ and ‘as-is uncreate’.

    Now, I am going to have fun with this.


  • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM

    And “wave” evaporates as well. I am becoming more convinced that we are attempting to understand the outer-dimensions beyond a 4D space-time universe. This would explain the frustration and impossibility of doing it all from “within.” And if this has merit, then the solution is to pierce the veil of greater dimensions. How do I go about seeing from “with-out?”

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2012 at 2:49 PM

      The fundamental wave seems to be ‘appear’, ‘disappear’, ‘appear’, ‘disappear’, and so on. As complexity is attached to what appears, it seems to become harder to make it disappear.

      There is no external power that is causing this appearance and disappearance. The power is within this phenomenon itself.


      • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2012 at 12:17 PM

        Give an example if you can at the macro level.

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2012 at 3:26 PM

          This is a conjecture about the fundamental that would apply to anything and everything.

          Take a datum from Scientology that you believe in. Is there a datum that is quite solid for you; and another datum which is not that solid?


        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2012 at 11:13 PM

          Are you perceiving a possible oscillation into and out of reality, thus more solid and then less solid?

        • vinaire  On June 1, 2012 at 5:27 AM

          Well, that is an interesting question that makes me look in a certain way. To answer that question I may have to reevaluate what reality is.

          Reality seems to be the product of one’s considerations. Any oscillation into and out of reality would mean examining and reexamining one’s considerations.

          I guess, any intelligent person would be doing that who is not fixed in his/her ideas.


        • 2ndxmr  On June 2, 2012 at 12:51 AM

          Chris “Give an example if you can at the macro level”

          Think of a steel plate about 1 ft. square. Put a small hole in the center of it. Glue a small piece of balloon rubber over the hole on each side of the plate. Now inflate the sealed space and you’ll see the rubber expand (balloon) out on one side or the other side, or a bit of both,

          Now, looking at only one side of the plate, press the balloon on the other side flat so all the air is pushed into the side that is viewed. Next, release the hidden side and press flat the visible side.

          What you’ll see is the “magical” appearance and disappearance of a “distortion of visible space” (the balloon) by an application or relaxation of forces.

          If we call the visible side the “real” dimension because we can see it, we can still know there is a dimension on the non-visible (invisible) side – because we just created it.

          If we set these balloons into a condition where they were repetitively expanding and collapsing on their own, we could use this model to show a behaviour that might be similar to the particle-wave duality. We would again call the visible side the “real”, particle dimension and the invisible side would be (in keeping with the mathematical construct) the “imaginary” dimension – the wave probability.

          The interesting thing about this model is that a very slight difference in “pressure” on one side ot the other would cause the stable change in the state from wave to particle or particle to wave. I expect that this model also reflects something else about the quantum nature of “matter”: Just as the model is made up of two pieces of rubber – the SAME material, it may be that particle and wave are the SAME material, just in different dimensions i.e.
          separated by a barrier that makes one side seem real (visible) and the other side seem invisible (imaginary).

        • Chris Thompson  On June 2, 2012 at 10:39 PM

          Ohhh! I liked that Second Transformer! Like water through a garden hose, it really doesn’t explain electricity, but it gives a sense of how to feel about it at the macro level. Your example duplicates a model that I had thought of for what could be going on in a black hole. But using a black hole for an example, I need to add a dimension or two that I don’t currently know about…

          Could there be a type of phasing occurring within the current universe which is just as much a part of the real universe as the real universe but it simply is a dimension we aren’t equipped to rationalize? It could be right here, all around us, very real and responding “quite responsibly” to usual physical laws, but we simply cannot collapse it through an inadequacy of our own?

      • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2012 at 11:15 PM

        “as complexity is attached”

        What do you mean by this? Do you mean when “you” attach complexity? or what?

        • vinaire  On June 1, 2012 at 5:29 AM

          I was just looking at how something starts very simply and then becomes more and more complex as time passes. For example, a business.


  • vinaire  On June 2, 2012 at 10:38 AM

    Mental material is simply a harmonic of physical material.

    There is physical time. There is also a mental appreciation of time. Mental time may proceed at a different rate than the physical time.

    There is physical space. There is also a mental appreciation, or analogy, of space. Mental space is more than just a picture of physical space. It is actually the background against which the mental objects (ideas, thoughts, visualizations, computations, etc.) are displayed.


    • Chris Thompson  On June 2, 2012 at 10:44 PM

      Yes, that makes sense.

    • vinaire  On June 3, 2012 at 6:46 AM

      Electromagnetic wave seems to be a ripple in the “fabric” of physical space. Similarly, a thought, or consideration, may be a ripple in the “fabric” of mental space.

      The electric and magnetic fields are the “fluctuations” from the norm in case of the electromagnetic wave. Similarly, the dichotomy in any thought (such as, day-night, boy-girl, good-bad, etc.) seems to be the “fluctuations” from the norm in case of the “thought wave.”


      • Chris Thompson  On June 3, 2012 at 7:39 AM

        I really like where you are taking this. There is a consistency to it.

  • vinaire  On September 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM

    Properties of matter seem to be determined by the configuration of atoms and molecules. This means the configuration of how electrons are distributed around the nucleus and how they are shared among atoms in terms of bonding. Movement of electrons acts like a current and that creates electromagnetic field. There is also electrostatic attraction. How such a configuration gets to be perceived in terms of properties seems to be an interesting topic. It is like investigating the nature of a property itself.

