[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by dleviwing PB; Though your view of spacetime can be debated, your views of wave mechanics are in error.

David,
Please explain further.

I assume that you are referring to my comment about wave interference.
As I see it, to have a constructive interference both parts of the wave would need to have a positive amplitude, adding the two waves together gives you the resulting wave.
To have destructive interference the amplitude of the two waves needs to be different, one positive and the other negative.
If the two waves are exactly the same frequency then the result can be a standing wave displaying nodes where the two waves cancel each other out completely.

If you are dealing with energy, how can you have a negative amount ?

2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. To achieve less than zero energy would require its destruction in some way.

To view the fundemental substance as a wave means that you have to look at it over a period of time to give you the frequency and the amplitude. You are not looking at the fundemental substance, what you are looking at is a composite of multiple events in much the same way that an electron is a composite system.


PB.

[dleviwing]

PB;
You have a good basic understanding. Interference is a complex topic but it primarily deals with coplanar electric fields. This is primarily the function of the bonding and motion properties of fundamental matter.

Unlike a water wave that produces a higher crest or deeper trough with interference; spatial waves produce higher or lower localized spatial density. There’s no negative substance; only quantum units spread over a greater volume or condensed to smaller volumes as a result of the fundamental substance’s properties of motion and bonding. It’s difficult to realize the translation of electrical terminology to pure physical behavior of substance but it can be done.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing PB; You have a good basic understanding. Interference is a complex topic but it primarily deals with coplanar electric fields. This is primarily the function of the bonding and motion properties of fundamental matter. Unlike a water wave that produces a higher crest or deeper trough with interference; spatial waves produce higher or lower localized spatial density. There’s no negative substance; only quantum units spread over a greater volume or condensed to smaller volumes as a result of the fundamental substance’s properties of motion and bonding. It’s difficult to realize the translation of electrical terminology to pure physical behavior of substance but it can be done. This is not a topic that can be taught on the forum.

What's the matter David, seems like you're giving up... I think it's just you can't admit the answer requires a new sub-quantum linguistics, language and mathematics to describe it. It's a long way from the absolute fundamental sub-quantum substance to electrodynamics, and this distance must be bridged by new languages. We had the same trouble in economics, since its central theory of equilibrium was first initiated by a mathematical physicist, in the 1800's, Leon Walrus. The trouble was the false ergodic axioms, that had to be thrown out, and the new mathematics of John Nash, that had to be added. Physics suffers from the identical axiomatic problem, at its core of ergodic areas, such as defining zero rest mass, as the truth, when in fact, it's not. These areas of physics' maths must be addressed, the same as economists had to address their math problems, to make real sense and truth of the physical realities, then maybe it will make sense to develop the necessary linguistics and languages to describe the sub-quantum realities, from fundamental substance to electrodynamics.

The newest area of research that requires investigation is Lene Hau's work on light to matter/matter to light conversions in Bose/Einstein condensates. Here's some links: http://www.deas.harvard.edu/haulab/s...ress_links.htm

PB, you should also check out these links. The hydrodynamics is very clear in her experiments, and how some fundamental particle/waves of matter truly behave, at super-cooled temperatures. Hydrodynamic compression of light into matter is a fact, and thus also shows a separation of electrodynamic processes into their constituent parts, that do slow at near zero K temperatures. This has profound consequences for how electrodynamics functions, in relation to its true fundamentals of motion, at super-cooled temperatures. What's your positions, PB and David, on Lene Hau's work?

Lloyd

[Planet_Bob]

Lloyd,
thanks for the link, I've read it before and as a true sceptic, I am not convinced. I think there is an alternative second part of the experiment which is to simply allow the second cloud to warm up.

All atoms vibrate. If you heat up a piece of material, its atoms vibrate more vigorously. Cool the material down and they vibrate less. In theory if you were to cool an atom down to absolute zero it would stop vibrating completely and its structure would collapse. No more atom.

How does an atom know it's cold ?

If it were a completely self sustaining entity, then it would not require any input and would produce no output.

Reduce the amount of energy around an atom and it reacts to the change. The only way this could happen would be if the atom required the surrounding energy.
Imagine the atom as an engine. Takes in energy and uses this energy to vibrate. The vibration of the atom is the atom giving that energy back to its surroundings.

If you super cool a cloud of atoms to the point where each atom is struggling to maintain its structural integrity, then any energy it could absord would most likely be used to maintain itself. Energy such as a beam of light.
Once the energy permeating the cloud has been restored, even locally using another beam of light, the additional energy that was absorbed now is surplus to requirements so it is emitted.

So nudging the light footprint with another laser is one way of allowing the original light to be emitted. Another way would be to allow the cloud to warm up.

Incidentally, from the description of the experiment, as the light left the super cooled cloud into the surrounding volume it picked up speed. persumably the further it got from the cloud the warmer its surroundings.

PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

But that's exactly what the experiment says. I'm only trying to get you to see the fundamental hydrodynamic facts of cooling light, and warming it. E=MC^2 is the warming of light/energy/matter___E=M-C^2 is the cooling of light/energy/matter, i.e., the universal thermo-hydro-dynamics of all waves/matter/motion/substances and masses. Everybody thinks the answer is complicated___it's not___it's "The Simplest TOE", just as you've stated...

