[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault ...Speaking in terms of electrons again, when they are fired one at a time through a double-slit apparatus they do not cluster around a single point diametrically opposite the emitter but instead one by one fill in the same old interference pattern with which we have now become quite familiar. However, they do not arrive at the screen in any predictable order. In other words, knowing where the last electron appeared on the screen tells us nothing about where the next electron will hit." this was quoted from the article. [wikipedia]. They don't have to arrive in order and that's entirely irrelevant too! It would be unthinkable and a true MIRACLE if they had the ability to arrive always in the same order! The thing is that when they start to talk in metaphysical terms "the copenhagen interpretation... bla bla bla..." is when I get mad at them... sorry! Did you see the two-dimensional photo of the resulting impacts? If you try to process that image in 3 dimensions using nothing but the best computer you have available [your own brain] you'll see my point! It is a wall-paper looking sine waves stuck together one besides the other... right? You got it right! HUMANBYDEFAULT

What then are you saying my friend,that the conclusions drawn from this experiment
are incorrect?
regards michael

[theunify]

Taken from 'From Physics to Physic'
Of all the things the Unified force is not, it is definitely not abstract. The photons disintegrate into particle fields, these particle fields each then turn into their own fields, this transmits force throughout the physical interaction. Gravity, Electromagnetism and the Nuclear forces


Is not then this the explanation for electrons "repelling" or "scattering" due to the creationg of a particle field around it's mass.

[humanbydefault]

WHAT I'm saying, my friend mike, is that there were OTHER very important "variables" [even today] not being taken into serious considerations.
When Young designed his experimental setting [it's my deepest belief] that he didn't have a clue about the implications of what he saw back then... and the sadest part is that "WE" still can't see it! That's all I've said, and it is my opportunity here to let you see my point and my images right out of my mind.

Let's start from the simplest conclusion.... one correct 100%.
"Light was a wave" "Light-waves "went-through" both slits at the same time (?) interacting on the other side [construcitvely and destructively as we know it] resulting in the classical, millions-time photographed, familiar and popular spectrum... Every body with me so far?

The puzzle that was introduced with the birth of quantum mechanics [as we deal with quantum mechanics in the year 2006...] began once the same experiment was performed with "sub-atomic particles" and even atoms!

The second part of the puzzling paradox, the "thing" not yet understood yet [based on official publications of the experiment] is that no matter the time lapse of time between shots, place on Earth or emissions used in the production of the final results on the screen... the spectrum made by bright and dark bands will be always there!

I have an idea! Let's assumed that we are a bunch of "dummies" trying to make sense of this experiment just as a computer-minded automaton will:

-"Strange! our team has observed that if we shot one photon of light at a time [no matter the time consumed between shots] the impact will always be found in a different spot in the screen...(?) Assuming that each photon participating in the emission was practically similar one-another... why will they "decided" to INTERACT-WITH EACH OTHER passing through both slits* and STILL end up in different places?

*For the record: the slits haven't been moved from their position in the obstacle. The diammeter of the holes haven't been changed either.

Then the question remains:

If the SETTING [or using other words] CONDITIONS of the experiment never changed... If the photons, atoms or "what-have-you" used to shot into the screen were vever subject to any modification... WE MUST ASSUME that the spectrum or resulting interaction of equal waves under equal conditions SHOULD BE ALWAYS THE SAME!

...BUT IT ISN'T! THEREFORE WE HAVE REACHED THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS:

1>>> "There could be more than just one universe. In our universe one photon goes throught one of the slit while in another universe the same photon goes throught a second universe..."
I don't have to say that THIS was one of the theories trying to explain the puzzling results... Physicists! ["The paralell words theory"].

2>>> That [somehow] the interaction between wave functions ["of the same photon?"] will do all kinds of piruets (just like a loose fly would around dessert) to finally choose the "sum of all stories."... God help me!

3>>> Well! There are hundreds of child-stories that you could find "explaining" the unexplainable*

*Unexplainable BECAUSE there was something missed even by the author of the experiment: The existence and structure of the [constantly changing] eather or vacuum.

The "double slit experiment" was more about the nature and structure of the eather or vacuum than the objective interaction between waves.

