The Dance of Shiva

[MJA]

Dear FS,

Whilst it is right to compliment you on your hard work for its complexity and imagination, the solution to the duality problem of an electron that you seek will not be found in the manipulation of imaginary sub atomic particles of masons and such, but rather in the simple understanding of measure itself. It is the uncertainty of measure alone that creates the paradox of duality that you believe you see.
The motion of an electron is both a wave and a particle because they are truly one and the same.
Uncertain measure divides, equality unites,
therefore the the solution to the duality problem is simply =.
A wave = a particle, and that is simply nature's truth.
Life without uncertain measure is equal or One.

=
MJA

[Fredrick]

Alluding to sheep, the shepherd needs to tend the sheep lest they get into trouble. Fredrick, please help guide this "sidequest" that Felix and I are taking.

I will, JAK, thank you for asking, but you must understand that the shepherd only tends the sheep. He does not make the sheep eat, play or multiply; the sheep do that all by themselves. Also, I am happy to see several contributions in specific to your theroy; excellent. I will take my 'job' seriously, but please note that I may only comment from the sideline. This is a close to same delivery at at the 'An Idea' thread. (I am not certain you'd go back to look).

Felix, in light of what you are writing (and I may have to look again more later, for now I just looked at it with just a broad perspective), I need to address the ether. I have to declare that an unimportant issue, and I hope you are glad to hear that.

The ether is not a required part of the toe, but if it helps you understand it that way, don't let other ideas get in the way. The easiest way to point to ether is using the overall concepts of 'materialization' or of 'family.' While certain behaviors of people can only be explained due to the individuals belonging to a family, from a scientific approach a family is a non-entity. There is no logical set-up that makes you take into your home a human being in specific dire situations, but not any of the other human beings in exactly the same situation.

We ofcourse recognize the family bond immediately as something of importance, but that is only so because we are innundated with family values ourselves. If we were observers looking in from the outside, without the option to communicate with our study subjects nor familiar at all with family values, we can only conclude there must be something we cannot see. The choice to make that what we cannot see a separate part or an intrinsic part is the truly minor difference between ether = anathema and ether is fundamental.

Group think is just another example of a difference that is vital to understanding a specific outcome. Group think is (or can be) real, but it is intrinsic to the people within the group, and will actually not be found when taking each individual to a different location separately. It is a special form of relationship that comes out (under either general or special circumstances).

Just to give you an idea, a study was performed with children that identified 'leaders,' 'followers,' 'participants,' and ' drop-outs.' It turned out that the behaviors were not contained within the individuals, but within the circumstances of the group. When first identifying and then taking the 'leader' out of the group, a new 'leader' would pop-up from the remainder of the group. Even the set-up of only having a group of identified 'followers' in one group still lead to one playing the role of 'leader' rather quickly. Please note, multiple 'leaders' can exist within one group.

With this example I hopefully show that here too we find more than a black-and-white picture of just leaders and followers, but also of participants and drop-outs. I bet there are a few more categories possible. If needed, we can all play these roles, and it even looks like we will when the circumstances are there.

Ether in my opinion is therefore an intrinsic value of materialization. My suggestion is to overcome the minor distinction of having to choose between ether or not. Rather, it is important to always include an internal and an external aspect to the (collective) forces that can make a difference that cannot be explained from the outside only.

Word play: synergy is having more than the parts, but not having more than the parts.

[JAK]

Hi Felix,

I'm just acknowledging your pointer to here from Profpat's "An Idea" thread. Let me digest this and then respond over the weekend.

Just scanning over it, it looks "meaty" just the type of approach I like.

-JAK

[Felix Schrodinger]

Hi Felix,
Just scanning over it, it looks "meaty" just the type of approach I like.
-JAK

Hi JAK

Since you mentioned it - could you bring a tin of cat food with you?

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

I believe you have simply missed the boat soda speak on the duality issue of a wave and a particle. The solution to the paradox of duality is not in the complexities of masons and such, but rather is to simply understand that it is only the uncertainty of measure itself that divides the motion of an electron into an uncertain duality, and that with absolute truth or certainty, a wave and a particle are simply and equally and truly One.

