Intersedting Stuff On Energy -- Sneaking River

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:49:26 05/25/03 Sun
Author: Dr. Bob Moore of Texas State
Subject: Intersedting Stuff On Energy

Hello CM RPGers I thought you should know some stuff on ENERGY!!!
Understanding how energy behaves especially on the more microscopic theoretical level is not easy for even those with university science degrees. Present advanced concepts with names such as thermodynamics, entropy, relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and string theories are difficult to comprehend. Often complicated formulas and scientific jargon are used.
In this web-booklet all the concepts of energy are presented in a reasonably uncomplicated way. While these concepts presented are founded on modern accepted scientific information, many of the explanations are different than in present popular books. Concise definitions are provided that can be used in the same way in all disciplines of science and result in a quicker understanding of the concepts presented. Understanding energy through concepts rather than extensive formulas is stressed.
The focus of this web-booklet is to provide concepts of energy that can be useful in general education, for general interest, as well as being useful in practical applications in the fields of engineering, physics, chemistry and biology. Rating Year 12 minimum.
It is a good idea to open the Encyclopedia of Energy Science in a new window and use it as a glossary for this web-booklet.
Traditionally Engineering, Physics, Chemistry and Biology all focus on concepts of energy in a different way. For example more complex energy concepts in Engineering are often limited to topics involving thermodynamics. This branch of science adopts the older Joule or classical view of energy. In Physics the much bigger and modern Einstein picture of energy based on Relativity and Quantum theories is popular. In Chemistry the study of energy is often restricted to a small subset of thermodynamic topics mixed with quantum theories. In Biology the study of energy is severely restricted to a small subset of Chemistry energy topics.
Many modern scientific and engineering developments involve energy concepts from many scientific disciplines. Modern scientists and engineers therefore should be more familiar with energy concepts outside of their specific areas. It is beneficial then to group the basic concepts of energy from the different areas of science together. Such a common study of energy is called energy science.
Our current understanding of energy comes from different time periods, different disciplines of science, and different theories or models. When studying energy science one should be aware of which model is being used. Sometimes an old model is used because it is simpler to understand but this does not result in a knowledge of the latest ideas on the topic. It would be better to find a simple way of explaining a current model. Sometimes a convenient model is used for ease of understanding only but is not necessarily labeled as such. Other times there are competing models based on different theories. At times these competing models are even bundled together. Other times complex terms are not defined. Definitions are important because words can often represent many paragraphs of thinking. If energy science is taught by mixing up current, old, convenient and competing models along with definitions that are not spelled out, then a lot of confusion can result.
In this web-booklet the current view is always used but this is not always based on the most popular explanation, rather it is an attempt at reviewing the information and weaving a single best thread through the current competing models available.
Energy is not that old a word, Thomas Young proposed it in 1807 [2]. Initially energy was thought of as the ability to do macroscopic work like the work the kinetic energy of a cannonball can do on impact or the work that the potential energy of a hoisted block of granite can do on falling. Work was defined as...a force acting over a distance. Later in 1830 Joule said that this energy or ability to do macroscopic work was also contained within the molecules. He suggested that the molecules contained forms of microscopic energy just like that contained in the moving cannonball and the hoisted block of granite. In 1905 Einstein suggested that matter such as the molecules and atoms are really very large collections of energy particles. As well there existed energy particles such as the photon that transferred energy between different types of matter. Under some conditions some of these energy particles could be liberated from the atoms in different forms such as light and heat. When we feel the weight of an apple in our hand we are really feeling the weight of the energy particles in the apple. How could energy be defined then according to modern science [4]? Energy...the ability to create a force over a distance in the universe from the very smallest event within the tiniest of particles to the very largest between celestial objects in the universe. Work...a force acting over a distance in the universe from the very smallest event within the tiniest of particles to the very largest between celestial objects in the universe. Energy then is the ability to do work some time in the future. It is stored work potential. Work is the actual act of the force acting over a distance.