I love PREDICTIONS don't you? So let's help those automatons [dummies of my story] by "guessing" what if...?

First prediction>>> I believe that if we performed the "D.S.E." ("double slit experiment") during a "SOLAR ECLIPSE" take note of its conclusions and we repeat the same experiment later on under normal conditions [same day of the year, time of the day and place of the Earth] will find that the spectrum will show conclusive evidences of how the eather effect the results.
Think about this! The moon position itself between Earth and the sun... the gravitational waves are somehow modified in their way to Earth... definetly the results must be affected by it.

SECOND PREDICTION>>>> Before going to my 2nd guessing, an interesting one, let's see why photons or "others" don't follow the same orderly path toward the screen:
meanning that photon number 1 will always hit the same spot as well as number 2,3,4,5, etc.
Let's try to analyze what is preventing us from reaching such MIRACLE not achieved ever in science.
Is the Earth perfectly round? NO!
Is it the path of the Earth around the sun always a perfect ellipse? I don't think so! Think about the movement of other planets and moons with respect to both: the sun and the Earth... Don't you think that their momentum will also affect the way "we" move around the bright star? Definetely!

Now this is a tricky one:

If we defined the position of the Earth at the beginning of our calculations [let's say that we could "tag" one point of the Earth in 3D space before we start] and 365 days after we compared the same "taged point" with the 3D region of space... would that point be the exact same once the Earth made the complete 360 degrees trip around the sun? I don't even hope that's going to happen!

So! I don't think that we will never ever have the chance to reproduce such a "D.S.E." that would match shot-by-shot a perfectly image of one already done in the past... Is this understood?

In this particular case my predictions are that it is impossible to repreduce two similar-looking experiments no matter what conditions are arranged. (!)

Guys... what are the consequences of what I've just said?

U N C E R T A I N T Y ! That's why physicists blow their minds trying to predict the final position of an assumed "particle"!!!!

The nature of the vacuum or eather [as you prefer it fits better...] will always be different due to:

A] THE ROTATION OF THE PLANET.

B] THE CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE ACTUAL POSITION OF THE PLANET AROUND THE SOURCE OF THE ORBITAL SYSTEM: THE SUN.

C] THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE EATHEREAL FIELD AND THE QUANTUM WE ATTEMPT TO MEASURE IN OUR LABS.

It has nothing to do with an inherent uncertainty BLAMED to some wave-function that always chose the square of its own amplitude to hide its double-status of particle and wave. There would be NO UNCERTAINTY at all if there would be NO EATHER... But there is one! ...and we have NO CONTROL OVER IT!

HOWEVER! I do believe that we could study its structure and one day even predict its effects given a previous notion of the cosmos around us.
That very day astronomy and quantum mechanics will work in team. Imagine that we could have very precise predictions about how the eather will influence the emission of photons, electrons or any other quantum...!

I regret that our mathematical equations found in quantum mechanics [in 2006] are missing the cosmological part of the phenomenon concerning its uncertain variables. I believe that the secret behind the T.O.E. will be understood the day we include the nature and structure of the eather [vacuum] and its effect in our science.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

A final note or observation if you wish...
I've notes that there is not much of enthusiasm about this particular subject. Except for the interesting comments of 3-4 members above, I guess this issue is not too popular... I would like to hear from you directly if its possible. I'd like to hear what you think and if in fact any of this has some appealing in this community.
I don't want to make this thread look like a one-way monologue. I'm really interested to know if I should keep writting my notes or let it pass for good. If you don't find it worthy of being discussed I join you in other threads... no problems with it.

Thanks in advance for any comment concerning this particular point.

HBD

[mkirkpatrick]

HBD,Thanks my friend,I know how you feel,about talking to yourself,holding a monologue,feeling all fired-up about what to you is very important,yet others show no real interest at all!I understand that my friend.

Now you say that there would be no uncertainty at all if there was no eather,but there is!
And that maybe we should study its structures? That I think would prove to be very
difficult,I think!

What do you my friend understand the eather to be?
For me the eather is the "field" in which all universal existance uses to exhibit form and
substance.Substance arising from within the eatheric field.

It is also interesting HBD,that you mention parallel worlds,because I also see the eather
as being slightly out of"phase" with the continuum in which we exist in.


regardsmichael.

