On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 10:21:30 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:43:25 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:32:25 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:43:08 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Particles are geometric material energy points...
They are quantized at the infinitely small math.
I think I agree that we would like them to be somehow sensible in this way.
Point geometry is the sensible way... to understand a quantized particle
No, Mitch. The electron has broken this mold.
Once you grant your point particle an axis it has gained structure.
Claims of its Euclidean pointedness are diminished.
At another level; using solid analysis, we have the notion of an oriented object (say a mug, with a handle: m1) then as we shrink this object down in size it does not loose these features, does it?
To what degree is the resultant tiny m1 a point?
Here we have broken into this same ground from ordinary geometrical analysis without the need to resort to the flighty electron.
Are you ever going to claim that a photon carries no orientation? I'd like to see that as well.
Claims of these objects as waves somehow escape the stability criterion. If an electron is really a wave then why can't it dissipate? Can the photon?
Does photon conservation imply absorption, or is emission enough, with no actual destination; the long road less travelled, and not so easily found.
If there is no conservation of photons then why can't we have an absorption event under way? Around in these parts breaking the rules in subtle ways is worthy of inspection at least.
However, by the geometrical standards of relativity theory a point position is simply (x,y,z,t).
As such it has no energy nor character.
The title of this thread suggests that character is lurking within geometry.
That a general dimensional approach rather than a one dimensional approach could answer with a point of such character as you posit: this is exactly what we are after. The idea that an electron ought be derived when physics has achieved the true
spacetime basis is obvious. Along comes electromagnetics as well. The idea of energy that you have focused your few words upon is perhaps an appropriate lens. Where in geometry is energy? I suppose the answer is simple: it is in motion. Yet the Euclidean
black and white point position is flavorless. Just a flitting bit of nothing; a point being zero dimensional... or was that four dimensional? Sure enough every point that takes an (x,y,z,t) description is four dimensional. That we need to get down on it;
pin that thing downward to its zero dimensional form; could this be the way? Tatrix Natural Interpretation. Pick that point apart until there is nothing left? No certainty here; not at all.
It could be that I shouldn't reuse this thread, and it might be that I am not, and I guess we'll just have to see about that.
Beyond the worries over pentapolar signalling, I have some other quick dodges to try to run out; as if by wearing them through their bottoms might be found. I'm sure, really, that there is nothing new under the sun; not here on planet Earth; not in our
monkey paws. Walking about to and fro I find my hands clinging to tools that I needed a half hour ago, the tasks changing dynamically, and I barely keeping up with them. So it goes on a day around here. A good worker does as good works do, and yet
sometimes unknown to the prior was a simpler that got the task done better yet and the breakthrough heard round the world... living to breathe another day.
Snuffed out in a storm of indignation? Left out in the cold to mold? Lost in the back of the fridge? The smidge and the smidgeon; the flotsam and the jetsam; As to where and when downstream went upstream and the two could never be told apart? Yet by
convention they could mention the ways of the parts as pieces of a whole; the same, yet the sort that one by one, make themselves known. Yet they stopped at two and none of them knew that the joke was on them all. The smartest; the toughest; those
prominent communicators; all tied in to the monastery? All tricked out with clout; the best mimics in the lot are the ones to trot to make mimics of mimics. Well, I was among them, and now I grow onions, and beans, and potatoes, and things. My peppers
this year are fearsomely hot. Perhaps I owe the budge to them. But I think it is another who has claimed so many identities now, that I have to guess he is Tommy1729, wasn't it? Wasn't he quite young back in the day? Say twenty years ago? Anybody know
his true identity?
I really meant to consider the quadrupole, even in it's tetrahederal form, as having handedness. Now under this electronic format of receiving elements I am somewhat at their behest as to how this thing organizes itself. We of course pick at random in
the frames that I work, and yet at the same time we work a convention out; a simplified form, perhaps, that simply says S, or Sn, for say S4, such that the four signals are one, but in claiming this we have as well really assigned some sort of order.
Geometrically and in loop form we seek a mu; we seek a nu; the anti-mu will never be distinguished from mu. Mumu is forever clinging to nu in its first mode, and in its second model mu and antimu, which is just mumumu for P4 here, which I am sort of
committing to but not totally committed to, but of course that scoundrel of a character will be pointing out subP3 and subP2, and where in it all is our subP1? We really must make that thing known. It cannot be an exception. It must take an
interpretation. That decomposition by ray could be something other than is known; so long as its two-form simply brings it back again to the familiar, and then of course the three-form in the plane, and on up to the four-form that is sought as the P4
element array somewhere else around here.
To say that a ray has a length: this is a thing that is done in an upward projection manner; we are forced to engage multidimensional analysis in order that the ray take its place as half of a line, or up in the plane, as an originated thing which goes
scurrying off, perhaps to infinity? Or no, if we do give them their magnitude, then they are at their own behest. Well, is a ray then a pair (of points), so that the origination and the destination are prescribed? The one-form of a single point position
does seem quite limited. All such rays would be emanating from one position; having no actual freedom it seems to even express their directional wishes. The humble photon, being very much ray behaved, would certainly require the pairing. Of course the
idea that we'd stop at two is somewhat the nonsensical tea totalling mathematician striking again! Maybe I should call him the bean totaller, and I will confess to having my hands on them many times in recent weeks.
Does it matter if there is a return trip for a photon? Now here, I feel more torn than Lenny on the conservation of this photon.
Does the absorber matter to the emitter? I suppose already causality is breached in asking. You won't know? You can't know? What: where the photon went? We know pretty well in some cases wherabouts our photons are going. This idea that some random ping
pong event of what we used to call 'going peanuts' when we were kids; like, you just break out the box of ping pong balls and they are flying everywhere at high speed and everybody is giggling uncontrollably. Great fun; like chucking two frisbees at once.
Entanglement is not a binary thing; it is an n-ary one. I can't really prove this, but it does actually make a lot more sense, doesn't it? We are entangled with the objects about us; this is our local environment. This issue of locality as getting
foisted by their version of entanglement: it isn't really proving true. This problem does come over to the OP title, sort of.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)