The definition of energy however is a rather small part of what energy science is all about. First of all energy such as matter and photons is not the only "entity" that appears to exist in the universe. There is a substratum [26] of space and there are force fields that are not considered to be made of energy or matter. It is the properties of the entire system and how energy behaves in this system that are of most interest in energy science.

4. THEORIES OF WHAT FILLS THE UNIVERSE
Many theories have been proposed over time as to what fills up the universe. Even the Greeks had their theories. Aristotle concluded that everything on the earth was made of four substances; earth, water, air and fire. The universe outside of the earth was made of a fifth substance called aether. I Midnight Spirit Sneak Pluto from Fatal Blow. In 1633 Rene Descartes proposed that the universe was entirely full of three elements. All material things were made of the third element. The second element's particles made up a fluid called the aether that filled the space in-between the third element. The first element was what the aether particles were made of. Light was not made of the third element but was rather a vibration that traveled in the aether fluid. In the theory proposed by Isaac Newton around 1676, light as well as all physical objects were made of particles that travel in empty space. He got most scientists to accept this idea during the 1700s. Newton based his theory on his experiments with prisms. Many phenomena of light could not be explained if light was a wave such as a sound wave. In 1801 Thomas Young produced an interference pattern with light and pronounced light was a wave traveling in a material aether, so most scientists again changed their views. Scientists believed the aether not only provided a medium for light waves to travel in but also did the job of controlling the speed of light just as the properties of air control the speed of sound traveling through it. Physical objects however were considered to be particles.
Fitzeau's tests in 1849 showed that the speed of light was extremely constant. It was theorized that the aether was stationary at some point in the universe. If this was true, it was likely that the earth moved through this stationary aether. In 1887 the famous Michelson-Morley test, which used two beams of light traveling perpendicular to each other, failed to detect the motion of the earth through the aether. This startled many scientists and they began looking for other theories that would explain the behavior of light. Lorentz felt that the instruments Michelson and Morley had used may have changed in length in the direction of travel relative to the aether. Poincare a leading French mathematician felt that our time system may be altered as we travel through the aether.
Theories about how mass and energy behaved as they traveled through the universe were being developed long before Einstein stated his famous theories. Even the formulae E=m�c2 it appears was put on paper in 1888 by J.J. Thomson. With Einstein came the turning point in beginning to fathom the much bigger picture of how the universe behaved. In 1905 Einstein wrote two separate theories regarding the behavior of energy in the universe. The first is now labeled as the Quantum theory and described how energy is emitted and absorbed on the microscopic level as particles or quanta of energy as opposed to waves such as sound waves. The second is called the Special Relativity theory and it described how light and matter changed energy as they traveled relative to space-time. In 1916 Einstein published the General Relativity theory which described a more complex relationship between space, mass, energy, motion and gravity. He proposed that energy did not travel in a material aether as had been thought. The properties of space-time, he suggested, were considerably different. Einstein also worked on a Unified field theory, where he hoped to reveal how all forces were really made up of a common entity, but never succeeded.
In the 1920s Quantum Mechanics became popular. Some variations of this theory viewed particles as wavelike while others viewed all microscopic particles as points with probabilistic outcome of their behavior. It does not take into account the relativistic factors in high speed particles. In 1986 the string theory and a little later the superstring theory [27], Membrane theory, and around 1998 the M-theory [29] were proposed which claimed that all matter and force particles are the result of different nodes of vibrating strings or membranes. Other scientists claim that strings are just ideas at this point and there is not definite proof, we should be thinking more in terms of a broader more open discussion forum where a wide range of possibilities can be discussed. This broader view has recently been labeled the Theory of Everything.