    In macromolecules, we can probably have all the properties of a computer. Such properties may even manifest as life.

    This is not just materialism. It is a lot more than that. We are investigating beyond the material into energy fields and into the nature of space itself.


    • Chris Thompson  On September 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

      Good post. Say more about how you are using “configuration” and whether you think there are little hard parts at the Q level.

    • vinaire  On September 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

      ‘Chemistry’ has to do with alchemy, transmutation, or changing of properties. Properties change as elements bond themselves into different types of compounds. Bonding occurs through electron sharing at molecular level, or through electrostatic attraction.

      I think that electrons at micro level play a big part in determining properties at the macro level. The spinning and wave property of electrons seem to establish a varying electromagnetic field. This may have circuit type properties at the atomic level required for computing. These computations at the atomic level may then give rise to properties that appear as ‘will’ and ‘intelligence’ at the macro level.

      Atomic nuclei also play their part as anchors in creating the electronic configuration with electromagnetic variations. I am really getting interested in studying the nature of electron. An electron has no known components or substructure, so it is a fundamental particle not unlike photon.

      This is exciting.


  • vinaire  On September 11, 2012 at 8:17 PM

    Notes from Wikipedia’s article on MASS:

    > On the sub-atomic scale, not only fermions, but also some bosons have rest mass.
    > Only 1% of the rest mass of matter is accounted for by the rest mass of its fermionic quarks and electrons.
    > The Higgs field—if it exists—is not responsible for all mass, but only for the masses of elementary particles.
    > Only about 1% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron) is due to the Higgs mechanism acting to produce the mass of quarks.
    > The rest is due to the mass added by the kinetic energies of quarks and the energies of (massless) gluons of the strong interaction inside the baryons.
    > Much of the rest mass of ordinary matter derives from the invariant mass contributed to matter by particles and kinetic energies which have no rest mass themselves.


    Mass seems to be a property that is more basic than the properties generated by electronic configurations. It is interesting to note that at sub-atomic scale mass appears mostly as energy. There seems to be waves that are ripples in the very fabric of space. A simple ripple may appear as electromagnetism, but as these ripples fold upon themselves getting more and more condensed we witness the nuclear phenomena. These are all energies, which appear as solid mass at the macro level.


    • Chris Thompsonc  On September 11, 2012 at 9:22 PM

      And I will also say that about space. It seems to BE a property more basic than any other particles, configurations, or properties. Think about it: In a big bang, there was an explosion of everything that is manifest. I bet it was a homonenous something which only became differentiated later — whatever later means since later and later was also had its beginning at that point. And there were not any physics or particles as we currently understand them. It seems to me that space and mass, in the context of which we are talking, are as relative in their relative space and condensation as any other parts of the universe.

      What I am bumbling around trying to say is that possibly in the condensation of Jupiter or in the relative thinness of space away from that condensation there can exist also relative beings, well adapted for those environments.

      I am trying to remain open to the next things we will learn for I suspect they will continue to be counterintuitive.

      • 2ndxmr  On September 11, 2012 at 10:29 PM

        Chris: “…space. It seems to BE a property more basic than any other particles, configurations, or properties.”

        The dimensions we know as space are very likely a subset of the multi-dimensional structure of the fundamental particles. String theory math says a photon is defined by 26 dimensions. The photons we are most familiar with – light photons – are known to us by their electric and magnetic fields (dimensions). So that is 2 dimensions out of 26. But we see the effects of photons in our 3-space, so the dimensions we know as 3-space must be in common with the photon i.e. the photon must have as part of it’s 26 dimensions the three dimensions of 3-space.

        What would be the proof that a photon would have to have 3-space dimensions as part of it’s dimensional structure? Consider a 2-dimensional universe demonstrated by a piece of paper. Take a pencil and draw a dot on the paper. Now lift the pencil and draw a dot in the air above the paper (figurtively).

        The dot on the paper includes the dimensions of the paper and can interract with the paper. The air dot cannot. From this one could conclude that in order for some ‘A’ to have influence within a set of dimensions ‘B’ (like 3-space), or for ‘A’ to be influenced by dimensions ‘B’, A and B must possess a commonality. This commonality will be some aspect we can call a dimension.

        Dimension is the property that is more basic than the particle,

        • Chris Thompsonc  On September 11, 2012 at 11:00 PM

          Yes, then it would follow that it is humanity which is lacking perception to experience the additional dimensions. So I find myself worrying about more universes when I lack the fundamental ability to perceive more than only a little bit of the one in which I already reside.

        • 2ndxmr  On September 11, 2012 at 11:14 PM

          As only Bob Marley could say, “Don’t worry, be happy.” (Getchur baste Chamaykan aksent going mon.)

        • Chris Thompsonc  On September 11, 2012 at 11:22 PM

          sur mon! en det dem bobby mcferrin dun stol’d dat song fum hem! hahaha

        • 2ndxmr  On September 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM

          ‘proof spirit, mon. 🙂

        • vinaire  On September 12, 2012 at 9:20 AM

          In my opinion, the string theory math qualifies as pure speculation without any substance.


        • 2ndxmr  On September 12, 2012 at 9:52 AM

          What knowledge do you base your opinion on?

