Saturday, July 7, 2012

Particle-Wave Packets

PARTICLE:  Is a "particle" best conceptualized as simply one of a series of expressions of a 3-D wave, which sustains in such wave a mathematically-descriptive relationship for how it simultaneously SPINS AND ORBITS, sequentially among other such particles within 4-D space-time? Does each mathematically-constrained relationship in spinning and orbiting associate, to lead to combinations with other such particle-waves?   Is there Continuosity within spinning-orbiting particles, yet Digital discreteness between them?  Can all of measurable quantification be reduced to digital logic?  Are such particle-waves "real," or are they merely significative, for conserving mathematical balance in communications among perspectives of consciousness?
.
INTERFUNCTIONING:  May such interfunctioning combinations --- depending on proportionate cross-vectors (relative rotational directions-frequencies-amplitudes-intensities-massiveness-inertia of spinning and orbiting) --- "lead to": re-normalizing; superpositioning; excluding; reacting; capacitating, charging, polarizing, entangling, reinforcing; destroying; repulsing; attracting; accelerating; widening; contracting; dividing; annihilating?   What "causes" such "lead to"?   Is there a system of 3-D waves within 3-D waves, overlapping with 3-D waves, to define a fluxing web for the sequential unfolding and expressing of 4-D space-time?
.
CAUSATION:  Does 4-D space-time "cause" 3-D expressions of particle-waves, or do 3-D expressions of particle-waves cause 4-D space-time? Or are both 4-D space-time and 3-D expressions of particle-waves the unfolding effects of SOME QUALITATIVELY SUPERIOR SOURCE? Are 3-D and 4-D physics ultimately derivative of something qualitatively beyond measurable physics? Are 3-D and 4-D physics non-reconcilable, much as the logic of a class within itself is non-reconcilable, much as a whole is not completely definable by referring only to the sum of its parts?  It does not appear that a notion of quantitatively measurable particle-waves can take a quality of mysticism out of physics.
.
QUALITATIVELY COMPLEX APPREHENSIONS:
- Every experience is coordinated with a measurement (whether observed or recorded).
- At some level, every measurement is taken digitially, in respect of particles.
- Every particle that is expressed at a given place and time in 3-D (relative location and sequence) is a measurable expression of a 4-D field (that is either somehow limited by other fields or carries potential to occupy all accumulated space-time).
- No particle is measured to have been expressed until after its sponsoring field has undertaken to express it.
- No field is measurable, except with particles.
- Every field has qualitative capacity to respond to feedback in its sensing and appreciation of each particle it expresses.
- One field does not sense the particle of another, except in respect that both fields, with respect to such particle, are subsumed or overlapping with a third field.
- Complex fields produce complex particles, complex measurements, and qualitatively complex apprehensions.
- Qualitative apprehensions are not constrained to perimeters marked by particles of an organism's skin.
.
WAVE-PARTICLES:  My imagination is unable to conceptualize a "physical" wave packet --- except possibly as a complex combination of simultaneous spins and orbits. Add clockwise versus counterclockwise and one may get various possible interactions, perhaps somehow "physically" associated with attraction, repulsion, etc etc. Still, I don't quite get why that should offer a solution, unless one assumes complex rotations of "the aether" should account for particular expressions of repulsion versus attraction. However, mathematically-constrained relations among complex iterations of combinations of spins and orbits would seem simultaneously to implicate a 4-D space-time aether.
.
DIGITAL DELAYS BETWEEN QUALITATIVE SPONSORING OF EXPRESSION VERSUS QUANTITATIVE SIGNIFICATION OF EXPRESSION VERSUS QUALITATIVELY APPRECIATIVE FEEDBACK OF SUCH EXPRESSION:  Thinking about delays between decisions and an organism's conscious awareness that it has already made a decision: Similarly, I wonder whether it may be said that no particular observer perceives or measures a field except through its particles, and every particle is availed measurable significance only AFTER it has already, a quantum instant previous, been determined to be expressed by a field? IOW, may particles reasonably be rationalized as significative traces of trends, rather than as being causal in themselves? IOW, would not a quantitative (measurable) expression of a "god-particle" implicate a qualitative (immeasurable) Expresser (god-field bottom-turtle)?
.
PHYSICAL REALITY:  How can Consciousness sense or respond to feedback, unless combinations unfolding and being signified before it are are "physically real"? What does "physically real" mean? Does whatever-it-is that founds math therewith simultaneously capacitate a "real" expression of spins and orbits? Does some qualitative Property of Existence compel (what would otherwise be) Nothingness to manifest and signify measurable, "physical" existence, i.e., mathematical coherence and sequential (spin-orbiting, space-time) consistency?  Measurable significations ("particles") are availed "reality" only insofar as a Source of Consciousness capacitates such particles for representing fluxes it wills to obey mathematical coherence and consistency. Except insofar as Consciousness so wills, it would have nothing by which to experience, imagine, think, or decide. Our particular bodies and brains inhabit differently signified loci for appreciating perspectives and iterations of the Holism, only in respect of its here and now accumulations and experiences.
.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Re: Looking for "the bottommost measurable turtle" (so it won't be half dead or half alive). Copenhagen-probability versus Bohm wave-packet. Also, limits on "spooky actions at a distance." How to postulate and then empirically confirm a "physical way" to manipulate the wave-packet. My imagination is unable to conceptualize a "physical" wave packet --- except possibly as a complex combination of simultaneous spins and orbits. Add clockwise versus counterclockwise and one may get various possible interactions, perhaps somehow "physically" associated with attraction, repulsion, etc etc. Still, I don't quite get why that should offer a solution, unless one assumes complex rotations of "the aether" should account for particular expressions of repulsion versus attraction. I guess mathematically-constrained relations among complex iterations of combinations of spins and orbits would simultaneously implicate a 4-D space-time aether.
.
I'm thinking about delays between decisions and an organism's conscious awareness that it has already made a decision. Similarly, I wonder whether it may be said that no particular observer perceives or measures a field except through its particles, and every particle is availed measurable significance only AFTER it has already, a quantum instant previous, been determined to be expressed by a field? IOW, may particles reasonably be rationalized as significative traces of trends, rather than as being causal in themselves? IOW, would not a quantitative (measurable) expression of a "god-particle" implicate a qualitative (immeasurable) Expresser (god-field bottom-turtle)?
.
I can only hope to understand the popular stuff. I'm seeing popular stuff suggesting that the recent find is called a Higgs, but no one seems very sure what it does. The postulation seems to be that something (call it A Higgs) accounts for transfers of mass, and something new is found that may avail new insights (therefore call it The Higgs). Sort of like looking for the Snipe: If you assume it exists, and think it should look like such and such, then when you find something new that looks partly like such and such, you assume you have found what you assumed may exist. Even though there may be any number of other beasts that carry similar attributes. IAE, since mechanics of The Higgs are not yet much understood, more research is needed. Will we eventually find that an entire Higgs family (or zoo) is needed to account for transfers of mass? So far, it appears a particle that accounts for transfers of mass has been found ... except not really. I suspect we'll find an infinite regress of searches and turtles for how to complete the Higgs function. I suspect the bottomost turtle is qualitative, in that it is not quantitatively knowable to us.

Anonymous said...

Waves seem to avail a way of looking at continuosities, while spins around foci seem to avail a way of looking at discrete counts. If you envision spinning around a width vector, orbiting around a depth vector, and rolling along a length vector, then you may envision 3 dimensions of space expressing relative sequential changes relative to a 4th dimension of time (or space-time). One need not believe "that particles-exist-in-themselves" in order to appreciate how particular relations can be counted and quantified, continuously and discretely, as relations among spin-orbit-rolls.

When one does attempt to conceptualize a smallest or most fundamental "particle," one may ask: Well, what would/could be "inside" it? The answer seems to be: ever smaller, more fundamental, spin-orbit-rolls. The relative attributes of spin-orbit-rolls seem to be conserved and expressed consistent with some kind of algorithm that governs our universe (or cone of shared frequency resonance). The algorithm seems "more real" than spins of spins within spins.

Still, what is "IT" that is guiding or resonating the spinning of the spinning of the spinning (or that is being spun)? Whatever IT is, it does not seem to be a physical thing that can be modeled, for no measurable "thing-in-itself" seems to make sense. Rather, measuring it seems to entail a notion of point (dimensionless) particles. (Is not a dimensionless particle rather metaphysical! in itself? even though the assuming of such particles seems to facilitate practical side measures.) Chasing point particles seems a bit like chasing the end of the rainbow or the smallest decimal number: Even though we never quite get there, we seem to experience astonishing concoctions and vistas along the way.

I suspect there is an algorithm that conserves resonances within our universe, and I suspect we will decipher it. As to what IT is that actually resonates, I suspect it is of a character that is qualitative and immeasurable in itself, not itself quantifiable in any way that we can reduce to complete, coherent, consistent control. IT (God?) is what has adopted the algorithm with which it gives expression to us.