It is a well known fact that Einstein's Special Relativity and General Relativity are not complete theories of the universe. They explain nothing of how the microscopic world of energy relates. Einstein is also father of the Quantum theory which describes how energy is exchanged on the microscopic level as vibrating particles. It is interesting however that even Einstein, who developed both the Relativity and Quantum theories, did not ever combine the two together. Each of the theories explains a part of how the universe operates by using models that are valid only in a very limited sense. These theories can be described as partial theories. Quantum Mechanics is also a partial theory. Presently we do have modern models or theories that are much more comprehensive so these theories should be talked about only in a historical sense.
It is not likely that we will know exactly how the universe operates to the smallest detail for many years. Perhaps the smallest entity of space will be too small for us to ever measure and identify. Even though we will not know about the biggest picture for some time, it is best that a modern theory such as the Theory of Everything be used. Only the framework of such a system is presently understood. It is better to use such a modern view as opposed to hanging on to theories such as Relativity and Quantum mechanics which hold partial and opposing concepts of the universe. The Theory of Everything therefore will not be a complete picture presently but it will be filled in slowly over time. It is at least an attempt at painting the biggest picture. If we see a large canvas we know that there is much left to fill in. If we have a small canvas which is nearly full, we think that there is little left to paint in. The Theory of Everything can be used to encompass all the different theories as long as they propose to describe the biggest picture possible.
One of the major things that is missing from most of the theories is, what fills space. For example Einstein's Special Relativity theory renounced the aether as the medium that light traveled in. Many people to this day think that Einstein's Special Relativity theory proposed that light and matter traveled in space that was totally void. Though it was not mentioned in the theory, Einstein later cleared up this matter by saying that "this rigid four-dimensional space of the Special theory of Relativity is to some extent a four-dimensional analogue of H.A. Lorentz's rigid three-dimensional aether" [1]. So Einstein's space-time in his Special Relativity theory can be thought of as a type of aether. Einstein didn't like to use the word aether however and preferred the word space-time. This was because the aether was commonly thought to be made of a type of gas that was made of matter. His space-time was a type of structure of space which was not made of matter. Unfortunately his explanations of what space-time really is were often not mentioned in his books.
In Einstein's General Relativity theory the structure or substratum of space-time is not considered to be a type of rigid 4-dimensional structure of space at all. Space-time is now composed of fields such as the gravitational and magnetic fields which fill the universe [1c]. These fields are considered to be the product of matter, so the argument given is that there would be no fields and so no type of structure in the universe without matter. There is little explanation given as to what these fields might be however, but it seems clear that Einstein did not envision forces to be the result of photon-like particles. Rather he though of fields as an unidentifiable something which pervades the universe.
The whole issue of what fills space was even more confused in the era after 1970 when scientists now tried to explain the force fields of Einstein's General Relativity to be the result of force carrying particles such as photons. These are called gauge theories. But combining these theories creates some problems. Einstein had explained the structure of space-time to be the mysterious all pervading force fields. These force fields provide the structure of space in which matter and other particles such as in photons travel in relation to. Such a structure is necessary to provide a uniform speed of light and is necessary for inertia to exist. Did the gauge particles now travel in totally empty space? This is why quantum field theory which was developed in the era after 1970 is not based on Einstein's General Relativity theory, but reverts back to the concept of Einstein's Special Relativity theory. Now the force carrying gauge particles have a rigid structure of space-time to travel in relation to.
A great deal of recent scientific evidence suggests that none of the traditional theories are totally correct. For example force fields are not likely the result of gauge particles at all. As well the force fields of Einstein's General Relativity theory do need to travel in another underlying structure of space. This does not make the older theories totally wrong. Modern theories always use the older theories as a foundation to create new and better ones when better evidence is obtained.