        • vinaire  On September 12, 2012 at 11:19 AM

          Does it matter? I don’t see the string theory to be backed up by any actual evidence. It doesn’t qualify as a theory. It is a failed conjecture. Please see

          Scientific method


        • Chris Thompsonc  On September 12, 2012 at 1:48 PM

          . . . no pun intended!

      • vinaire  On September 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM

        Of course, SPACE and MASS underlie the fact of the ELECTRON, which determines most properties. MASS is how ENERGY appears from a distance. ENERGY is a disturbance in space. Electron appears to have the structure of space-energy-mass in the most fundamental sense. It is ‘mass’ to the degree it is fixed as a pattern of energy.

        So, electron is basically a ‘fixed disturbance’ in space that is actively seeking other types of disturbances.

        I would really like to understand the difference between a photon and an electron. Can photons be converted into electrons? How many photons will it take to create an electron?


        • Chris Thompson  On September 12, 2012 at 10:30 AM

          I don’t know. Photons striking metals seem to excite and drive out these excited electrons. The edited electron acting somewhat like a wheelbarrow can dump its excitation in form of EMF and be returned to the original metal to be rejoined chemically until it becomes excited by another photon. This is the way I use it but I don’t understand it.

        • vinaire  On September 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM

          Here we are looking at stuff that seems to underlie even life. It is the activity at this level that may appear as life at macro level. We know very little about the phenomena at this level.


        • vinaire  On September 12, 2012 at 12:36 PM

          The most fundamental is the activity of awareness/visualization. That activity is somehow involved here either at this level or below this level.


    • 2ndxmr  On September 11, 2012 at 10:00 PM

      V. “There seems to be waves that are ripples in the very fabric of space. A simple ripple may appear as electromagnetism, but as these ripples fold upon themselves getting more and more condensed we witness the nuclear phenomena.”

      Now you’re getting it. Nuclear phenomena is a demonstration of instability at the macro level of the atom. Naturally occuring nuclear phenomena is demonstrated in nature by the mechanism of the half life. The half life is probably more than just a probabilistic mechanism, it likely has demonstrates an entanglement operating over an entire mass (where the mass is solely one element), the entanglement forming a sort of timer based on a bulk mass resonance.

      • vinaire  On September 12, 2012 at 9:25 AM

        By nuclear phenomenon I meant the formation of the nucleus of an atom… the quarks, the strong force, the protons and neutrons.


  • vinaire  On September 12, 2012 at 9:29 PM

    From Wikipedia: Stern–Gerlach experiment

    The act of observation in quantum mechanics is equivalent to measuring them.


  • vinaire  On September 13, 2012 at 5:57 AM

    From Wikipedia on ELECTRON SPIN:

    > Electrons are spin-1⁄2 particles. These have only two possible spin angular momentum values measured along any axis, +ħ/2 or −ħ/2.
    > If this value arises as a result of the particles rotating the way a planet rotates, then the individual particles would have to be spinning impossibly fast.
    > The spin angular momentum is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon.
    > Because its value is always the same, it is regarded as an intrinsic property of electrons.
    > Spin quantum numbers may take on half-odd-integer values.
    > Although the direction of its spin can be changed, an elementary particle cannot be made to spin faster or slower.
    > The spin of a charged particle is associated with a magnetic dipole moment with a g-factor differing from 1. This could only occur classically if the internal charge of the particle were distributed differently from its mass.


    Spin, like mass, appears to be some intrinsic characteristic of the electron. It has something to do with the way ‘disturbance of space’ is distributed in the electron, whereas, mass has to do with ‘amount of disturbance’. Electron’s form is somewhere between a wave and a particle. It is like wave doubling on itself for being confined in a very small space.

    I have the same question here as I have regarding the photon. What makes a disturbance back up on itself and be confined in a small space to assume the characteristics of a particle? What is the interface between ‘disturbed’ and ‘non-disturbed’ space like?


    • Chris Thompson  On September 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM

      I don’t know. One thing that I have observed is that we continually graph our representations of disturbance in 2 dimensional format which while useful in certain limited contexts also leads our thinking down a misunderstanding of a multidimendional disturbance… We really cannot properly visualize these disturbances on a flat table and a 3rd and 4th dimensional representation is probably just beginning to begin to start in the right direction to show the phenomena fully.

    • vinaire  On September 13, 2012 at 10:24 AM

      Let me use ‘dimension’ here in the sense of ‘measurable characteristic’. Here we are looking in terms of ‘disturbance in the fabric of space’.

      MASS is a dimension, which may refer to TOTAL AMOUNT of disturbance.

      SPIN is a dimension, which may refer to DISTRIBUTION of that disturbance.

      CHARGE is a dimension, which may refer to _________________?


      • Chris Thompson  On September 13, 2012 at 11:33 AM

        CHARGE is a dimension, which may refer to _________________?


        • vinaire  On September 13, 2012 at 11:41 AM

          Sounds interesting. Is compression different from condensation?


        • Chris Thompson  On September 13, 2012 at 10:11 PM

          I wrote compression because induction seems like compression to me.

        • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 5:36 AM

          Ah! I really have to look at induction. I am still confounded about what this electric charge is.


      • Chris Thompson  On September 13, 2012 at 11:37 AM

        Something which leaves me clueless discussing this is that EMF is CHARGE as you ask above which seems to be stored potential energy which seems to be able to be transported and discharged without altering the electron.

