[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

You remember how simple was the Bohr model now look at what we got



You have seen my simple Bohr illustrations and now look at how complex it could end up looking!


Occam's Razor: He would be scandalized at the contortions being done to come up with working theories and working models.

Both of the above was lifted from the internet as to how the Bohr Atom model may now appear. I like the bottom one because it matches the octant and Venn Diagram I use in my An Idea. I believe the proton/neutron to be tripole or maybe quadpole instead of dipole.

I like the Bohr illustration much, too, Pat. Am I correct, the images show all options for the proton and electron? And the image is therefore one that captures the overall dynamics? As far as your further information is concerned, I need to look up stuff first before I can describe my position/views (actually, needing a drawing).

And your words, Austin, of the electron being the "spin stuff at the outer proton edge that can't keep with up or be absorbed into the spinning proton as it has become 'solid' to the max" is an interesting way of putting it, too. Instead of the proton's attempt to reach perfection and having the electron be the filled-up gap, you state that the proton has reached a solid state while more matter exists than can be added to the proton's solid state. But there is a question: would that view also explain the different charge?

[hiphopapotamus]

hey thanks for the reply.
i have read your idea and it is a very good one.
my understanding of science and the tao is fairly basic
but from what i do know it seems you have created an accurate
description of reality from the human perspective.
how would this information be useful in viewing reality?
by referring to the eight domains is one able to know who they are?
i agree with how the mother earth is void and without form
and the father is named creation this i can see everywhere i look.
there is a lot of depth in this idea perhaps i should seek a more shallow one as i cannot touch the bottom and cant possibly hope to stand.
this poem will explain why a little better than I, it is from the tao te ching:

Colour's five hues from th' eyes their sight will take;
Music's five notes the ears as deaf can make;
The flavours five deprive the mouth of taste;
The chariot course, and the wild hunting waste
Make mad the mind; and objects rare and strange,
Sought for, men's conduct will to evil change.

[Profpat]

Hi hiphopapotamus:

Thank you for taking the time to review my An Idea and to comment on it.

how would this information be useful in viewing reality?

I believe this explains why we are able to view reality, as well as what relative reality is comprised of.

by referring to the eight domains is one able to know who they are?

We make up the ONE, and the ONE makes us.

Within this ONE particle is:

1) The dynamics of duality ( positive/negative; yin/yang)

2) The dynamics of trinity ( 3 primary colors making up 3 secondary colors; the concept of time, space. and motion; A time particle moving through space )

3) The dynamics of the 8 I Ching Trigrams ( Which helps us to understand why we have in us, changing emotions, thoughts, relationships etc. )

The concept of this particle explains why man has the essence of sight ( visible spectrum ); sound ( The octave ); movement ( asymptotic freedom ).

We can see, while dancing to the music and much, much more.

I hope it helps in understanding the complex dynamics which make up man.

Again thank you for your time and effort.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

The proton said to the electron: " Boy are you negative "

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

The proton said to the electron: " Boy are you negative "

Replies the Electron to the Proton: "If it weren't for your always so positive posturing, I wouldn't be this negative! Any idea what it is to always live in the shadow of your positiveness?"

[Profpat]

Thats pretty good Fredrick.

I don't know the answer to your question as to the represention of those models of the Bohr atom.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Time to think about strings. What I consider to be the fundamental substance. One dimensional Planck Length entities. The substance of quarks, which is the substance of protons/neutrons, which is the building block of our universe.

[Fredrick]

Pat, if it is time to talk about strings, then I think this would also be a good time to discuss the non-string version real quick:

In the pentaist theory, all particles are created from two halves. These halves are like two parts from a malleable ball that got halved, yet the halves are more correctly described as malleable funnels. The outside of the funnel is charged one way, the inside of the funnel is charged another way.

In the process leading to the Big Bang materialization took place (read well: this was followed by the Big Bang), these funnels were created by the squazillions. And all these funnels, these half-parts, were all energized to do one thing: get back together with another half to be whole again. Yet to re-attach the halves into one, they should have de-materialized themselves, and we all know that did not happen. So, as funnels they reattached, but only in imperfect ways.

If it helps you understand the halves better, you can see them as the halves of the at-one-point-much-discussed Zen particle. The particles we know are then all like the Zen particle, but they come in a variety of ways, because the halves of the Zen particle re-attached themselves in different ways.

Here are the options for the malleable funnels:
A/ two funnels getting together with their bottoms attached (but both tops and their outsides still exposed);
B/ two funnels getting together with their tops attached (but both bottoms and their outsides still exposed);
C/ two funnels getting together with one inside the other (but exposing one bottom, one top, and one outside);
D/ two funnels getting together with their outsides attached (exposing their bottoms and tops, and part of their outsides);

I'll leave it at these options to describe the basics, but depending on the malleability of the funnels, an inside-out version of funnels could be proposed creating more possibilities for the two basic halves to get together.