Fitting all the chromodynamic and electrodynamic pieces in may be a bit complicated, since it would require purging all the false ergodic symmetries from the present physics' maths and gauge theories, but the fundamentals are extremely simple... All reality is absolute fundamental hydrodynamic compression and expansion of fundamental substance...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob Lloyd, thanks for the link, I've read it before and as a true sceptic, I am not convinced. I think there is an alternative second part of the experiment which is to simply allow the second cloud to warm up. All atoms vibrate. If you heat up a piece of material, its atoms vibrate more vigorously. Cool the material down and they vibrate less. In theory if you were to cool an atom down to absolute zero it would stop vibrating completely and its structure would collapse. No more atom. How does an atom know it's cold ? If it were a completely self sustaining entity, then it would not require any input and would produce no output. Reduce the amount of energy around an atom and it reacts to the change. The only way this could happen would be if the atom required the surrounding energy. Imagine the atom as an engine. Takes in energy and uses this energy to vibrate. The vibration of the atom is the atom giving that energy back to its surroundings. If you super cool a cloud of atoms to the point where each atom is struggling to maintain its structural integrity, then any energy it could absord would most likely be used to maintain itself. Energy such as a beam of light. Once the energy permeating the cloud has been restored, even locally using another beam of light, the additional energy that was absorbed now is surplus to requirements so it is emitted. So nudging the light footprint with another laser is one way of allowing the original light to be emitted. Another way would be to allow the cloud to warm up. Incidentally, from the description of the experiment, as the light left the super cooled cloud into the surrounding volume it picked up speed. persumably the further it got from the cloud the warmer its surroundings. PB.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie But that's exactly what the experiment says.

Lloyd,
reading my post again it would seem that I'm agreeing with the experiment and the results. My scepticism is about stopping light and turning energy into matter.
What was achieved was that light was held at particular place. It didn't stop as such, it was just confined to one place. All the time it was travelling at the speed of light.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie All reality is absolute fundamental hydrodynamic compression and expansion of fundamental substance...

Reality is the Potential between two bits of fundamental substance.

If you glance back over what I've posted in this thread, you'll see that there's no complicated multi-dimensional maths. It is straight forward, Simple.


PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob Lloyd, reading my post again it would seem that I'm agreeing with the experiment and the results. My scepticism is about stopping light and turning energy into matter. What was achieved was that light was held at particular place. It didn't stop as such, it was just confined to one place. All the time it was travelling at the speed of light.

PB, do you really think the above makes total sense? Are you familiar with ulexite having the ability to slow light, so we can actually view it with the naked eye? It's called TV rock, or nature's fiber-optics. Also, you must realize light has been measured at many different velocities, in different liquids and substances, do you not? I'm not debating whether it stopped or not, I'm only pointing out that it was hydrodynamically compressed, by low temperature physics, the same as many gasses are...

Reality is the Potential between two bits of fundamental substance.

Science isn't necessarily potential, it's much more facts of substance motions___and what if that potential is constantly changing...? Sure, oil in the ground is potential energy, but it's usually the factual motions it can accomplish, we figure, i.e., how many years supply in the ground to sustain America's needs, etc...

If you glance back over what I've posted in this thread, you'll see that there's no complicated multi-dimensional maths. It is straight forward, Simple.

I didn't say there were any complicated multi-dimensional maths in your posts. It is straight forward, Simple... I was just trying to help you make it even simpler to understand...[/quote]

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Science isn't necessarily potential, it's much more facts of substance motions___and what if that potential is constantly changing...? Sure, oil in the ground is potential energy, but it's usually the factual motions it can accomplish, we figure, i.e., how many years supply in the ground to sustain America's needs, etc...

Lloyd,
voltage is measured as the potential between two points on a circuit.

By the Potential between two bits of fundemental substance, I was not referring to the stored energy of the two bits, but rather their differences.

These differences could relate to a number of different properties such as size, compression, angular momentum.

It is the properties of each bit of fundemental substance and the manner in which it relates to other bits that determines how it will behave. From this is the Reality that is all around us.

Apologies if it was a little unclear. I was actually agreeing with you, although trying to put in more general terms.

PB.

[Planet_Bob]

At the chance of adding fuel to the fire, David and Lloyd, I think you're both wide of the mark, although by varying degrees.

Firstly, electrodynamics.

Definition : The study of moving electric charges and their interaction with magnetic and electric fields.

As being the basis for everything in the Universe there is one small flaw. The most basic particle/wave/entity, call it what you will, is the photon. It has no charge. For there to be a charge associated with a photon, you need quite a few of them comprising a system. Charge is a property of that system.

So as the basis of the TOE, electrodynamics relies on some other force/thing to create the structure which will have the charge.

Secondly, hydrodynamics.

Definition : The study of fluids in motion.

Although this comes considerably closer than electrodynamics, it also has one small flaw.

Fluid : Definiton : A continuous, amorphous substance whose molecules move freely past one another and that has the tendency to assume the shape of its container; a liquid or gas.

Fluid describes the Fundemental Substance (FS) as a whole, but does not deal with each individual entity that makes up the FS. Also the fluid is already in motion. Something has already kicked off.

Hydrodynamics is the ideal way to study the movements and flows within the FS, but is a step, albeit a small one, away from explaining why. Hydrodynamics does show you how two fluid systems can repel each other providing a mechanism to explain expansion without the need for anti-gravitons or dark matter.

Dynamics

Definition : The branch of mechanics that is concerned with the effects of forces on the motion of a body.

Electrodynamics and Hydrodynamics are too specific. The reason for motion is entropy.

Definition : The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.


The Theory of Everything is :-

Conflicts will exist wherever there are differences until they are resolved.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Now we're getting somewhere___Let's boil all three of our ideas out...

I'll get back to you later... [lasers, diamonds, beryllium, crystals, polymers and photon bonding...? Casimer...?]{razor blades and warm butter}[bond breaking...?]{photons___wave hitch-hikers and stitchers...?} and all related to Hau's experimental observations...?

Lloyd