Mysteries of the Bose-Einstein Condensate

[paradigm]

For the flash of white light read the destruction of the atoms back into the emission from which they were constructed.

The Universe entails two domains. The emission (energy) domain, and the atomic matter (elements) domain. The two are connected through elements absorbing emission and building atonic structure from Hydrogen through Uranium to the total of 172 possible types of elments.

This building, or construction, occurs within the context of the increasing density of impacting emission.

It is the impacting emission plus the internal attraction which binds atomic strucuture. Physics failed to correctly interpret the Hafele-Keating experiment of 1971.

I've re-written my essay under the title of "An Infinite Moment of Time", pointing out that the paradigm specifies the past the present and the future.

I've also begun applying the paradigm to biology, with interesting results.

paradigm

[G_burnett]

I wanted to do some more reading in ponder before posting again. Dave was correct to refer to wave in this instance. Electron impacting electron and loss of atoms in a white light ... no i did not miss the throw was atoms but atoms do not hit atoms, the electrons in the atoms hit the electrons in the condensate. thus again I am back to postulating the polar motive force state of sending .. cause and effect to state forward in the stream first considered. I am probably on the wrong track here so feel free to enlighten me all ..

kind regards graham

[paradigm]

To understand the destruction of the atoms you first need to understand that atmoic binding occurs within parameters of the density of impacting emission. To little density and the atoms fall apart, to much and they explode and completely de-construct.

Physics mistakenly believes that atomic binding (the nuclear force), is the result of internal process alone. Atmoic binding is the result of the attraction between particles within the context of the density of impacting emission.

The "space" in which we live our daily lives is composed of emission which has a density suffice to maintain the binding of the atomic structure of which we are composed.

paradigm

[G_burnett]

Hmm ok lets use the term impacting wave instead of emission. The wave impacting atomic structure in physics or atomic bonding of molecular state first impacts the electron by an electron if two atoms are involved. If the involved are a stream or individual particle in a frequency with force value behind then we should look at the motive force that set the one to eventual impact. The polar state to particle stream emit given with direction given in a period of time value through a distance.

Physics in the nature of things outside of the math or QM beyond the axiom of reality (this is not meta physics here) allows for the structure of the atom or shape to be described dependent on the state of excitement or value of excitement of the structure.

The torus to me is the basic model of a static shape of the atom compared to the old circle of electrons around a nucleus. The reason for this postulate is based on what we are now able to observe to the electron pictorial torus view for one example and quark composite for the next example. We have taken the electron, held one in place and reversed the spin of the electron back and forth with ease. Up further we can ponder crystal shape when we have a good understanding of the high school description of fission event to an atomic explosion based on shape of two half balls coming together for lesser surface area forming a ball with a trigger or central enrichment feature in the ball and why not having the ability to escape the fission takes place to an explosion and not just a china syndrome meltdown. Fission reverses your description of density effect though does not in paradox reverse your valid observation that we do live in wave, wave all about us in space of any density >0 of which 0 does not exist. In further afterthought we should get rid of one in consideration of a singularity of density value as it would have no relativity other then to itself and physics after all would be the study of relativity.

Thus the postulate can be the shape of the atom based on the axiom static primary shape creates the nucleon force. Will wave change the bond? Of course wave will change the bond by first changing the state of the components in the structure to a new structure given the value rating under heading of in a state of alignment value…. a Polar state. As further axiom debunk of the electron in a failure now of singularity state of having no linear motion but having value to circler motion will not have a point singularity of charge but in vanity to view must have torus as we put a dual charge values in positive and negative position to the particle. In a further dissection of the electron such as may be a pictorial of a cut view of the torus, we can value the fluid motion in the tube of the torus in regards to value of electron pulse or singular electron wave relative to position that I will agree is effectible by wave or outer event of wave.

Such event would turn the torus shape and increase or condense the circler motion and with adequate force value set the electron in linear motion. Oh and not to forget when the static state is turned to receive more empathic event there will be increased pulse transferable now in the turn of the nucleus. This in fact leads to the real costs of anti gravity not in this thread.

It is what happens after this that is most interesting dare to tell by I but I have in particle stream interactions to perpendicular change of direction and containment that may have been in place by the streams … postulated a rule one I have reasoned out in other threads and UVS entropy that takes place.

