Butch

As you have so many times reminded me, words have meaning... c does not change, it is the speed of light in a vacuum, the speed of light however can change. Perhaps however I am still incorrect as that is a matter of propogation.

Hmm, Just because we cannot discern the information does not mean it isn't there. I say give it a chance, I will follow, but, no I won't Wade through 62 pages... Yet. c is a value under specific conditions, it varies a great deal when those conditions change, also measurement is interference. Am I wrong or is it true that particles are manifestations of energy?

I would say you are getting back on topic.

I misused the term stable, Swansont straightened me out.

Time I suppose to introduce some of my model, I always tend to learn a great deal from members, even about my own ideas. I will do this in steps, and wait for discussion before moving on. As I have previously stated I am thinking of fermions as perturbations that affect space(lets keep it simple for now and address time at a later date) the particle is a point source for this perturbation, a singularity of sorts. The effect of this singularity diminishes by the inverse square... Wouldn't galaxies receding at more than c predate the Big Bang? The galaxy we see would be moving at a much, much greater velocity now than it is in the time frame that we observe it.

It does not decay, however(feel free to educate me on this) it can give up all of its energy and cease to exist. I am very pleased to see this discussion is on going! I haven't a lot to show as a model, yet... However I do keep up with the discussion and continue to learn. I will mention one thought I have had. What think you of the idea that fermions and bosons share the same field, fermions being perturbations(not oscillatory) while bosons are wave packets as described previously in this topic. My thinking is that the quasar they see would be in a much earlier time frame where indeed it's velocity would not be greater than c. Does special relativity dictate that nothing can travel faster than c, or does it rather dictate that nothing can accelerate to greater than c... That is to say it cannot be witnessed from a reference where it is traveling greater than c?

The only model I have at this point is in the abstract, I will do better. Is a photon stable?

A note to all that have participated in this topic, you have helped me immensely. The information you have provided for me I can agree with completely for bosons. I think I have a better explanation for fermions. Swan is nearly correct I have not provided a complete model, but I did not have a complete understanding, thanks to you all (especially you Strange!) I do now. I am confident I can produce an excellent model for all of you to take apart. I would think that they would not see each other because their difference in velocity is greater than c, but then I am a neophyte.

Here is a puzzle to consider... You look to the east and see a quasar receding at 60%c you look to the west and see a quasar receding at 60%c, what is their velocity relative to one another and what does the observer on the eastern quasar think about the western quasar?

Ah, but I am learning. When I began this post I could not relate my perturbation to wave function... It was you who cleared that up for me Strange. Thank you.

This is a consequence of a particle being a wave phenomenon... This is what I have been saying, review previous content! If a particle were a wave of any sort, it would cease to exist without reflective boundaries... Such as a free electron.

The wave function of the particle is undefined until it meets outside influence, such as an electron being bound to an atom. I elaborated in my previous post, please take a look. The particle does not have a wave function, it manifests a wave function.

First start thinking in terms of a single unbound particle, for now. Maybe the term "particle well" would be better to describe the perturbation of the field. A fermion particle is an excitation of a fermion field or maybe the fermion field (chicken or the egg) either way works here. The wave function is apparent only as the particle interacts with outside influences. Picture a well, you have seen the graph, two hyperbolic curves representing the depth and width of the well. The wave function is dependant upon what the slope of the curve is where the perturbation is "bounded" to a system.

No, I am speaking of the perturbation/exitation of the fermion field. Regardless if the field exists because the particle does or the particle exists in the field (chicken or the egg) am I correct to say all fermion particles share the same field? I am saying that the wave function of the particle is a result of the perturbation interacting with outside influence. For example two electrons in proximity would produce a common recurvature of the field between them, this would produce a sinus curve that would describe a wave. The closer they were the higher the implied wave frequency. You can extend this process to the two slit experiment or to Schroedinger equation in an atom. And yes this would occur without charge. You can do the same with two neutrinos or an electron and a neutrino etc.

The perturbation of the field that I speak of is akin to the curvature of space-time around a mass. In a fermion field the perturbation increases flux density to its maximum at a single point this is our particle, the flux density decreases via the inverse square. Note that this is a static entity. The wave function of such an entity would be dependant upon physicality of the outside Influence(s). This structure could accept energy, but would seek to return to its original state. Since the point source is at maximum flux density, another particle could not have the same quantum description. My point about the particle as a standing wave is that if it is a wave of any sort standing or not, it could easily give up all of its energy and cease to exist!

No they don't! A wave packet can give up all of its energy. A perturbation as I describe can give up or accept some energy temporarily, but will return to the "well" form. In the case of a bound electron even the ground state is temporary influence of the well. The point where the flux density of the field is greatest.

I agree... But! I would say the point source, not the wave peak.

Not without reflection to conserve energy. Look at it this way, what is the energy of a free electron? What is the energy delta of a free electron that interacts with an outside influence. Of course the first answer is another question... Relative to what? A wave has energy relative to itself. A static perturbation has no energy unless it reacts to an outside influence.

How is this wave different? You could say that it is a wave function, not a wave... and I will agree. However the perturbation(I think a better description than excitation.) is not a wave of any sort, rather interaction of the perturbation with outside influence will produce a wave nature.

In the wiki both waves are travelling, think in three dimensions, variations in flux density of the field, the wave would be spherical and traveling away from the point source as well as diminishing via the inverse square... Your particle is doomed.

Not possible without reflection, this is fine for describing a particle in a very small system (with reflective limits), not for an unbound particle.

I said something about it early on in this discussion, I think it is quite relevant. I agree. I agree. No, not stuck on that... can you create a standing wave in a rope if an end is free? No, you must have reflection and if you don't keep shaking the end of the rope the wave will travel away no matter how long the rope even with a magic rope that has no energy losses.

Very interesting! Pretty much the crux of my question! Also at issue here, although it is quite convenient for us, why is c limited and constant? This validates my understanding of the field excitation as an inverse square perturbation (A well)! In other words the electronic has no wave function, only a proximity slope until it is influenced.

Not all particles are bound, I can understand the bound electron, the reflective limit is what Schroedinger is all about (Thanks again for beating that into me!). There are particles that are quite stable outside of atomic structure, just now a thought occurs to me... in the double slit experiment with electrons, can the wave function of the electron be determined? Does it change with the spacing of the slits? The direction of my thinking here is that the wave function might be determined by environment and that while the field perturbation is a simple well, it produces a wave function via outside influence.