        So I remain clueless about why there is a HARD LINE between the physical particle of the electron and its charge.

        • vinaire  On September 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM

          As I understand EMF (Electromotive Force) implies potential difference, which makes the charge flow. But what the charge itself at elementary level is still a mystery to me.


        • Chris Thompson  On September 13, 2012 at 1:29 PM

          ah, right you are. The EMF, I don’t think is “stuck” to the electron but is only pushing on it from elsewhere. It is not like a wheelbarrow carrying anything. My mistake.

    • vinaire  On September 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM


      > The electron (symbol: e−) is a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge.
      > This elementary charge is a fundamental physical constant. It is an indivisible unit of charge.
      > The charge of any object is an integer multiple of the elementary charge e.
      > When an electron collides with a positron, both particles may be totally annihilated, producing gamma ray photons.

      Is it possible that


      • Chris Thompson  On September 13, 2012 at 1:55 PM

        I think I see where you are going. Thus electron with charge plus photon “spits” out electron because of additional charge? The Photoelectric Effect?

        Wikipedia: “In the photoelectric effect, electrons are emitted from matter (metals and non-metallic solids, liquids or gases) as a consequence of their absorption of energy from electromagnetic radiation of very short wavelength and high frequency, such as visible or ultraviolet radiation. Electrons emitted in this manner may be referred to as photoelectrons”

        • vinaire  On September 13, 2012 at 4:44 PM

          That’s a good pointer. I need to really study the photoelectric effect in detail.


  • Chris Thompson  On September 13, 2012 at 1:50 PM

    Fredwx wonders how the …Higgs…Field differs from old fashioned ether and I am wondering how the Higgs Field differs from space-time itself.

    • vinaire  On September 13, 2012 at 4:43 PM

      Maybe the Higg’s field provides more insight into what space is. Space seems to be the primary manifestation. Time seems to be a secondary manifestation of changes in space.

      Time does not seem to be a primary manifestation.


      • Chris Thompson  On September 13, 2012 at 9:28 PM

        Maybe not. If you can show how there can ever have been any space without a consequential change in that space then you may be right. However I think the smart boys made a hyphenated word of space-time for this reason.

        Something I’m trying to understand is the property of gravity in some new way. Space seems to have had some elasticity and stickiness to it. The original singularity — if there were a singularity — seems to quickly have rapidly coagulated. Maybe it possesses an elastic quality which wants to return back the way it came from the big bang. Or maybe it has a sticky quality that wants to stick together.

      • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 5:27 AM

        I can see how time may be manifested as changes in space, but I cannot see how space may be manifested from time.

        About gravity, there seem to be a basic concept that seems to be missing. Why would space be disturbed in the first place? Why would space condense into energy and energy into matter? What creates this instability in the form of space-energy-matter? You seem to be pointing to something interesting here.


  • vinaire  On September 13, 2012 at 8:38 PM




    • Chris Thompson  On September 13, 2012 at 10:00 PM

      Ah, I like that. Is it true or are you conjecturing? I really get the idea and can visualize it easily.

      The utter destruction and resulting disturbance of the space-time could result in what we call photon.

      The increased energy and thus angular momentum of an electron in the outer shell of conductive metals could cause it to jump its shell. The same way induction causes it to jump its shell… These two are not the same effect are they?

    • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 5:32 AM

      Those two pieces of data are from Wikipedia.

      I have to look more closely at induction. You are a valuable contributor to this discussion.


  • Chris Thompson  On September 13, 2012 at 10:13 PM

    I think of condensation as that tendency of the singularity soup of the big bang to coagulate. I call it a soup because I see no need to think of it as other than fluid.

    I am seeing this tendency of space (not mass) to coagulate as gravity, and I see mass as the condensate.

    • 2ndxmr  On September 13, 2012 at 11:33 PM

      A bit of math that you and Vin need to incorporate into your thinking is the solution of the intergro-differential equations for reactive components – inductors and capacitors.

      Here is the simplicity of it: the solutions involve the “imaginary” number “root of minus one”. Physically it is an impossible number and yet it is there mathematically and we deal with it in all our equations relating to inductive and capacitive effects. Of course there are many other places where root-of-minus-one occurs, but capacitive and inductive effects are the easiest to model and understand.

      The simplicity of handling it is to assume the imaginary axis to be orthogonal (at right angles) to the ‘real’ axis. Then the math works and we can calculate many effects with simple vector algebra.

      If we use this train of thought – that there is a ‘real’ component (3-space) to things like electrons and (as a solution to the mathematics of the particle) an ‘imaginary’ component, we can resolve the spin mechanism of the electron and particle-wave duality. The solution demands that we must consider dimensions (axes of rotation) that are not aligned with 3-space. But once you can wrap your wits around that it all becomes fairly simple. Until you do you are like a line on a piece of paper that thinks a string passing through the paper is really just a dot.

      • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 5:43 AM

        I am trying to keep away from additional math here. There is enough math already.

        We first need an overview of what we already know and see if it leads to new directions. Then we can cultivate those new directions further with math.

        I have always looked at math as a tool that helps one to think systematically. But it follows creative insight.


      • Chris Thompson  On September 14, 2012 at 9:36 AM

        How do you visualize what you are saying? What would the model look like?

        • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 10:34 AM

          Math basically checks inconsistency of one’s model in a detailed fashion; and in doing so it may provide further insight. The model is created out of experimental data and conjecture.

          [Chris, probably your question is to 2ndxmr.]

        • 2ndxmr  On September 15, 2012 at 8:45 AM

          Chris: “How do you visualize what you are saying? What would the model look like?”

          Trying to create a visual model of an axis (dimension) modified by the term root-of-minus-one is a bit like saying “get the visual idea of the probability distribution in the non-condensed state”.

          The best you can say is that a component of that axis has magnitude. Shape of the immaterial is immaterial. Mathematically it works and if you’ve ever had to solve an electronics problem dealing with reactive components you would know the simplicity of the concept of the complex number. What’s more, if you’ve dealt with phase shifts in circuits you would know that that is due to that complex number phenomenon.

        • Chris Thompson  On September 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM

          So you cannot visualize it?

        • 2ndxmr  On September 15, 2012 at 3:30 PM

          I can’t visualize it any more than I can visualize an EM wave. I can, however, conceptualize it.

        • vinaire  On September 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM

          Of course, one can visualize mathematical models, but actuality may be quite different from any mathematical models.

          Current models of atom and molecules are based on geometrical rendition of experimental data. These models get refined as we discover more data. Look at the changes in the model of atom over time.

          Complex numbers are modeled as a two dimensional number space.


    • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 5:38 AM

      Very good! Chris. You do seem to have something here. Space has inherent entropy then…


  • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM

    It seems that photon of extremely high frequency may have something in common with electrons.

    I wonder if charge has something to do with very high frequency.


  • Chris Thompson  On September 14, 2012 at 12:23 PM

    Electrostatic charge has been proposed as a plausible reason for accretion of planets early in the new universe:

    Pettit also performed experiments on board ISS related to clumping of solid particles in microgravity. The experiments showed that particles of various materials which varied in size between 1 micrometer and 6 mm naturally clumped together in microgravity when confined to a volume of 4 liters that included a few grams of the materials. The cause was theorized to be electrostatic. This presents a plausible mechanism for the initial stages of planetary formation, since particles of this size do not have sufficient gravity to cause this phenomenon.

    • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 2:26 PM

      That is correct. Electrostatic force is much greater than gravitational force between small particles in space.


  • Chris Thompson  On September 14, 2012 at 12:38 PM

    Because the attraction of electrostatic charge and gravity are “different” I have to think the difference has to do with a phenomena of space.

    • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 2:28 PM

      I do not understand those two forces well enough.


      • Anonymous  On September 14, 2012 at 2:30 PM

        Then after that there is still magnetism which is different still? WTF? The universe is too big.

        • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM

          The universe is very interesting. 🙂


  • Chris Thompson  On September 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM

    We’ve got to hurry and solve this because we’ve got to move onto dark matter and dark energy and solve those too before someone beats us to it! haha

    • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM

      I think that dark matter and dark energy has somehow to do with some characteristics of space itself.


  • Anonymous  On September 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM

    Direct observation of the gravitational lensing of dark matter tends to show it is “out there.” But it also shows another important fact which is that it seems not to be homogenous. Though called dark, it is invisible. Yet it also seems to clump.

    This quality of being invisible even though there are mass quantities of it seems significant to me when considering that we mostly study the visible universe. That we see in a thin spectrum of EMR seems significant.

    More conjecture: Possibly it is the dark (invisible) matter which can be associated with the ancient stuff of the original fluid singularity of the big bang.

    Possibly dark matter is dense space.

    • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 6:03 PM

      From Dark matter

      “In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy.”

      What I see is that current knowledge does not account for all the gravitational effects observed. So we speculate invisible “dark matter.” But simply generating this term does not fill the gap in knowledge. I don’t think we’ll resolve this gap until we understand how mass comes about and what is the nature of gravitational force. The basic misconception seems to be that “space is nothing.” In my opinion, “space is something,” and we need to study space itself.

      I believe that mass and energy come from space.


  • Anonymous  On September 14, 2012 at 2:54 PM

    Possibly dark energy is the uncoiling energy of the big bang which still has not found equilibrium?

    • vinaire  On September 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM

      One needs to look at how the big bang came to be in the first place.


  • Chris Thompson  On September 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM

    Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Every conjecture that we make seems to be wave upon wave behind any cutting edge of physics. Others have not only gone before but have also figured out more than I will ever even wonder about… This is not a melancholy comment but just a reminder to me to continue to strive and to try to understand my world. Possibly with the right attitude, my doctor daughter and chemist son and three younger children may also be inspired to strive. Possibly one of them may support the creation of a new inroad. I can’t think of anything more fun or adventurous for them to spend their time doing.

    • Chris Thompson  On September 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM

      I should’ve said Albert Einstein is the first acknowledged modern man to publish that empty space is not nothing. There has probably always been insight into these questions.

  • vinaire  On September 15, 2012 at 12:47 PM

    I had a couple of interesting thoughts on space-energy-mass as expressed here:


    We had the law of CONSERVATION OF MASS. After Einstein it became CONSERVATION OF ENERGY-MASS.

    Now I am thinking in terms of CONSERVATION OF SPACE-ENERGY-MASS. The component of SPACE should take care of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.


