Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381416

Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ?

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ?
Date	2016-04-12 06:45 +0200
Message-ID	<dn3creFql85U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<9f2c110a-444d-442a-bd86-5d786ab1ee5a@googlegroups.com> <5aa2b333-7df0-4086-a16c-137a4e9da0ca@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Am 11.04.2016 17:45, schrieb Y:
> Reworded for better readability.
>
> I will propose a new description of a possible physical phenomena underpinning quantum systems in order to try and settle some differences and problems regarding particle-wave duality, as well as to draw inferences between the emergence of waves and entangled particles. It might be possible to test the hypothesis and find evidence for it. Existing experiments, such as the double slit may allow evaluations that would help to qualify this theory in the interim - It doesn't yet make any predictions as yet, so I'll build some math for it later.
>
> Let's call this phenomena or property of quantum systems a "non-particle entanglement coupling" which is a physical relationship existing between particles separated by some length of space. This coupling is of non-particle origin and acts along the shortest path between two particles which may be oscillating in a wave like fashion. This coupling causes particles to be attached together in some way across time and space and may be responsible for quantum entanglement as well as the emergence of waves.
>
> We know that this coupling doesn't take the form of energy, as it might form FTL or 'instantaneous' relationships between photons which carry energy and momentum. Also, this coupling would be allowing particles of energy to work in groups 'as waves' and therefore, it would not be possible for energy to be forming these relationships between particles.
>
> These couplings have a kind of elasticity to them, allowing them to be stretch or pulled, according to the energy carried through the wave. In this way, they would be analogous to the viscous coupling unit on the prop shaft of a 4wd vehicle.
>
> me (Y change) 	
>

My proposal for an appropriate name: spacetime.


This could be understood as 'real thing' and kind of elastic fluid.

More or less I think, that such a system is composed from nothing and 
consists of points with features.

The question, what that might bee, I have blanked out, but assumed its 
existence.

Now such a 'medium' of spacetime would allow to build things with it. 
And to the best of my knowledge the things we observe and call matter 
could be understood as 'structures of spacetime'.

These features, a point is assumed to have, could build forms like 
screws, knots or spheres. And such forms are, what we call particles.

E.g. a 'tri-foil-knot' could be linked to quarks. The 'foils' are the 
quarks and the knot itself represents the strong force.

Other forms are rotation waves. They spin in and out, because angular 
momentum is conserved. Such waves we call 'atoms'.


Actually I have written kind of book about this concept some years ago:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


(Since the number of readers is quite small till now, I would be happy 
to hear some comments.)


TH

Thread

Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:15 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:23 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:20 -0500
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:34 -0700
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:01 -0500
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 18:55 -0700
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:55 -0500
        Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:58 -0500
          Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:54 -0700
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:03 -0500
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 03:21 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 11:55 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 18:25 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:05 -0500
            Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-13 21:10 +1000
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:02 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 12:45 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:25 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 20:31 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 16:24 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:13 -0400
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:40 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 02:44 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:11 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:07 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:15 -0500
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:27 -0400
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-14 18:42 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-16 06:39 +0200
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-16 18:43 +1000
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-16 05:57 -0700
                Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:19 -0500
              Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-13 05:10 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:45 -0700
    Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-12 06:45 +0200
      Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-14 04:24 +0200
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:52 -0700
  Re: Waves - fundamental or emergent ? bruntlybunky <bruntlybunky@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 15:12 -0700

csiph-web