There are a total of seven different bits of experimental evidence cited in this web-booklet that support the position that there need to be three separate entities in the universe, a substratum, force fields, and wavicles. These bits of evidence are marked with (Ev 1) etc. In short these are:

(Ev 1) wavicles such as photons need something to vibrate in relation to otherwise laser light would become incoherent
(Ev 2) most force fields appear to travel at the speed of light, for their speed to be constant they must be traveling relative to a fixed background entity
(Ev 3) the speed of light appears to be constant relative to a fixed background entity. This is illustrated in the GPS test of a signal traveling around the world
(Ev 4) if magnetic force fields were photons, the field photons could be absorbed in the magnet as heat
(Ev 5) laws of temperament would not work if fields were clouds of virtual photons
(Ev 6) electromagnetic fields behave differently than photons
(Ev 7) force fields can transfer external energy with no losses while it appears photons cannot
(Ev 8) different atoms and forces can not be different nodes of vibrating strings such as in the string theories, the amount of energy contained in a photon is based on it's wavicle-frequency and these frequencies already cover the entire range

Of course there are already different versions of the Theory of Everything. The theory in this web-booklet could be labeled as the Substratum Field Wavicle Theory of Everything. It is probably right to label two modern theories as the Superstring Theory of Everything and the Quantum Field Theory of Everything. It should be noted however that most books and articles on these last two theories leave out many of the details of the big picture.
Different forms of energy such as matter and photons are not the only "entities" that exists in the universe it seems. It is possible that the entire universe is composed of at least three layers of entities that can be identified. First there is a substratum composed of particle-like entities which forms a fixed absolute 3-dimensional structure that entirely fills the universe. Secondly there are force fields that travel within this substratum. Thirdly there are traveling energy wavicles which are tiny vibrating entities that contain energy in different forms such as photons and atoms. The substratum is stationary in the universe, but wavicles and force fields can travel at the speed of light relative to this substratum. Matter wavicles such as atoms can be thought to be merely collections of individual wavicles.

Energy is composed of vibrating wavicles. When energy wavicles travel at high speed relative to the substratum there is a Doppler [6] type effect that occurs. In Fig 5 there are two diagrams, one with the star and planet at rest relative to the fixed substratum, and a second with the star and planet moving relative to the substratum. The star, planet, and the human observer are made of matter that are really just a collection of vibrating wavicles. When matter is forced to increase its speed relative to the substratum, the vibrating matter wavicles are forced to vibrate quicker as well. This is the reason matter gains a large amount of relativistic mass [3] when it travels near the speed of light. Electrons have been accelerated to near the speed of light in particle accelerators. Some of these electrons have more than 1000 times as much relativistic mass than their normal rest mass.
In the first diagram there is a single photon wavicle being emitted from the star. Imagine that exited atoms on this star emit photons of red light, depicting a cold dying star. If a single atom emitted a single photon in the direction of the planet, it would leave the star and travel at the speed of light relative to the substratum. It would travel as a red photon relative to the substratum. When the photon arrived at the observer on the planet, the observer would see the photon as the same red light relative to the eye of the observer which is at rest relative to the substratum.
In the second diagram the same dying star of the first diagram has been accelerated up to a high speed so that it is now traveling to the left at 100,000 km/sec relative to the substratum. The observer on the earth has also been accelerated and is moving right at 100,000 km/sec relative to the substratum. Now when a single photon is emitted from the star it is not emitted as a photon of red light, rather it will be yellow light. Yellow light is vibrating at a faster rate than red light. Because a photon is really a vibration, as the atom moves at 100,000 km/sec relative to substratum during an emission, the vibration it is emitting is compressed. The photon that is emitted is vibrating at a higher rate. When the yellow photon arrives at the human observer on the planet, the vibration is once again compressed because the observer is traveling at 100,000 km/sec towards the photon relative to the substratum. Therefore the observer would see violet light. Photons that vibrate faster contain a larger amount of energy and relativistic mass.