    • Chris Thompson  On September 15, 2012 at 1:28 PM

      Then we may as well add in TIME. I have to understand more about what is meant by conservation. Is conservation an archaic thought? Space is growing and so is time. Therefore so it matter? I am trying to understand this.

      I found this concise article on dark energy and matter: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

      • vinaire  On September 15, 2012 at 2:57 PM

        Could it be that regular matter and energy are converting to space causing the expansion of the universe?


    • 2ndxmr  On September 15, 2012 at 3:39 PM

      Space-Energy conservation is covered by the laws of entropy. I see no reason to assume a Space-Mass conservation law. At least there is no apparency of such a law (implicit in the idea of space-energy-mass conservation) in this universe.

      • vinaire  On September 15, 2012 at 4:34 PM

        From Entropy:

        “Entropy is the thermodynamic property toward equilibrium/average/homogenization/dissipation: hotter, more dynamic areas of a system lose heat/energy while cooler areas (e.g., space) get warmer / gain energy; molecules of a solvent or gas tend to evenly distribute; material objects wear out; organisms die; the universe is cooling down. In thermally isolated systems, entropy runs in one direction only (it is not a reversible process). One can measure the entropy of a system to determine the energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process, such as energy conversion, engines, or machines. Such processes and devices can only be driven by convertible energy, and have a theoretical maximum efficiency when converting energy to work. During this work, entropy accumulates in the system, which then dissipates in the form of waste heat.”

        Entropy is basically a movement toward natural equibrium. Thus, a wound up spring would unwind if constraining factors are removed. Order established by constraining factors will reduce to disorder for the same reason. This is also the principle under which meditation and yoga work. It is removal of constraints.

        I now have to look at how space-energy conversion is taling place here.


      • vinaire  On September 15, 2012 at 4:55 PM

        “Thermodynamic entropy has the dimension of energy divided by temperature, which has a unit of joules per kelvin (J/K) in the International System of Units.” – Wikipedia

        Entropy will increase if energy increases and/or temperature decreases. Temperature is an indicator of motion. As distribution of motion becomes more homogeneous within a certain space, total energy may still be the same, but average temperature decreases. So, entropy increases even when energy is conserved.

        I do not think that space-energy conversion is occurring here,


        • 2ndxmr  On September 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM

          @Vin 4:34PM

          It’s not a conversion, it’s a conservation. You started out with the premise of space-mass-energy conservation.

          In the case of space-energy being governed by the laws of entropy, as space increases, temperature decreases. That is due to the enrgy per unit volume decreasing. That is the conservation I was talking about.

          If you want to talk space-energy conversion you’re into an entirely new kettle of fish. I’ve talked about that before as an alternate mechanism to the photon. Basically the whole mechanism of the photon could be expressed as a traveling wave through the fabric of space. The induced energy in space would traverse a distance in a similar manner to how a wave traverses a distance of water. I say similar. I expect the field of action of this twisting would be confined to a wavelength and would not propagate as a spreading wavefront i.e. getting to be many wavelengths across. The reasoning behind that is that a photon’s energy does not decrease with distance as would the energy in a wave of water.

          At the receipt point of the “photon”, the “photon” twisted space would transfer it’s energy to the receipt particle. The twisted space would have a flywheel type of effect. The energy in the “flywheel” would decrease in proportion to the energy transfered to the receipt particle. This would be the mechanism you and Chris were trying to arrive at in your discussion of the photoelectric effect. It would be the mechanism behind Compton’s Law. It would explain why a photon has momentum ( a function of mass) and yet a zero rest mass.

        • vinaire  On September 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM

          Sorry, I misread what you wrote.

          My idea underlying space-energy-mass conservation is that individually they may not be conserved, but together they are. It admits to the conversion between space-energy similar to the conversion between energy-mass.

          Re entropy, overall temperature decreases as high energy particles transmit their energy to low energy particles in collisions. Energy per unit volume may decrease as the same particles spread out over larger space.

          I don’t think that science has talked about CONSERVATION OF SPACE. If space is conserved then the universe will not be expanding unless the space is elastic (but infinite elasticity may not be possible). Since the universe is expanding, it is likely that new space is being created. Where is this new space coming from?

          If space has a “non-elastic fabric” one can expect space to shrink as a wave travels through it. This is a crude analogy only. I have no idea what actually happens. But this may sort of illustrate how space may convert into energy. The opposite of this may happen too. As such ripples of energy disappear, the space may straighten out and expand.

          As frequency increases the shrinkage of space may increase. Beyond a certain point the frequency may be so high that the ripples in fabric of space may become so close to each other that they may appear almost solid. Anyway, these are just conjectures from the observation that when electron and positron annihilate each other, the result is very high energy photons. Photons do not have rest mass, but electrons do.

          The above conjecture predicts that space is very likely non-elastic. I wonder if this can be proven some way.


        • 2ndxmr  On September 15, 2012 at 10:07 PM

          @V.”My idea underlying space-energy-mass conservation is that individually they may not be conserved, but together they are.”

          This brings up another point I wanted to answer to a few days ago but time did not permit:

          I had mentioned that string theory requires 26 dimensions for a photon and you had discounted string theory (to put it briefly.) Well, largely I agree with you that string theory is off but my contention is that it is off because it starts with the premise of strings, There is no analog for an energy producing string in nature.

