New theory of quantum world

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
361

Everyone who uses intelligence to guide their endeavors rather than merely faith (a tendency that you notably handle well). Not that all people should always use only intelligence. One should not attempt to get the dog to fully understand the purpose of a newspaper before learning to use it; nor the nurse, the purpose of procedures before ensuring their proper application; nor the mechanic of the physics and chemistry; nor the fry cook of biomedical physiology. There is a degree of faith in all efforts. There is also intelligence involved in all efforts. But there must be a means to know when to apply which and how much of each. There must be a means to advance and learn why those who have said, “do it this way”, said what they said, if for no other reason, merely to remove the suspicion that they had no genuine reason. It paves a concrete path of reason from the very bottom of the mountain of concerns in life to the very top – a modern highway between Heaven and Hell.

Whatever language is most common, clear, easy, and delightful among those mentioned above.

RM speaks of the foundation of almost every subject concerning society, the how’s and why’s inherent in all things; the origin of the universe, the construct of groups and persuasion, political incentives, economics, psychological engagement, what bonds and frees people or things; what changes what, and why (the real I Ching); the point, purpose, and method of religions, governments, and groups; the requirements to being successful for any proposed ethics; and even where the medical world fits into all of it.

Most significantly RM is for those who propose to govern the lives of others such that they do not propose what will merely lead to more needless conflict, strife, and misery. It addresses, through deconstruction, the very construct of the Philosopher’s Stone and all things of significance. It reveals the “Grand Original Design”.

Realize that what the most influential people see as “how the universe works” or “what can or cannot be done” is what they use when dealing with others and the masses.

But perhaps more immediately obvious is your payment. :wink:

Other than that, it really isn’t significant to anyone.

Every good book should be as a meal to the reader; nutritious, satisfying, and preferably a delightful experience. But one must consider just how good of a meal he wants to prepare. When you find that an ingredient is missing from the pantry, don’t you go purchase it from another, borrow some from a neighbor, or pick it from the garden? Of course if it is too much trouble, you can always just do without and get what you get. Perhaps try to invoke psychology and persuade the reader that he has gotten a fine meal, when in reality it was all an empty deceptive promise. I strongly prefer the former.

362

Just some mental image size comparisons;

Size Comparison - Electron.jpgSize Comparison - Proton.jpgSize Comparison - Atom.jpg

363

Range of Gravity Density.jpg

Realize that almost the entire distance to the Moon, 250,000 miles, has such thin and immeasurably small affectance and gravity, that things float almost as if there was no gravity at all. Yet the entire weight and momentum of the Moon can’t escape its grasp.


“The Moon orbiting Earth, sizes and distances to scale.”

For almost the entire distance, it seems as though there is no gravity at all.
A proton and an electron have a similar relative orbital distance involved.
They are all merely swimming in an ocean of pure Affectance with an unimaginably vast and infinitely fine range of density.

364

Can you use this to calculate the orbit of the moon? Alternatively, can you use the measured orbit of the moon to tell us anything about affectance?

365

I haven’t yet developed the “Rosetta Stone” to convert RM units to classical physics units of measure. RM is based on definitional logic that reveals what must exist and with that, proportions between things can be determined. But the units in physics are based on observational measurements that are dependent upon the confusions involved in observations. In comparison RM units of measure are concrete, independent of any observation and have zero error involved. Fundamental RM units are irrevocable. And to try to convert a necessary unit into an observed unit is sloppy, paramount to converting units of seconds into units of days or units of hours into units of fortnights. Thus in the long run, RM’s units supersede classical physics units.

But until I can get the very exact detailed tensor mathematics formulated such that a physicist could understand what is being shown, there is no means to say how many of one type of unit would fit into the another. Basically everything that has been measured would have to be remeasured into the more precise RM units.

In RM, an electron for example, is not at all a fixed unit of charge. Every electron has a noticeably different charge and depends upon what region of space it is. In physics every electron is presumed to be identical. So RM would have to calculate the average charge of an electron within a particular region of space, measure that region of space, and then declare that the classical electron charge unit of 1 ev is equal to however many affectance potential units.

I haven’t the computer power to actually get that done, not to mention having to speak in modern mathematish and deal with relativity and quantum confusions. In RM, there is absolutely no Plank length or uncertainty involved and relativity is merely relative. RM doesn’t have to deal with relative measures. Those concerns are inherently taken care of without making an issue of them.

So it is a long way between where I am and trying to measure the precise orbit of the Moon at any one time. But when that gets done by someone, it will be a whole new standard for precision. Of course, by the time they get around to it, it won’t be called Rational Metaphysics. They will come up with their own labels and reasons for things such as to make it their own… but as long as the conclusions come out the same…

366

Well, no.

This is not an issue of units, this is an issue of whether the stuff you are writing about has anything whatsoever to do with the world. given your answer, it seems like it doesn’t.

Newton did his work without tensors and presented his work on gravity without calculus. Can you recapture anything of Newtonian mechanics?

367

Everyone,

This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).

PhysBang,

Thanks for joining in, and good questions.

Typist,

Glad you’re on the case about the audience. I think James is saying that his audience is philosophers (professional and amateur which includes intelligent bystanders who don’t realize they are thinking in a philosophical way). That seems a sensible choice to me because RM applies to so many fields of thought.

Do you think it will sound convincing to philosophers? James is explaining about RM as applied to physics. Is that a good place to start? Perhaps he needs to explain RM in the context of some other discipline first and move onto physics later. Physics tends to scare philosophers, so may be better to get their interest in some other area first.

James,

As usual, thanks for supplying so many details on RM and physics (which is the application that interests me the most).

That answers some of my questions on how particles are formed. If particles form in dense areas like stars, I can easily understand how an area of maximum affectance can be created. Much easier there, than out in general space.

Photons can form anywhere of course, and you have said these are the easiest particle for affectance to form, and so would not need such a dense environment of affectance. It doesn’t give a consistent weight, but does give input to the forming process.

I still need some details on what incentives a particle has to stay a rough general size. Merely a balance of input/output affectance would not maintain any roughly consistent weight - that would allow chaos to continue. You’ll probably cover this in later stuff, so I’m happy to wait a bit.

Eugene Morrow

368

That choice is rather up to philosophers, people like Typist. It is all the same from my perspective.

Well, photons can’t form just anywhere. They still require higher affectance than typical space, else space itself would be glowing all the time and you wouldn’t be able to see stars. The space between an electron and a proton is much higher in affectance density than outer space, or even the space a millimeter away from the atom. A photon is formed of that slightly higher affectance and thus that slightly higher affectance must come together somewhere before a photon can be initiated. Give that volume of slightly higher affectance an average vector, keep out of the way for a short moment, and you have your photon speeding away… at the speed of light, of course.

No that really needs to be cleared up now while things are still simple. That issue comes up concerning many things, including the charge field, motion of charged particles, and a field that apparently contemporary physics is not yet aware. But I don’t want to get into those more complex issues if there is still doubt or question concerning merely this part.

The input/output ratio is exactly and only what causes size of a particle. What it is all hinging on is the ability for a spheroid shape to maintain a maximum degree of maximum encounters. The surface area dimensions for a spheroid within an ambient field density then takes care of the input/output ratio. That ratio must always be at an averaged zero. If the volume of the maximum affectance density increases beyond a specific diameter, the surface area will demand that more affectance leaves than enters because there is too much space between the maximum encounter points allowing more affectance from deeper inside the particle to escape, unimpeded by the outside field density.

So there is a fixed size (although not perfectly spheroid, uniform, or consistent) for any particle dependent merely upon the ambient field density. Literally an electron on the Moon will be of a very slightly different size than one on Earth. RM can calculate that ultra small difference (once it establishes a means to convert units). When physics has need to become truly ultra precise, they will have to give up on the metric system and adopt their new version of RM units.

I guess I am just going to have to wait until I can figure out how to display affectance maxima issues related to spherical geometry in order to clarify why a particle remains stable through the process of accumulating and dissipating affectance.

But more importantly, the issue of affectance density being caused by congestion that extends to extreme distances must be well understood. To me, the traffic jam that caused the slowing of surrounding traffic that extends that slowing less and less as you get further from the jam, is a good visual example. But what makes things clear to you is the issue, not me.

There are two things I want to get straight before I go on to charge fields (RM “potential fields”).
A) why particles have fixed sizes
B) why the affectance density extends a gradient to extreme distances from a particle.

369

My suggestion so far is that he do for others what he’s doing for you. There might be a series of papers or books, each one exploring RM from the point of view of a particular discipline. People could access the theory from the starting point that most interests them, and then move out from there in to the other areas.

I’m less sure about this part. I sense an ambivalence in James about sharing RM. He seems enthusiastic about sharing it with you, but then there’s also a sentiment of not really caring what happens, as just one example, not caring what physics experts think.

My sense is that if a new theory is to travel in our culture, it’ll be because somebody really wants it to. Don’t know if that describes James or not.

370

What is immediately relevant is that it doesn’t describe you.

Fame and glory have never really meant that much to me and at my age, even less so (although it would be handy for promoting such a book). I’m not really interested in convincing those who are not interested in being convinced. My concern is not of these details being known or accepted as much as a particular distant conclusion. The middle ground is dangerous. I well know how to gain the attention of the world. That isn’t the issue. The issue is exactly what to say and how to say it upon gaining such attention. One can often learn by doing but one doesn’t learn how to communicate by presuming a language and then writing a book. Any such attempt merely makes both the book and the author a bit emm… pointless to attend to.

If someone presumes a language and writes a book, he limits his audience to merely those were interested in the topic and also happened to speak his language sufficiently to enjoy the book. That might total to no one. But if a person finds someone interested and step by step explains the details while testing to see if he is being understood, he can learn of what language works for at least one person who was interested (hence a “muse”).

If I found one physicist who was interested enough to pursue it, I would learn of exactly how to speak to such physicists as he. But physicists tend to be caught up in their own paradigm and are not all that interested in the why’s behind their rules. One physicist whom I spoke to a few years back was insisting for quite a while that there was no such things as a space without and atom in it. ?It took me a while to finally come up with a scenario to convince him otherwise. Theoretical physicists are interested in the why’s, but tend strongly to want only for what they can claim as their own with which to impress other theoretical physicists who are not going to change anything they already believe (for similar reasons).

Just try to explain the logic of creation with a fundamental creationist. It isn’t any different than explaining the logic behind physics to a physicist. And me trying to explain Rational Metaphysics to a group of theoretical physicists is like Jesus talking in a Jewish temple.

371

Well, let’s see how well this pictorial communicates the idea;

Affectance Angles of Reflection.jpg

In that pic, the affectance is being represented by balls. Affectance is never in actual balls like that, but I thought the pic might convey the idea. Each gray ball represents a small point wherein the affectance added to a maximum. Any attempt to add to such a place (a gray ball) causes either reflection away or deviation around the spot.

Note that when there is very little hardened affectance (2-3 spheres), there is a wide angle for deflecting. That means that the incidental affectance will have very little affect adding to the maxim, and mostly merely deflects away. But keep in mind, the affectance is not required to remain a ball. It is really more like a mere cloud of noise. So some adds to the maxim and some deflects away. What adds to it settles in the small cracks between what is already there, where the affectance density is high, but not maxed out. The pictorial isn’t an accurate depiction in that regard.

Through varied other affectance incidences, the maxim might begin to grow if the ambient density is high enough due to other “balls” settling into the cracks between the other points/balls. Note that as that happens, the deflection angle begins to decrease causing more of the affectance to accumulate into any available cracks and less to reflect away (4 spheres).

But eventually when the cluster of affectance maxima gets large enough, the angle of reflection or escape from the particle has narrowed down considerably and there are very few cracks in which to add anything. What that means is that almost none of the affectance can add to what is already there because there are so few small cracks into which to settle and thus must reflect back.

The little bit that does add to what was already there is compensated by the little that was incidentally leaving anyway. The maximums are not fixed forever. They move and will dissipate if given time as explained earlier. A balance is established between how much stays and how much escapes. At that point, a particular volume has been reached due to the angle of deflection versus the opportunity to add anything. The particle is then “mature” and stable.

Did that pic help any? :-k

372

James, allow me to introduce my theory of Rational Marketing. :smiley:

You seem to enjoy sharing RM with Eugene. If that’s enough, you’re already in the right place, there is no problem, and thus no need for a solution.

If you should wish to share RM with a thousand Eugenes then according to Rational Marketing what’s required is the same clarity of mind and diligence you devote to Rational Metaphysics.

If sharing Rational Metaphysics with a thousand Eugenes were the goal, the first step would be a simple clear statement such as, “Yes, I wish to share RM with a thousand Eugenes!” If you can’t feel it and put it that simply, clearly, and enthusiastically it’s not going to happen. If your answer is complicated, your answer is no.

I’m not arguing for or against any course of action other than clarity.

Personally, the way I share my way too many theories is to stumble around the net until I randomly bump in to some obscure little forum with 39 members, and then type 5 hours a day to that almost nonexistent audience, most of whom either don’t care what I’m saying, or don’t understand what I’m saying. So, clearly I’m not suggesting making RM famous is necessarily the best or only choice. Sometimes typing can be enjoyed for itself, so says the Typist.

373

That is why I need an editor. Read my signature…
Clarify
Verify
Remember/Instill…

374

Actually, I realized that an acoustic wall is a good analogy for why affectance adds its energy into the particle. Sound waves don’t build up into the crevices in an acoustic wall because the wall isn’t made of sound, but a particle is made of the affectance noise, so that noise fills in the crevices in a particle wall. But as the particle gets the small unevenness filled in, that same “wall” becomes less acoustic, more like a flat wall. I tried to find some pics for such, but can only find adverts for panels. :confused:

With a lot of trouble, I can now make a better pic, I think.

375

Someone had mentioned what uses RM might represent. In the field of technology, there are an endless number, much like inventing the transistor again, but to just mention a few of potential interest;

  1. MCPG - Mass Converting Photon Generator - a photon stream generator fed by the mass of its housing (a virtually endless supply). Since the device can easily be only a millimeter in width, a panel can be assembled that continually spews either coherent or incoherent light - with no power drain.

  2. MGT/R - Miniature graviton transmitter and receiver - electronically undetectable communication, although distance could be an issue.

  3. NRG - Neutron Rail Gun - generates a steady stream of neutrons at high velocity

  4. NCG - Neutron Cluster Generator - creates “Neutron star” material - extremely, extremely heavy.

  5. MRP - Mass Rail Projector - generates a thin beam of high velocity concentrated mass capable of cutting through literally anything and at quite a distance, basically unstoppable. It could bore a hole through the Earth regardless of what it ran across… or the Moon.

  6. A device that weighs less than its accumulated mass - not sure what to use that one for. :-k … Perhaps you could shoot off a canon ball from New York and have it land in downtown London. It couldn’t reduce the weight of its payload so it couldn’t be used to carry a weapon any further than normal. The only objective would have to involve merely its momentum. You could make a baseball that you could throw a half mile or so. :confused:

Oh… and forgot to mention in the computer industry…

  1. SMLA - Sub Molecular Logic Array - Logic functions such as AND, OR, XOR, and NOR gates that operate on a sub-molecular level yielding a gating speed that makes an optical processor seem like a hand crack mechanical calculator… and all within an extremely small space. Your wrist watch could contain the accumulated sum of all human knowledge… and even think about it. Basically they could build a small solid block of material that is more intelligent than you could hope to be. Implanted into the human brain would create a comparative god, but I hope whoever does that at least knows what I know before he does anything else.

And then there is the…
8) LAW - the Weapon of All Weapons - we won’t be getting into what that weapon or what it does and certainly not how it does it, but it makes Man and all of the weapons ever dreamed up as though a gang of kids trying to proclaim ownership of a street corner.

All I really need is my lab… :mrgreen:

376

Everyone,

This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).

Typist,

I’ve realized that I am unusual because I like Science theory - I want to know the assumptions and logic and deductions underneath everything. Even amongst Scientists, that is rare, because most of them want to construct gadgets and perform circus tricks with their equipment.

It’s one of the reasons that TEW is such a hard sell. TEW gives exactly the same predictions and results in almost every experiment that qm does (thanks to the Reciprocity theorem) - the difference is about the explanations. So it’s only theory fans like me that want to sniff around that sort of thing. The typical gadget scientist doesn’t care that much - the current theory (qm) is good enough for what they want to do.

I think James is rightly concerned with theory and the lack of philosophy in how many theories like qm are constructed, and he wants that to be the focus. So he likes discussions with people like me.

The other side of that is that I think James has an issue with control. We were talking about revolutions (in ideas) and he wrote this on page 7 of this forum:

I believe James is concerned with losing control of the ideas. He has said there are military applications to his ideas, so there is a definite moral dimension.

So it’s not an issue of motivation - I think James wants to keep the publicity of RM to discussions of ideas, rather than power hungry types who want to jump into action before thinking.

So James wants philosophy to be the issue that is discussed. In that light, I think he’s doing OK by getting on forums like this one.

I still recommend my suggestion: a “main” book of principles of RM, and then “subject” specific books and papers so that interested people can follow their interests. It’s not so different from what you were suggesting.

James,

On the subject of publishing RM, I now have an extra suggestion: make physics the LAST subject area you cover.

I think physics is awfully big and complicated, and has the military quagmire, so better to leave it for now. I want you to discuss RM and physics here - I’m just saying that as far as formal publishing it would be better to get RM established in the other areas. Once it’s discussed and applied and has a track record, then more rational thinkers can help you when it comes to applying it to physics in a controlled and rational way.

After all, that list of gadgets looks extremely tempting for many Scientists. I’m more interested in theory and the philosophy myself, but I’m rare. Best not to let too much get out about the gadgets or there will be a lot of shallow thinking - either it works and they start using it without thinking, or they can’t get it to work and just dismiss RM as a result. Either way, not a good result.

Back to the accumulation of affectance and the formation of particles. I see a problem with your latest description of the affectance particles getting together:

To me, that description suggests there will be one type of particle only. All particle are made of affectance, and there will be one size where the size is just right as you describe. I still don’t see how we get so many particles of different sizes, and the sizes are fairly consistent. I can cope with tiny differences in the sizes of electrons, for example, but I don’t see the mechanism that makes electrons in general so similar in size, and so on for each particle.

We can put this discussion aside if you’d rather move onto the next steps in RM. I don’t want to hold up your flow of ideas with my perceived problems.

Eugene Morrow

377

Ok, no problem. He’s doing a good job of discussing with you. Like I said, if you’re enough for him, there’s no problem and no need for a solution.

If that’s the case, we might face the question of whether a theory intended for only one person is a theory worth discussing. In such a case, what difference would it make if the theory were right or wrong? I have no strong opinion here. Remember, I’m the Typist who types for love of typing so…

If it does make a difference whether the theory is right or wrong, then presumably we are talking about sharing the theory with multiple people, at which point we reach issues like defining the audience, marketing, packaging, presentation, language etc. All of these processes require an underlying clarity about what we’re doing and why to be effective.

378

“Control” is the wrong word. My issue is the consequences as you mentioned - influential people presuming without regard to other options.

I can’t see discussing the issues involved without examples. It seems to me that even with examples, the concepts are difficult to communicate. And then the first question most people ask is, “but why should I care? What is in it for me?”

Well that is only because you haven’t seen the “weapons” involved concerning the other topics; economics, psychology, governance… :evilfun:

And you don’t think economic or psychological “gadgets” wouldn’t be tempting? …Emmm… think again.

Well, now you are talking about “types”. That is what I wanted to get to next. But if there is any doubt or confusion concerning the very means by which particles form and maintain themselves, the types discussion could get pretty messy. I need to know that you are fully confident that what I am trying to describe is substantially undeniable.

So please get any questions you have cleared up, then we can get into types and sizes. There are not many stable sizes of basic particles in free space. In a dense affectance field, such as close to a black-hole, within the Sun, or during a nuclear blast, there is an extreme variety of shapes and sizes, too many to track. But they cannot remain stable even if they didn’t collide into other particles with such extreme velocity.

One of the biggest mistakes destroying companies during the 80’s was their willingness to go sell a product before it had actually been completely designed. The “product” to be sold is the ENTIRE book, not merely a theory or two. The reason for this is because of the issues mentioned concerning presumption. The final chapter seriously needs to be fully understood before any action is taken.

Seriously, think about it. If you somehow wrote a book on how to conquer the world in a very real way, wouldn’t you want to make sure the reader fully understood exactly what was being said and the consequences if he screwed it up? Your life would BE one of those consequences. In my case, I am not going to be around when physics steps into the real world of power and godlike capabilities. So it isn’t so much what effect I encounter, but the world is going to be in serious, very, very serious hurt when someone takes off without thinking very carefully about things always taken for granted in the past.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” - John Edward Dalberg

379

Does RM provide an answer to this question?

380

Emm… I don’t even know how to answer the question you just posed… :laughing:

Emm…

RM provides precise understanding of what will take place concerning anything you choose to do… along with exactly why.
A part of that is that when something takes place, you can reverse deduce exactly what must have taken place… despite what you are being told.
A big part of it involves why you will never be able to do certain things, so don’t get your hopes up or go killing a lot of people in the effort to get it done, because it simply can’t be done. On the other hand, if you have certain options, then there is absolutely nothing that could stop you.

RM is about the limits and opportunities. There are reasons why there are things that you can do and reasons why somethings absolutely cannot be done, no matter how big your guns are, no matter how clever you are, no matter who the fuck you think your are. “Nothing is possible until something is impossible”. Note that RM begins with what is impossible, but because of those few impossible things, the possibilities become enormous (but NEVER infinite). Be thankful of the things that are impossible because without them nothing would be possible at all.