I must mention, what we view in the big, the small, and in between, will maintain symmetry observable and with out the similarity of the all we have to review the paradox you are postulating. Have you links to experiments and observations papered other?

Kind regards g.

[paradigm]

You can arrive at the same destination by different paths. You can also arrive at the same conclusion with different languages. I can only explain things in my terms.

A particle, such as an electron, absorbs and emits and has an emission field. As it has a dissymmetrical duality at its core, it also vibrates. As well as these factors, it also and rotates. When you put it together, you have a rotating and pulsating and vibrating state of matter called a particle. All this activity occurs within the context of emission impacting upon the particle. It is from this impacting emission that the particle obtains the emission that is absorbs and also the pressure which in combination with internal attraction between sub-particles maintains the binding of the particle.

If the density of the impacting emission drops below a certain level, the particle will de-construction in the sense of fall-apart. If the density exceeds a certain level, the particle will de-construct in the sense of explode.

There is quantitative correspondence from the micro-scale to the macro-scale of the Universe. This quantitative correspondence can be seen as “numeric symmetry”. At the micro-scale, with a particle or an atom, there is also symmetry in terms of structure. An atom as a collection of particles absorbs and emits and rotates and vibrates and pulsates in the same way as an individual particle. Also it can only exist within parameters of the density of impacting emission. Outside of these parameters it de-constructs, falls apart or explodes.

The whole idea of nuclear binding as purely an internal process is wrong. Planets and stars can only be constructed within the context of the increasing density of impacting emission, which includes the motion derived from the absorption of emission.

The groundstate of the Universe (the ultimate microscale) absorbs and emits and vibrates and rotates and pulsates and is constructed into the core of a Globular or Spiral galaxy when the density of the impacting emission is enough to sustain the construction process.

There is no such thing as absolute stability in the Universe. The constants of the Universe are its finite construction possibilities within its infinite space and time, which are a product of the construction process which involves motion through the absorption of emission.

paradigm

[dleviwing]

paradigm; you may wish to consider the wave functions of the particles as being constructive or destructive interference phase velocities. When constructive interference occurs between like particles they appear to combine as if to occupy the same space at the same time just as sound waves have a constructive interference that produce an increase of amplitude when they're in phase and decrease in amplitude when they are out of phase. That also translates to attraction / repulsion and condensing / expanding. Energy and mass are the same thing because they are both based on a measurement of motion.

I think your explanations are rather awkward for reality but if they help you comprehend nature better, then that's all that matters - unless you want a physics degree.

[paradigm]

I have no interest in a physics degree, because I’m interested in understanding the actual material basis of the Universe. I will gladly leave the physicists to their abstractions.

I have never said the physics as an abstractionist paradigm was wrong. I have said that it was limited in it capacity to express the strictly materialist/determinist nature of the Universe.

As far as I’m concerned the only thing left for the cosmologists and astrophysicists to do is to relate observation with the materialist paradigm and thereby confirm the materialist paradigm, and then consider finding a new job.

My interest has turned to biology where I have just confirmed, with the materialist paradigm, the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biology) was a Eukaryote and that Bacteria and Archaea evolved (or devolved) from an early Eukaryote.

But, then, you would expect a true theory of everything to specify construction and evolution of everything from cosmology to biology.

paradigm

[dleviwing]

As far as I’m concerned the only thing left for the cosmologists and astrophysicists to do is to relate observation with the materialist paradigm and thereby confirm the materialist paradigm, and then consider finding a new job.

I couldn't agree with you more but my suggestions were "MATERIALISTIC".

[paradigm]

There is materialism/determinism and the rest is either inadequate or wrong.

The answer to the meaning of life and the Universe and everything begins with 3 and includes 13 as the types of Eukaryotes, our type of Spiral galaxy, our type of solar system, and our type of planet.

It turns out that there are two types of planets within two types of solar systems within two types of Spiral galaxy on which biology can evolve into Humans.

LUCA, the last universal common ancestor of all biology, was a Eukaryote and not an Archaea or a Bacteria as is generally thought.

It also appears that LUCA evolved three times, whereas Archaea and Bacteria only evolved once.

It appears that Humans (chromosome 22) evolved through 37 types of sapiens and pro-sapiens.

The application of the cosmological/biological materialist paradigm of science is proceeding at a slow by steady pace.
paradigm