Please understand that this universe is based on the materialization of the halves in huge quantities and that the halves need to get together with another half to approach being whole again (yet not fully succeeding). Matter has therefore gone through a double process. First of materialization of the halves, and second of the re-attachment of the halves onto each other (though imperfectly so).

The Big Bang may have been less 'bangy' than some would suggest. Materialization means using up space. And much like air molecules tightly packed in a balloon, when the balloon pops then the airmolecules move out quickly. Still, with matter created in different forms and shapes, conflict would also occur at the same time (and conflict as we know requires even more space to calm down).

The universe can be told without strings, though matter may have string-behavior as side-effects, and as such they may be interesting. Yet they are in themselves not enough to complete the story.

[Profpat]

Hello Fredrick:

I read your interesting theory, and needless to say some questions arose. Is this uniquely your theory, or do some physicists have similar theories?

Are these 3 dimensional, ( funnels or ½ balls)? How were they created? What is the mechanics behind them wanting to attach? Is it positive and negative forces, like the EM force? Or is it more like the QCD force? Or something else?

While string theory obviously has some problems attached to it, I think I’ll stay with it until it is proven otherwise. Very difficult to prove or disprove a Planck Length 1 dimensional entity. It’s kind of like trying to prove or disprove God.

There are 1 dimensional waves, and 2 dimensional transverse waves, and 3 dimensional particles, which when time is added becomes 4th dimensional particles.
This is why I believe the Fundamental Substance, or FS as David refers to it, would necessarily be a 1 dimensional entity, and as my An Idea proposes builds up to a 3 dimensional particle.

The Planck Length is the smallest length possible and still be part of our reality. Anything smaller, conceptually doesn’t exist.

And so my logic is this:

1) There are no ½ or fractional dimensions that I am aware of.
2) There is No Thing ( nothing ) smaller than a Planck Length

Therefore, at least conceptually, this should be our starting point. Beyond this is the dimensionless point, that exists only in theory.
Additionally, many physicists while not necessarily embracing it, do see it as a potential possibility as the FS which constitutes quarks, electrons, and other non composite particles.

Best to you Fredrick, and thank you for your thoughts,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

I read your interesting theory, and needless to say some questions arose. Is this uniquely your theory, or do some physicists have similar theories?

Pat,

The pentaist theory is basically my theory, yes. Yet this does not mean all is mine, for so much was discovered already by others (most actually already in the early 20th century). I am mainly using the freedom of theory to dispell the other theories. Yet I am bringing mathematical evidence. The mathematical eidence is that overall systems always containing zero, and a fundamental zero always means that singularity is not the basis.

The Zen particle was big in the eighties/nineties as the basic building block that underlied everything. I understood that that was not possible, but the idea of being whole is so important, that I recycled the idea and use the Zen particle as the ideal state. As we both know, ideal states are put in front so we try to achieve it; achieving it for real is ordinarilly not accomplished.

The potential Zen particle comes forth out of the idea that the potential universe is where the materialized universe came from. We need not know much about the potential universe except that it allowed the materialized universe to come into being.

Visually, the potential universe can be envisioned as a sphere (as symbol of perfection). Anything coming from that potential universe would like to re-create that state of a round sphere, yet several obstructions exist.

The materialization is a process that is occurring while the potential universe is moving away quickly from a highly concentrated form of itself. Much like air molecules in a highly pressurized balloon, right after popping. The parts, however, are incorporating something that never existed before: a hole in the whole. It is like the air molecules in the popped ballon, have to incorporate the popping of the balloon inside each of them as well.

To state this differently: the potential has to incorporate the ending of the potential within each part. Each part will start to show its own imperfection.

Each molecule can be envisioned as tiny potential spheres themselves, yet where one part in that sphere must now reflect the breach in the skin, a conflict exists basically at the fundamental level. That conflict results in the sphere becoming two parts, with one part having a breach in the skin plus a letting go of the other half. And the other half not necessarily having a breach in its skin, but also letting go of the first half.

Conceptually, I am fine with making each half identical to the other half, but there may be differences.

As far as strings are concerned; we have gone through this part of the discussion already. I basically state it cannot exist (except as experienced effects of matter) because there is no such thing as a single dimension. The concept of dimensions is a collective concept, not based on the individual parts. As you can see, that follows the same idea that particles are also build up from parts, but the parts themselves cannot exist as such. Only two parts are required to make one 'whole.'

Last argument: dimensions are a spatial property, not a material property.