          On the other hand, cyclical devices (anything rotating in a mostly circular manner) abound in nature and are energy producing or demonstrating (consider galaxies, solar systems, cyclones, electricity generators, atoms) and so that is the model I started with. Consequently I found out about the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity


          which is much more encompassing than string theory and requires fewer dimensions but requires the concept of the gravity generator (which I believe will ultimately be found as the zero-point black hole.)

          On another point, your mentioning about the positron and electron annihilating to produce a gamma photon is almost a perfect proof against string theory. Why? Because string-theory fermions (electrons and positrons) occupy 10 dimensions and string-theory bosons (photons) occupy 26 dimensions. Yet two fundamental 10 dimension particles (electron and positron) will create a 26 dimension photon? That math certainly seems flimsy.

        • vinaire  On September 16, 2012 at 8:45 AM

          Only string that I find relevant is the string of covalent bonds in a macromolecule, such as, DNA. Here are my conjectures:

          (1) The nuclei of atoms are there only to anchor the electrons and provide a certain distribution of charge.
          (2) It is the distribution of electronic charge shared by atoms that determines most properties we see at the macro level.
          (3) Even the properties we recognize as life, such as, intelligence, emotions, will, etc. come from the circuits formed by these electronic charges.

          The last one is a big statement, but I know there is much more I need to look at.


        • 2ndxmr  On September 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM

          DNA as a protenna? (PRO-tein + ant-TENNA) Interesting concept. Create a soup of proteins and throw an EM signature at them that will cause them to bond into certain effective shapes? Those effective shapes replicate and create proteins that re-pattern into cellular aggregates? Sounds like a working premise for a sci-fi novel.

        • vinaire  On September 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

          Maybe… I was thinking of it in terms of a molecular computer.


        • 2ndxmr  On September 15, 2012 at 6:14 PM

          To clarify one thing I said above “the whole mechanism of the photon could be expressed as a traveling wave through the fabric of space”, the traveling wave is the fabric of space itself moving – as water would in a wave – not some particle floating on the surface of it or through it under the surface. I’m not conclusively saying that photons are not like fish swimming through water, but the motion of space – like a wave on the surface of water – goes further to explaining the lack of rest mass of the photon.

        • vinaire  On September 15, 2012 at 7:45 PM

          I believe that an electromagnetic wave is like a ripple in the fabric of space, but that wave converts into a photon as it backs up on itself upon encountering resistance to its forward motion. This creates a sort of standing wave, which has both particle and wave properties. Besides the nodes of this standing wave, which are half wave-length apart, may give rise to quantum characteristics. The Planck’s Constant may correspond to the smallest distance between two such nodes.

          I believe that the fabric of space simply moves back and forth, or up or down, without traveling forward. It is the ripple alone that travels forward. Again this is just a very crude analogy. Only a careful research may reveal what actually happens. Maybe a photon does not have a rest mass because it is not really a particle, but more like a standing wave. But it starts to have a rest mass as it converts somehow into an electron by getting absorbed into it.


        • 2ndxmr  On September 15, 2012 at 10:36 PM

          @V. “I believe that the fabric of space simply moves back and forth, or up or down, without traveling forward.”

          We’re essentially saying the same thing: the fabric – the medium – of space does not flow or move in some linear dimension. Like water transmitting a wave it is simply an elastic medium transferring momentum.

          V. “but that wave converts into a photon as it backs up on itself upon encountering resistance to its forward motion.”

          This needs to be re-thought or re-phrased as anything encountering resistance to its forward motion is going to dissipate its energy in overcoming that resistance. That would mean a photon’s energy would diminish over distance. That does not happen, so space must be perfectly elastic.

          Also, any concept of a standing wave may not be necessary. If you consider the photon to be a quantum event generated by a change in energy levels of the generator, a burst so to speak, then we simply have space propagating that burst elastically outward from the burst generator. A key thing to consider is that the burst is directional, which means that the generator can be aligned along an axis. This is demonstrated by laser action. Overall I think the concept of the traveling wave is much more demonstrable than the concept of a standing wave which – if you’ve encountered them in electronics (antenna theory) or nature (river outflow meeting tidal inflow) – truly “stand” (stand still) and do not propagate.

      • vinaire  On September 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM

        Energy-Mass conversion is well established though nuclear reaction.

        Space-energy conversion is what I am postulating here. If space can convert to energy then it can convert further into mass or vice-versa because energy-mass conversion is already established.


        • 2ndxmr  On September 15, 2012 at 6:26 PM

          It has already been shown scientifically that energy a particles will instantaneously and spontaneously appear in a vacuum as a quantum effect, so that is in accord with your premise of space-energy-mass conversion:


        • Chris Thompson  On September 15, 2012 at 10:28 PM

          We should be careful to notice whether all space is the same as all other space… Intuitively, it seems that all space is not equal. The fact that space can be distorted seems to back this up.

        • 2ndxmr  On September 15, 2012 at 11:20 PM

          @ Chris: “We should be careful to notice whether all space is the same as all other space… Intuitively, it seems that all space is not equal. The fact that space can be distorted seems to back this up.”

          This is a valid and proven point: Inertial masses distort space-time.

          Inertial masses have a strong gravitational effect. It is, in fact, gravity that distorts space-time.

