Butch

I have read explanations of Schrödinger's cat many times... Just really never completely understood, now I get it. The double slit should provide measurement. The change that occurs when the slits are spaced differently demonstrates the slope of the curve, that should provide a reference. Let me correct that, changing the width of the slit should provide a reference.

Hmm... Schrödinger's cat, the consequence of quanta is that until interaction there is nothing... Truly metaphysical. Comments?

I use the term influence to indicate the field is affected by the spin of the particle, I need to give some thought to the quantum manifestation of spin.

I used the term analogous, I believe that was taken to mean "the same". Gravity and acceleration are not the same of course, they have like effects.

I am so delighted to have you taking part in this discussion! I have taken a peek at Lorentz, I admit it is a bit beyond me at present. I must correct an error, x is distance. y is spin influence? Thank you for your patience.

A slit in the double slit experiment, of course the values I proposed would be a slit smaller than an atom, however even at that distance the difference in spin is nearly imperceptible. I know you do not care for the concept of the spin diminishing by the inverse square, but can you see that it diminishes so rapidly that by our observation all of the spin would appear to be very near the origin(x=0). The resultant of the slope at given x and the vertical, since both sides woul d have the same velocity, we can ignore amplitude and simply deal with theta. This is a 2 dimensional plot of two of my particles in close proximity, it demonstrates the distortion of the field. The function is 1/(x-4)^2 + 1/(x+4)^2

Two particles and the gravitational divot between them. Look how weak gravity is! Looking at it now, the function should be -1/x^2.

Studiot insisted. Not that other universe, those other universes. All interconnected. We are getting distracted, please people, let's accept some assumptions for now.

It was always there. They all were. Every one of these particles is the result of black holes in an infinite number of other universes. That will take a bit... I will do so, I am glad you asked, rather than just dismissing the concept. The math will be the slope of the curve at the given x and the slope of the vertical. Amplitude would be the relative velocity. I will do the math, but I'm guessing you nearly have it by now. Thank you.

Essentially you are discussing an infinite universe as opposed to the big bang... You know what makes my head spin? Time having a beginning. But, very well... My opinion is that energy is pouring into our universe from a black hole in another universe producing a particle in this universe. By the way, the CMB is a radiation signature of this event. For this to be so, however... The fabric of our universe would have to be expanding at an accelerating rate (else wise the CMB would cook us).. I hope this satisfies you, if you have other ideas, please hold them for later. I did not say the particle is a wave, I said it exhibits a wave nature as it interacts with the slit.

The interaction of the particles spin at 2 different points causes it to exhibit a wave nature. Particles passing through double slit would produce an interference pattern... This is all a result of the spin diminishing by the inverse square. It is as if your friends were standing at different distances from you, one gets hit harder by the rope. At any rate the particles spin is doing work.

Do this for me, assume that the "spin" of the particle is x, plot 1\x^2. Draw a vertical line at x = 51. Draw a vertical line at x = -34. These are the sides of the slit. Do your dot products for each x intersect.

Spin is not angular momentum, it is analogous to angular momentum... Same relationship as acceleration and gravity. We refers to acceleration in terms of the force of gravity at sea level on the planet earth, the unit of "g". Angular momentum... Energy and angular momentum. ... When an object is rotating about its center of mass, its rotational kinetic energy is K = ½Iω2. Rotational kinetic energy = ½ moment of inertia * (angular speed)2. When the angular velocity of a spinning wheel doubles, its kineticenergy increases by a factor of four. Source: Energy and angular momentum, http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys221core/modules/m6/energy_and_angular_momentum.html&ved=0ahUKEwjbg7OAi8LbAhUStlMKHYDlBCkQFggxMAI&usg=AOvVaw2gq-7fhFaRnLvutRN4G6rH Energy is the ability to do work, bear with me and I will demonstrate how that occurs as the particle interacts.

There are a lot of ways to look at it, any will do... Put a weight on a string and swing it around, the weight pulls out and you pull in, the result is zero and the weight follows a path where all points are equidistant from you, if you have a friend step into that path they will feel the energy, if a friend on the opposite side does the same, they will feel the energy but from the opposite direction. Actually it should look like a mountain, " well" is a more familiar term but actually the particle should be a peak in the field.

Yes, it will be quite useful... especially when we start exploring what happens to the field when the particle gains and loses energy. Strange brought a point, I cannot assume that this is a fermion, boson or anything having to do with the standard model... I have to start with what I have, a particle that is a field perturbation.