[dleviwing]

Hi Hbd;
I hope you do not feel that you are being ignored but, there are very few who truly comprehend much of what you are saying. May I suggest you keep you posts short and to the point in the main forum and place you extended versions in your blog pages or as an article.

If you would like to discuss the science of your concepts, I would be pleased if you would join the “T.Q. Physics Alliance Guild” forum. It is for those of us who wish to actively pursue a scientific solution to the GUT or TOE.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Absolutely correct, HBD.

regards,

Originally Posted by humanbydefault I regret that our mathematical equations found in quantum mechanics [in 2006] are missing the cosmological part of the phenomenon concerning its uncertain variables. I believe that the secret behind the T.O.E. will be understood the day we include the nature and structure of the eather [vacuum] and its effect in our science. HBD

[humanbydefault]

Ask anyone about the theoretical differences between SPACE and EATHER and see what you get! [probably confusion and silence...].

Today I will write something that will make you meditate for more than a "long time."

Could we say that 3D space equals the eather? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

And that, ladies and gentlemen the key to understand everything I've said up to this moment in countless threads all these years... Those concepts are very different from one-another... I'll explain:

Everyhting we consider to be integral part of the universe, every region we can or can't not reach with the help of our potent telescopes, stars and their solar systems... those are part of the eathereal body where our existence takes place.

On the other hand, 3 dimensional SPACE is just how we perceive the structure and nature of this eather by itself. It migh seems a little complex to grasp now, but believe me... it's not.

Let's take the example of TIME. I'VE SAID THAT time is the "tool," "the measuring system" employed to "keep up" with the normal evolution of the universe and its processes [entropy]. Time is just a measurement of those changes that we are exposed to across our entire lives. The rising of the sun, the lapse during a TV program, the length of our lives,etc. We have used a sort of "universal" system of units [seconds, minutes, hours and their decimals]. BUT time depends [eventually] on the nature of the eather that exists all around us. As I've said before, as the eather density changes across different scales, so the actual rate of the measure system used. That's why we can't find a "match" when comparing two or more physical processes occuring in different eather states.. clear so far?

Now! SPACE is just the same! The same way our perception of TIME changes with the density of the eather around us, so the way we perceive 3 dimensional space. You see.... there is and always be a 3 dimensional space "out-there" [do not fall into a confusion here] what is no the same is the topography that different regions of the universe will present with respect to a very particular notion of 3D space chosen by us [in our scale] for reference... understood?

We can't find a "discontinued" patch or spot of the vacuum where NOTHING exists in it, The absolute vacuum is impossible inside the universe as we know it, therefore the INTERFACE the "frontier" between different scales must show a "zone" where 3D space adopts a different topography [a different scale of continuity] with respect to the one a level below or above.

The atom, for example. Human scientists have classified this "interfacing zone" in 4 forces... which I do not agree with at all.

The "strong nuclear force, the weak force, the electro-magnetic force and gravity." For me, they are the results of the same [unique] energy that is concentrated [if you which] inside the nucleus of each atom and through a series of interactions with similar energies is capable of moving from one level of [high] energy to a lower energy-level using nothing more than what I named in my book "STANDING NUCLEAR WAVES."

If you look up to books studying sound and music, you'll find how the way sound is perpetuated in its existence through-out time is by standing waves. Somehow energy keeps moving from one source to the one opposing the first and no energy could be lost [ in an ideal situation of course!].

We know that the energy used to cause a [needed] vibration in the air molecules, allowing the trasmission of sound, will cause a slow depletion of the energetic reserves of both vibrational energies and eventually both sounds will weaken until they're gone.

I'll continue with this issue later on....

Take care!

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

That's the key to understand Einstein's paradoxical views! He considered SPACE and TIME as given physical entities. For example: He proposed in his theories that the presence of mass will be able to curve space-time to cause gravity... is that the way it really happens?

If we approached the same analysis both with a different frame of reference... will it stand? Let's say that there is something we may call a "physical reality" and that we are trying to see how this reality "operates" so we could understand it and use it to our benefits, ok?

If we admit the idea that there is in fact an EATHER and not an ideal VACUUM, if we admit that REALITY is the perfect image of this eather then I believe we'll find a very different set of values here.