The Doppler effect is much more difficult to utilize when analyzing energy wavicles than when dealing with sound waves. When a train travels along the tracks and sounds its horn, the frequency of horn vibrations do not change significantly in relation to how fast the train is traveling. This is because the horn vibrations are related to the substratum of space, while the sound it produces is related to the air molecules. When we consider light however, both the light as well as the atom which is producing the emission are both traveling in relation to the substratum and change properties the faster they travel. Therefore the above examples are quite simplistic interpretations of the Doppler effect.
Einstein popularized a certain relative system of measurement which could be called the Observer measurement system. Because of the Doppler effect that occurs when energy wavicles travel in the universe, and because of the speed of light, measuring tools, clocks, and mass all change as an observer moves relative to the substratum. An observer...is considered to be a human or an instrument that is measuring the event. So it is impossible to get an absolute measurement of distance, time, and mass in relation to the substratum. So in the Observer system, time is based on clocks the observer has which vary their speed depending how fast they travel relative to the substratum. Distances in the universe are based on how quickly a ray of light can travel from the distant event. Measurements of mass become only comparisons with other frames of reference.
Another system of measurement that is just as valid as the Observer measurement system is the Absolute measurement system. In this system, all measurements are considered to be relative to absolute geometric coordinates. Einstein refused to think in terms of an Absolute system that I am sure he must have understood existed. He believed that the Observer system was only valid because it is the information that an observer receives [9]. If however we only think using an Observer system, things get mighty confusing. It is like flying in the clouds with no instruments. It is the reason why few people understand what the theory of Relativity is all about. Even today however, this relative Observer measurement system is the only way we have of measuring events in the universe. But does this mean that there is no absolute fixed substratum of space? It turns out that there have been tests done which can determine that the earth is most likely traveling in an absolute substratum. Michelson and Gale first showed this in 1925 when they sent beams of light in opposite directions in a circular path of evacuated pipes. A more modern test has been done with Global Positioning Satellites. Two short bursts of light signals are sent around the earth in opposite directions. A difference of time is recorded. This is called the coriolis effect. Such a test clears up some misconceptions about the speed of light. It is often thought that the speed of light will always be measured as being constant relative to an observer. This is not true, a fact that Einstein even pointed out. Some measurements of the speed of light will show that its speed is always constant relative to the observer and other types of tests will show it is not at all. In reality, tests and careful analysis will show that the speed of light must be constant relative to an absolute substratum only (Ev 3). If we are traveling relative to this substratum however, our measuring instruments will be skewed in different ways depending on how the tests are done.
We have a dilemma. It seems there is a fixed substratum but there is no way of measuring to it. To properly calculate events in the universe we must relate these initially to an absolute system because that is what light speed is constant relative to. The best solution to this dilemma is to start by understanding the theoretical model of an Absolute measurement system, then relate this to an Observer system. It is the way that most scientific measurements are understood and the method of measurement that is used when calculating distance and time with maps. It is known that a map is a small scale of what the real event will be. It is possible to plan the trip theoretically based on calculations or the scale of the map. The Absolute measurement system is based on an outside theoretical observer in space measuring at what speed energy travels relative to the substratum without taking into account the speed of light. Though it is not known exactly where the substratum is fixed at, it is possible to estimate it from celestial movements. Time instead of being fixed to the changing relativistic mass of clocks is based on movements of certain celestial objects in space just as our present time system is. Distances are theoretically calculated to absolute points in space. Mass does increase as energy travels faster but this is calculated relative to the substratum. The maximum speed of light in a single direction is always the speed of light relative to the substratum. The maximum separation speed of two energy wavicles is however twice the speed of light.
Einstein also loved to think in terms of a 4 dimensional universe [7] with the length of time it took for light to travel between events as being a 4th dimension. Present string theories use from 9 to 26 dimensions [28]. These extra "dimensions" are not spatial dimensions of volume however. They are other attributes of what occurs in that space. Most people identify the concept of dimension with the spatial ones and using the word dimensions for these just leads to confusion. It would be better in physics to define dimensions...as a measure of spatial extent, width, height and length in the absolute sense. Other "dimensions" should be called attributes. Of course it is even possible to create make belief geometric models with many dimensions mathematically, but why? It is even hard for most people to visualize models in 3 dimensions. For example in physics and engineering 3-dimensional volume is often separated into three spatial directions of x, y and z for analysis.
Einstein also suggested that space is curved due to gravity force fields that alter the movement of energy traveling through it. This may have been a fine analogy at the time however we presently have identified at least four different force fields that affect energy. Our present day model would need to have four different overlapping warps because each force affects energy in a different way.
The Observer measurement system, 4-dimensional space and warped space are not in fact an integral part of the universe. They are just modeling techniques that some scientists like to use. We can in fact use any model we like. I suggest that an Absolute measurement system using 3-dimensional space is the easiest for most people to comprehend as the "ground floor" for doing calculations.

Presently force fields and energy wavicles are not very well understood in science [5]. The biggest dilemma is that currently most scientists think that forces are produced by the exchange of interactive wavicles such as photons. In this view it is imagined that the magnetic field is actually a flow of photons emanating from one end of the magnet and being returned in the other. However it is also a well known fact that different types of blackbodies absorb every type of photon that is emitted. Surely then a blackbody placed in the path of a stationary magnetic field would absorb the photons that were emitted and quickly heat up (Ev 4). It appears that scientists have been hell bent on modeling a universe that is composed of a single type of particle without always considering how the system works together as a whole. Such a single particle model is desirable to verify if the universe started with the Big Bang.
As was already mentioned, it is possible that the entire universe is composed of at least three layers of entities that can be identified. It appears that there a substratum composed of particle-like entities which forms a fixed absolute 3-dimensional structure that entirely fills the universe. At present we have no words in our language to describe such an entity that is not made up of any form of matter. It is not solid, liquid or gas, because these are words to describe different formations of atomic particles. We can only use common words such as granularity, cellularity, or metrical to describe the fact that the substratum must be divided off into very small sub entities. It must have sub entities because the speed of energy as well as force fields (Ev 2) that travel through space devoid of matter is very uniform. How would energy wavicles and force fields know how to travel at a certain rate if the substratum or space were one large entity? Surely photons do not have a sense of detecting their absolute velocity, a computer, and a throttle to control their speed through empty space to such an exact standard as the speed of light. If the substratum has very small entities, then energy wavicles and force fields could have a uniform speed by jumping from one entity to another or by traveling in relation to these entities. This is somewhat similar to how the speed of sound can be constant by traveling in a medium.
Traveling through the substratum of space are the force fields. They are called fields because they are spread out into large areas of space. Presently force fields are not very well understood in science [10]. There are four force fields that are thought to exist. The Strong field holds quarks together. The Weak field is responsible for holding together leptons such as the electron. The Electromagnetic field holds together atoms and molecules, is responsible for magnetism and electric fields. The Gravitational field pulls all energy wavicles together. Electromagnetic force fields travel through the substratum at the speed of light. It is speculated that other force fields may as well. While energy wavicles are vibrating, it appears that force fields are not the result of any sort of vibration (Ev 6). They appear to transfer forces by some presently unknown mechanism. It is not known whether all force fields are the result of one basic type of interaction or if there are four or even more individual interactions that exist. Force fields are not considered to be energy or contain energy. They can be thought of as extensions of the energy wavicles that drive them. For example a magnetic field can be produced by a flow of electrons in a wire. This magnetic field can in turn produce a flow of electrons in another wire some distance away. Imagine the fields to be similar to a rigid member that transfers the energy from one wire directly to the other (Ev 5). There is no real conversion to energy in the fields. No energy wavicles are created. This is a direct transfer of energy through the fields. That fields do not contain energy is a necessary conclusion as will be seen later on.