It does matter, of course... However we can proceed to construct a model without that information. My thoughts are that the black hole is in a parallel universe, I should probably stop referring to this as a well, it is actually an energetic peak. Let us not be distracted by these things... for now. Internal to the particle spin is energy, outside of the particle the sum of energies is 0. Interestingly you can't ever get completely outside the particle, but at classical distances the spin energy is certainly not measurable... But it does have evidence in the dual slit experiment!B-)

The spin energy is the difference in the field curvature between x=1 and x=0, theta is 45° as Swan indicated I need to use a dot product, working on that.

X is spin Y is energy, x=y is ground. This is interesting, potentially it is the size of the universe, the well extends to infinity, however considering the point x=y it has its greatest influence on the field in a very small region. It is not a solid sphere, as we tend to think classically, the well is the particle. Another interesting one! Spin is energy, however a particle is a closed system... 1\2 or 1? If we consider the area inside x=y and x=0 there is measurable energy between them. This is the spin energy of x=1... How does that relate to quantum spin... not sure yet. I agree completely, likewise for the big bang. At this time, it does not matter for the model, we can assume it is just there. Ultimately it is my personal belief that the source is a multi verse black hole.

You are brutal Strange, gotta luv ya for it!

I am pursuing a theoretical model based upon my hypothesis that all of our universe is constructed upon a single field. I invite you to challenge me, it is how I progress! First some prepositions: I am not a big bang believer, I believe our universe is ultimately steady state and infinite, I understand the evidence that you will present to the contrary, however let us save that for later. I am a believer in QM, the evidence is well tested. I am not in agreement with the standard model. The basic vanilla particle: In my model the most elementary particle is a "well" in a field, this well diminishes via the inverse square. The units of measurement to bring this well into relative terms is based on intrinsic angular momentum, h bar. If you wish, plot the well. (Y = 1\X^2). If you zoom out on your plot, you will note that the curve begins to approach a right angle, and indeed as X approaches infinity it is a right angle (X\infinity = 0). So my particle is as tiny as tiny gets. I had been calling my particle a fermion... I am uncertain about that now. If anyone is having trouble with my explanation so far, I will elaborate. Please feel free to question, challenge, brutally critique or just offer suggestions.

You are correct, QM fits for me... I am finding that the standard model does not. I had until a short while ago, rejected QM, that was a mistake, and I blame the standard model. I realize now what I am trying to build is a model different from the standard model, string theory etc. My, I have taken a big bite, haven't I? I have a single particle which is a tensor peak in a field (Strange, is that correct terminology?), where do I go from here? I believe the first place is to speculations! See you there soon!

Where is the beginning? I have been probing the members here with my various posts in order to determine that. If you would like to understand where I am going, review my "Einstein was right" post... I did not get far with it, and rightly so. All of this will culminate I believe in our connection with other universes... I am not an academic, but my IQ is sufficient I think to handle what you might throw at me. Please continue to lambaste me, it is greatly appreciated. You all have taken me a long way, a very long way.

The fermion does not move, the well that is the fermion is distorted. I believe this is described as a tensor? Also I should mention that although the plotted curve is analogous to a gravity well, the fermion is a peak in field density. When energy is added to the particle the width at unity increases temporarily. Understand that the well is very tiny at unity, as far as we are able to measure it would be a single point. I would endeavor to be more succinct in my description, however I need a fermion to begin working with. I do not believe the electron is the best choice, while it seems charge will creep in here someplace... I am not there yet. I think I should begin by modeling a quark. Can you make a suggestion as to which? Also can you provide a reference for study of quark theory?

The particle well would be distorted, the particle would have the same spin but the curve of 1\x^2 would be perturbed by the added energy... Best visual description I can give is a drop of water hitting a pond, the drop is absorbed and returned. Of course this is a classical example, a quantum example would be a perfect pond and drop. I get what you are saying, spin is a closed system, 0 total energy... I am just having trouble communicating my thoughts, sorry I have been fishing all day in a tropical downpour. Yes, that is the direction I need to follow! Thank you!

You misunderstand, gravity and the photon emission are separate issues... If the energy of the particle is increased, let us say by the absorption of a photon (keep in mind my photon is a wave packet in the same field as the particle) as the particle returns to an energy equal to its spin it "shakes" the field producing a photon.