So! Let's assume that the eather is the only and true source of REALITY in the entire universe.... as we all know, a weird concept Einstein tried to erase from physics books in 1905 and it still the center of many contradicting phenomena among our discoveries.

Let's also assume that SPACE [3D space] and TIME are nothing more than the FINAL RESULTS OF OUR MEASUREMENTS using a unique system inside an unique SCALE.

One of the very fundamental pillars of science is to be able to "translate" or "transform" the lecture of our instruments in a sort of "system of equivalence" with repsect to other phenomena. For example: If we measure the strength of water vapor and we compare that with the force we need to move a train it will be equivalent to have a unique system that could enable us to invent things and improve our standards... one of the objectives of science... right?

The problem as I see it, lies in the equivalence between those "physical REALITIES" AT DIFFERENT SCALES. The paradoxical situation [what made quantum mechanics so weird] is that when we attempt to "measure" and intervine in other scales of existence we change the actual REALITY at those levels!

The sole explanation is that we are "including" [adding] a new set of variables into the nature of an EATHER already structured in a given region of the universe. We must expect then a change in the way we CONCEIVE concepts like "3D SPACE" and also the way we perceive those changes [entropy] around us... Making us reach an erroneous conclusion that even TIME is affected by it.

TIME as a measuring system is ONLY CAPABLE of helping us to "see" that some region of "3D SPACE" are being transformed in shape" accordingly with variables introduced to the LOCAL EATHER.

There is [therefore] two different concepts acting "hand-to-hand" here! An EATHER in charge of [responsible for] our REALITY and our own way in which we PERCEIVE changes depending to the status of that EATHER.

It's like the "chicken and the egg" paradox if you which!

By changing the EATHER we change the "topography" of 3D SPACE" and consequently any eventual measurement concerning the elapsing of TIME in our instruments. We change the existent REALITY into a new one [sometimes permanently and sometimes temporarely] and we find contradictions every where as a result.

It is as if we were not allowed to FIND THAT EQUIVALENCE GREATLY NEEDED IN OUR CONCEPTS OF SCIENCE!

That's is when the concept of T.O.E. comes in! We shouldn't believe that there has to be a set of equations capable of the perfect equivalence in every scale since that assumption is simply destined to colapse.

REALITY is "connected" to its local realities existent in deeper levels across the complex structure of the universe. Understanding how each REALITY [eather] WORKS IN EACH AND EVERY SCALE will give us a clue of how "affecting" one level may result in conclusions to be reach in consequent REALITIES.

It is not that simple as mass warps space-time and that's the end of the story! At deeper atomic scales there is no observable mass [given the primitive status of our instruments] but on the other hand there is a "CONNECTED STRUCTURE BETWEEN REALITIES" I used to call them "HARMONICS." That's why I can comprehend the puzzling results concerning an eventual violation of the "Pauli exclusion principle" in specific cases where our "models" can fit with true REALITY.

Think about it! You'll find the paradox extremely interesting!

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

Is physics "local" or "non-local"...?

Those familiarized with "russian dolls" will find the analogy ... intriguing?

If we imagined that there is in fact a multitude of "local eather" in each scale across the structure of the universe and each one is "placed" inside a bigger one and so on... could anyone say that physics is "local" and at the same time contradict himself by saying the entire opposite: that physics is non-local [too]?

I'm sure both concepts are perfectly compatible [one-another] IF we conceived the universe in this way.
That's the way I see it and I've trying to picture in these images above.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault Is physics "local" or "non-local"...? Those familiarized with "russian dolls" will find the analogy ... intriguing? If we imagined that there is in fact a multitude of "local eather" in each scale across the structure of the universe and each one is "placed" inside a bigger one and so on... could anyone say that physics is "local" and at the same time contradict himself by saying the entire opposite: that physics is non-local [too]? I'm sure both concepts are perfectly compatible [one-another] IF we conceived the universe in this way. That's the way I see it and I've trying to picture in these images above. HUMANBYDEFAULT

I think all "things" are connected and interconnected,a quantum non-locality,and can
indeed "appear" to be either local,or universal,simultanesly.

regards michael.