This post is a continuation of
Wave Function Collapse (Part 1)
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.
.
-
Pages
-
Categories
-
Posts by Month
-
Recent Comments
- vinaire on Kant’s Subjective Framework
- Anonymous on Kant’s Subjective Framework
- vinaire on Tertium Organum, Chapter 12 (Phenomena)
- vinaire on Tertium Organum, Chapter 13 (Life)
- Anonymous on Tertium Organum, Chapter 13 (Life)
- Anonymous on Tertium Organum, Chapter 12 (Phenomena)
- Anonymous on Tertium Organum, Chapter 13 (Life)
- vinaire on Objectivity and Subjectivity
- Anonymous on Objectivity and Subjectivity
- vinaire on Awareness, a New Dimension
- Follow Vinaire's Blog on WordPress.com
-
Top Posts & Pages
-
Administration
Comments
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.
.
Good post. Say more about how you are using “configuration” and whether you think there are little hard parts at the Q level.
‘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.
.
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.
.
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.
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,
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.
As only Bob Marley could say, “Don’t worry, be happy.” (Getchur baste Chamaykan aksent going mon.)
sur mon! en det dem bobby mcferrin dun stol’d dat song fum hem! hahaha
‘proof spirit, mon. 🙂
In my opinion, the string theory math qualifies as pure speculation without any substance.
.
What knowledge do you base your opinion on?
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
.
. . . no pun intended!
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?
.
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.
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.
.
The most fundamental is the activity of awareness/visualization. That activity is somehow involved here either at this level or below this level.
.
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.
By nuclear phenomenon I meant the formation of the nucleus of an atom… the quarks, the strong force, the protons and neutrons.
.
From Wikipedia: Stern–Gerlach experiment
The act of observation in quantum mechanics is equivalent to measuring them.
.
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?
.
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.
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 _________________?
.
CHARGE is a dimension, which may refer to _________________?
compression?
Sounds interesting. Is compression different from condensation?
.
I wrote compression because induction seems like compression to me.
Ah! I really have to look at induction. I am still confounded about what this electric charge is.
.
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.
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.
.
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.
ELECTRON CHARGE
> 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
ELECTRON – CHARGE = PHOTONS
.
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”
That’s a good pointer. I need to really study the photoelectric effect in detail.
.
Fredwx wonders how the …Higgs…Field differs from old fashioned ether and I am wondering how the Higgs Field differs from space-time itself.
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.
.
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.
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.
.
ELECTRON + POSITRON = PHOTONS
ELECTRON + PHOTONS = ELECTRON WITH INCREASED ANGULAR MOMENTUM
.
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?
Those two pieces of data are from Wikipedia.
I have to look more closely at induction. You are a valuable contributor to this discussion.
.
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.
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.
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.
.
How do you visualize what you are saying? What would the model look like?
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.]
.
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.
So you cannot visualize it?
I can’t visualize it any more than I can visualize an EM wave. I can, however, conceptualize it.
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.
.
Very good! Chris. You do seem to have something here. Space has inherent entropy then…
.
Maybe!
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.
.
Electrostatic charge has been proposed as a plausible reason for accretion of planets early in the new universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Pettit
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.
That is correct. Electrostatic force is much greater than gravitational force between small particles in space.
.
Because the attraction of electrostatic charge and gravity are “different” I have to think the difference has to do with a phenomena of space.
I do not understand those two forces well enough.
.
Then after that there is still magnetism which is different still? WTF? The universe is too big.
The universe is very interesting. 🙂
.
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
I think that dark matter and dark energy has somehow to do with some characteristics of space itself.
.
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.
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.
.
yup
Possibly dark energy is the uncoiling energy of the big bang which still has not found equilibrium?
One needs to look at how the big bang came to be in the first place.
.
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.
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.
I had a couple of interesting thoughts on space-energy-mass as expressed here:
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/paper-on-hinduism/#comment-4631.
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.
.
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/
Could it be that regular matter and energy are converting to space causing the expansion of the universe?
.
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.
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.
.
“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,
.
@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.
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.
.
@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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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.
.
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.
Maybe… I was thinking of it in terms of a molecular computer.
.
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.
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.
.
@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.
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.
.
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
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.
@ 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.
“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.
.
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.
.
Why inelastic?
That should be “elastic”.
Wave cannot travel in “elestic” material. It will dampen out fast.
.
Is it a given or an unknown whether the universe is a closed system?
I don’t know. But I am trying out the conjecture that space-energy-matter in this universe may be conserved.
.
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?
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.
.
Is the the condensation of matter from space increasing or decreasing entropy?
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).
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.
.