          For a “unit” of space (the particle of space, the space particle) there must be an axis of alignment with gravity – i.e. a gravity dimension – for this to occur.

          This gravity dimension may be some actual, dimensional “mass” or it may simply be a mathematical magnitude along the gravity axis that is inclined to align with a stronger axis (like that generated by a large inertial mass) in a manner similar to a compass needle aligning with a magnetic field.

          The magnitude of this gravity dimension is very, very small compared to other fundamental forces such as electrostatic charge. There is a major importance to that weakness. Just consider: gravity is about 1/100,000th the strength of another fundamental force. If it was only twice as strong we’d all weigh twice as much. It’s hard to say what would have evolved – if anything – if gravity were 50 to 100 times as strong, let alone equivalent to other fundamental forces and 100,000 times as strong.

  • vinaire  On September 15, 2012 at 4:16 PM

    “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

    ~ Einstein


    The rational mind uses Logic and Mathematics as tools. The tool used by the intuitive mind is Looking.


  • vinaire  On September 15, 2012 at 7:51 PM

    A lot of confusion will clear up if we could only show that space is not nothing, but it has a property equivalent to that of inelastic fabric.


    • Chris Thompson  On September 15, 2012 at 10:17 PM

      Why inelastic?

    • 2ndxmr  On September 15, 2012 at 10:54 PM

      That should be “elastic”.

      • vinaire  On October 23, 2013 at 5:36 AM

        Wave cannot travel in “elestic” material. It will dampen out fast.


  • Chris Thompson  On September 15, 2012 at 10:09 PM

    Is it a given or an unknown whether the universe is a closed system?

    • vinaire  On September 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM

      I don’t know. But I am trying out the conjecture that space-energy-matter in this universe may be conserved.


  • Chris Thompson  On September 15, 2012 at 10:15 PM

    Considering dark energy and matter, will the laws of thermodynamics hold true for the other 95% of the universe that we cannot see but only suspect?

    • vinaire  On September 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

      I don’t know because little is known about dark energy and matter. I think that we are looking at space itself when we consider dark energy and matter. Sometimes, such arbitrary terms may generate a bias and hinder research.


  • Chris Thompson  On September 15, 2012 at 10:16 PM

    Is the the condensation of matter from space increasing or decreasing entropy?

    • 2ndxmr  On September 15, 2012 at 10:52 PM

      By definition that would decrease entropy. At condensation the energy is now bound by the laws of classical physics as matter cannot attain even near relativistic velocities without external energy driving it. In all cases the energy becomes bound as matter and kinetic energy. That would result in enthalpy – heat – instead of entropy (delta of the energy gradient going towards zero).

    • vinaire  On September 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

      I would think that condensation of space into energy and matter would require external work, so it would be decrease in entropy. This makes me wonder about the unknowable.


  • Chris Thompson  On September 16, 2012 at 6:31 AM

    I have a chemical ice pack. It is a clear water mixture inside a clear elastic envelope. In the fluid and inside the envelope is a quarter dollar sized clicker disk. You bend it and it clicks – when it clicks, the shock begins a local endothermic reaction which freezes the water inside the envelope. The freezing reaction begins around the clicker and spreads outward from that point. The ice pack is reusable. After melting of the ice, the entire chemical reaction is reset by boiling in a kettle of water to put back the heat. The ice pack is reusable.

    Watching this makes me wonder about space itself and whether normal space could be the result of the shock of the big bang setting off a reaction which spreads outward creating normal space from a pre-existing dark space. Dark is a buzzword used to indicate unknown phenomena.

  • Chris Thompson  On September 16, 2012 at 6:35 AM

    It is not clear to me whether space parts to allow matter to pass by or whether space simply passes through matter. What could gravitational lensing tell us about this?

  • Chris Thompson  On September 16, 2012 at 6:40 AM

    I am so curious about the possibilities of there being “types of space” since it is not clear to me that any edge of the universe is known. Beyond the expanding edge of the known universe possibly there is yet another type of space which is rapidly coalescing into the usual type of space that we “know.”

  • vinaire  On January 31, 2013 at 6:23 AM

    I simply observe without knowingly interfering with what i am observing.

    I don’t even worry about whether I am interfering with what I am observing. If it happens, it happens and I note it. That is part of observation.


  • Anonymous  On October 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM

    I have always wondered if anyone considered that if the randomness that is thought to be present until a system is looked, at might indicate that we all experience something different as we make daily observations. How do I know that what I am experiencing is the same thing the next person is.

    • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2013 at 9:19 PM

      This is a very good question to contemplate. What do you come up with when you think about it?

  • Adrien  On October 22, 2013 at 5:51 PM

    I have always wondered if anyone considered that since it is thought that once a system is observed that it collapses to a single detectable state, that it is possible that we all may observe something different. Maybe what I am observing is only observed by me and others observe what is unique to them. This might even indicate that a life where I see certain negative and positive aspects may be totally different for each other person in the world.

    • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2013 at 9:29 PM

      This is a constructive place to look and to wonder.

      I have had some pleasing results along this line when I consider how fractal mathematics might be able to describe the underpinning of the world around me. Possibly our DNA follows such a code or language. Possibly the mathematical action of iteration to create the fractal coordinate plays a part?

      This is really fun for me to consider.

%d bloggers like this: