Monday, December 10, 2012

Relativity vs Quatum Mechanics

Good day,

I have been writing about the wisdom that the Big Bang theorists have left out from there conjectures of the nature of worldly matters.  Firstly that there is a God and they are far from being God. Second it is not all about the particles that make up matter and that it is more about how matter creates a space an area of influence around it because it is these areas of influence that causes the effects that we perceive and as importantly or even more importantly what we can't perceive.

This past July (2012) there was much to do about the theorized Higgs boson when CERN announced that they might have observed such a particle.  The long and the short of it is that Higgs had conjectured that there were other particles amongst the makeup of the subatomic particles in the 1960's with several other scientists.  Besides formulating a theory to explain various aspects of unifying the 'weak force' with the electromagnetic force there are calculations aimed at discrepancies in mass of subatomic particles when certain experiences were done.  Decades earlier Einstein had championed physicist Satyendra Nath Bose's subatomic particle theory for whom after the 'boson' acquired it's name.

The 'Higgs' boson is presented as an quantum particle i.e. a minimum unit and indivisible.  As I had alluded to before there had been a branch in ancient Greek philosophy that conjectured the idea of  an Atom.  A subset of  unobservable particles from which all mater is constructed from.  In many ways during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries understandings of the elements brought back the idea of the atom and as observational technology developed our current elemental atomic periodic table was formulated.  There were about two centuries of activity when many of the essential ideas where debated and revised.  Zeno's paradoxes started the second foil of the development of atomic theory.  Not only the aspects of what makes up matter but as importantly how, or even more distressing, does matter move.  The upshot of the ancients' discourses came to the choose of two choices: one; there must be an absolute singular minimum size of matter and time because matter moves, two; that matter does not move, it simply is where it is and then it is somewhere else.

The idea of an Atom went beyond those particles noted on the elemental table and the currently recognized subatomic particles.  Fire was also considered to be composed of matter composed of Atoms.  Einstein was able to validate this idea that light was not only a wave but was also a particle by constructing an experiment that altered the way we looked at light.  The two experiments Einstein constructed demonstrated a perspective that showed the wave quality of light in one and the other demonstrated the particle quality of light.  The 'photon' and 'wave-packet' construction substantiated the centuries old ideas of an Atom.  I'm not writing about an Atom per se, the ancients idea of an Atom stipulates an indivisibility and indestructible quality for an Atom, as well as a stipulation that an Atom is completely solid and without void.  This construction of solidity I believe to be a reaction to contradict those who insisted on the dominance of void over matter and the voids permutation throughout all matter.

What I am conjecturing is that the understandings of the various forces that fall within and without the unified field theories is not a matter of quantum reduction but that the solution to these discrepancy is a matter of properly recognizing the appropriate reference spatial systems and solving for their relative quantities.  That the lack of a measurable mass when it is known that a particle has mass can simple be case demonstrating the wave properties of the particle excluding the matter properties of the particle.  It is easier to work out how to insure that Schrodinger's cat emerges from the box dead than it is alive.  To paraphrase an early test jet propulsion saying; you can get anything to fly if your strap a large enough rocket to it. 

I had discussed before about the idea of a relativity beyond general relativity.  Further more if there is a non-Euclidean spatial relationship then it is possible for there to be a non-Euclidean spatial relationship that is of a second spatial relationship that is different than the Euclidean and the first non-Euclidean and if it is possible for there to be two different non-Euclidean spatial relationships then there must be a third possible non-Euclidean space.  If there a spatial configuration in which light can only be seen as a wave and a second in which light can be only seen as a particle then there must be two spatial representations to depict these two different perspectives.  Since these perspectives no more than one can be Euclidean.  Since both of these two different spatial relationships only demonstrate one of two different perspectives of two different properties of the same event there must be a spatial relationship that demonstrates both perspectives.  Since the duel perspective is a combination of two spatial relationships of which at least one is non-Euclidean then no less than two different non-Euclidean spatial relationships are needed to depict the three different perspectives of light.



No comments:

Post a Comment