Not all energy is transferred directly through the force fields. Commonly there is an indirect transfer of energy through the creation of energy wavicles such as photons. When the lines of force in a field system move there are often wavicles such as photons that are formed. For example when the electromagnetic field around a radio transmission aerial expands and contracts, real wavicles of low energy called radio wavicles are formed. The moving fields in effect scoop out small wavicles of energy as if out of nothing. In reality though the new wavicle of energy was created by direct transfer of the energy in the transmission aerial through the fields and to the new energy wavicles. If the forces in the field collapse slowly, wavicles with slow vibration equal to the vibrations of the magnetic field will be created. If the magnetic force field collapse quickly, wavicles with a fast vibration will be created. (Ev 7)
While field vibrations are large 3-dimensional areas of force, energy wavicles are considered to be individual vibrations of a single energy wavicle. These wavicles are quite small, however they do cover a reasonable area of space otherwise our eyes or the tiny aerials of cell phones would not be able to collide with enough of them. As well, it appears that all energy wavicles have force fields that surround them. For example a curved satellite dish is only composed of wires. Wouldn't the tiny photons just travel through the mesh? It appears however that the force fields, which are solidly attached to the wavicles, aid in bouncing photons back to the receiver. The mesh of the dish actually "sees" the photons as being much larger entities. Energy wavicles travel forward at a maximum speed of 300,000 km/sec relative to the substratum which is called the speed of light. It does not appear that the vibrations of the wavicles are vibrations of the substratum entities, rather the energy wavicles seem to be vibrating in their own cell like structures, but in relation to the particle like entities of the substratum. Wavicles at times have been described as vibrating strings or membranes. I like to think of them as simply wavicles which can include any kind of vibrating string, membrane, ball, blob or bubble.
Groups of wavicles can form wavicle chains and wavicle webs. These various collections result in the different properties that atoms and molecules possess. In the present string theory, all the different types of energy particles are described as different frequencies of the vibrating strings. Such a system does not seem possible because the energy of each individual wavicle is already based on the speed of the vibrations of the wavicles. Photons themselves have vibrations ranging from near zero to extremely fast (Ev 8). It is more likely that all the different atoms are rather created by the different combinations and groupings of wavicle chains. There may also be other possible variations within energy wavicles which at present we can not detect. For example it appears that energy wavicles have different characteristics such as being open ended, closed loops, and twisting vibrations.
The energy wavicles in the universe can be divided into different groups which have different properties. All energy wavicles can be divided into either bosons or fermions [11]. A boson...is a wavicle which can exist in the same spot as another wavicle. A photon is a boson. A fermion...is a wavicle that cannot exist in the same spot as another wavicle. The basic components of matter such as the proton, neutron, electron, and neutrinos are all fermions. Another way of dividing all wavicles is into those that contain entirely matter and ones that don't. It appears that some bosons can contain small amounts of matter. Matter...is energy that can exist even when it is stationary relative to the substratum. The term stationary refers to the whole of the matter wavicle not moving. The energy is still moving but rather than traveling in a straight line the energy is circulating within the confines of the matter wavicle similar to the illustration in Fig 7.
There have been many movies made and books written in the past about people traveling near the speed of light. The molecules in a person are made from matter and these would contain much more relativistic mass and energy if they traveled at these speeds. When matter travels very fast relative to the substratum, the wavicles are not traveling at greater than the speed of light. Rather, the vibrations of the wavicles are faster. It is not likely that atoms with wavicles vibrating so quickly and containing so much energy would be stable anymore. Atoms might start decomposing, forming other types of atoms as well as emitting radiation. This is a factor that Einstein did not take into account in his totally relative Observer system. His system was based on relative effects that took place in experiments with light at very low speeds such as in the Michelson-Morley test. Such effects can not necessarily be extrapolated to be uniform for all types of energy wavicles all the way to the speed of light.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

�Nice.Try. -- Karn, 19:28:36 05/25/03 Sun
- hehehe, dr., youre dumb i didn't even bother to read that. -- playa, 11:18:51 05/26/03 Mon