Hi MJ

I thought that was what I was saying: the waveform is the mechanism of the movement of the particle?

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

The ether is not a required part of the toe, but if it helps you understand it that way, don't let other ideas get in the way.

Hi Fredrick

I am convinced that the aether is part of the underlying explanation of our very real world and that it's rejection is the reason why 'physics' currently finds itself in such a hole. Whilst my particular model may not be correct, you must admit that it can be used to link and explain more facets of reality than most paradigms.

regards
Felix

[JAK]

I am convinced that the aether is part of the underlying explanation of our very real world and that it's rejection is the reason why 'physics' currently finds itself in such a hole. Whilst my particular model may not be correct, you must admit that it can be used to link and explain more facets of reality than most paradigms.

Can you briefly summarize the major paradigms with which your ideas are consistent as well as which ones are in conflict?

Also, Dleviwing has focused on aether, too. Is "aether" a good place to start our quest to interlock ideas into a consistent, integrated system? How does "aether" prevent us from falling into the "hole"?

[Felix Schrodinger]

(1) Can you briefly summarize the major paradigms with which your ideas are consistent as well as which ones are in conflict?

(2) Also, Dleviwing has focused on aether, too. Is "aether" a good place to start our quest to interlock ideas into a consistent, integrated system?

(3) How does "aether" prevent us from falling into the "hole"?

Hi JAK

Where to start?

(1) I don't know of any other published or unpublished work that is completely consistent with my model - IMO it's completely original. However there are parallels in other theories. The gravity concept is completely in tune with GR as it explains the bending of space just as GR does. I think Magnetism will prove to be a similar but more powerful effect on the fabric of space. SR is a problem as this appears to reject the aether, however the earlier version (Lorentzian Relativity) does not. The standard model matter particles (fermions) are consistant but the concept of bosons as force carriers is in direct conflict with my TOE. String theory has been based on strings as closed loops but now even Brian Greene admits that this doesn't work - he is now moving towards bound strings which are more in line with my concept. I don't know of any other model which contains a description of the mechanism of time. Gauge theory has much in common with my aether.

Would you like me to expand on these?

(2) I have exchanged ideas with David and will continue to do so.

(3) What 'hole'?

regards
Felix

[JAK]

... I am convinced that the aether is part of the underlying explanation of our very real world and that it's rejection is the reason why 'physics' currently finds itself in such a hole. ...

This is the "hole" to which I am referring. What current ideas are opposed to aether? Where is your model consistent with David's, and where do the models diverge? What is Fredrick's stance on aether?

Also, I need your abbreviation glossary. GR is General Relativity. EMR is Electro-Magnetic Radiation. What is "SR"?

Thanks!

[Felix Schrodinger]

(1) This is the "hole" to which I am referring.

(2) What current ideas are opposed to aether?

(3) Where is your model consistent with David's, and where do the models diverge?

(3) What is Fredrick's stance on aether?

(4) Also, I need your abbreviation glossary. GR is General Relativity. EMR is Electro-Magnetic Radiation. What is "SR"?

Hi JAK

(1) Physics has made no major progress in the last sixty years or so - the longest period in modern history. It is unable to bring gravity and the standard model together (as in quantum gravity) and is deperately searching for a new paradigm which will enable it to move forward from the current impass. String theory is a desperate attempt to bring this about but is not delivering the goods. Most current books on popular physics include a section on the current impass but, in particlar read Lee Smolin's 'The Trouble with Physics' and Peter Woit's 'Not only Wrong'.

(2) David's aether appears less specific to me but why don't you ask him?

(3) I don't think he likes it but you should address the question to him

(4) GR = General Relativity; SR = Special Relativity; LR = Lorentzian Relativity; QG = Quantum Gravity; SM = Standard Model; BB = Big Bang; BH = Black Hole; CBR = Cosmic Background Radiation; EM = electro magnetism; EMR = Electro Magnetic Radiation; SH = Stephen Hawking; Wiki = Wikipedia; WPD = wave particle duality; SF = strong force; WF = weak force; IMHO in my humble opinion; GSOH = good sense of humour!

Hope this helps
Felix