Mike Smith Cosmos

.Because it is very relevant to my argument. I am proposing that the nature of particles, is defined and produced in the region of space external to where we purport the particle to 'be' . And myself and others have suggested that Space , rather than being Empty , is a 'hive of activity ' and Energy . It is likely that as bounce, wiggle , oscillation , as well as waves , coupled with Energy , are typical of environments ' filled to the gunnels with atomic ingredients , it seems very relevant to bring it into the discussion. Although the culmination of all this activity , I suggest , is the appearance , of particles ,with all the things we measure. I am suggesting there is nothing there in the middle , it is all the result of ( at some time .. Big Bang , big collider or other high energy disturbance ). These characteristics are produced as fairly stable entities in space . Hollow centred energetic precise disturbances in space . Ps I am on a Bus at this precise moment , going to Totnes to meet up and discuss this subject . And Art . This thing appeared on the next seat back. The lady said does this belong to you? I said where has that come from, she said don't know it just was there ! rather coincidental Mike

Attack at the centre of Europe . Brussels. Bombed. Airport and Railway station Mike

.I am not certain that it is ? However it does appear to fit in this category of things that " wiggle and bounce" , that according to Stranges ref. prof mattstras. Undertake Classical oscillatory motion. The drops of water you see astronauts playing with in the space station seem to " wiggle " in front of them . I am not saying specifically , that that is THE correct model . But medium , does interplay with , mass, in a wiggles , bounces, mode . Often ! Perhaps a ' non broken' wave is more apt . Where the wave travels without the ' breaking wave ' collapse . But as discussed with Analogies , ( the analogies , though useful can only go so far) , enough to set one going in a direction or course of research . I am not sure on the matter of ' scale ' ? Perhaps wavelength of oscillation and distances involved with particles converge when dealing with quantum size particles ( scale ) Mike Ps . the collapse is more analogous to the point of ' wave giving up ' its energy ?

Strictly my original proposition was . Quote original post " Mike Smith Cosmos, on 19 Mar 2016 - 7:46 PM, said: (B) I am asking , is it possible that there are NO actual particles of substance , there are only effects produced in the Fields , and in whatever else is there? ( as spoken of a post or two ago , and illustrated (B) except no green particle at the centre ? " Unquote Namely , the disturbance in the medium , Not the particle in the middle Mike

Yes it has mass, but this mass was here by the sea shore , all the time . It has not arrived from out to sea , neither Has it set off from any distant place , and just arrived. The most it has done is gone up and down a bit , and backwards and forward a meter of two . Surely ? As far as I know , I saw the whole thing start off by a persistent breeze , blowing down the inside estuary at Totnes. It was barely rucking up the river water, but the waves generally looked like they were going downstream . Had they been caused by a stone dropping into the water the energy intensity would have died off by 1/Distanced squared. Now with the continuous wind ., the waves slowly increased in height as they went downstream , parallel with each other but at right angles to the wind direction . At sea the same gaining of energy until the waves hit the shore with the Energy to knock me back. This is surely a demonstration of distortion inflicted on the medium ( water ) , energy moves across the water and arrives to 'appear' as the arrival of a bundle of mass from out to sea , but really only an oscillation carrying energy . ( feeling like a 'shed load ' of Mass arriving ) . Is that not so ? In this example which is more real ( namely reality) The phenomenon of being thrust by energy . Or the the water as mass ? ( which is all over the sea ) . I would have thought it was the wave Energy . That is the Real thing of the moment, Link to wave :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_wave Mike

.Just to make it perfectly clear with a reasonably complex. physics phenomenon . Could you give an actual example of In sketchy Maths style firstly - illustrating complexity for normal people . Then :- 1) a Notation ? 2) a Definition ? And how this helped to put together 3) a " Representational mechanism " ? And to 4) " See what is going on " ? ......." Getting it right " ... .again ........ For Ordinary ( non mathematicians science type people !) Much appreciated in anticipation Mike

.Well, it's nice when somebody else , thought roughly the same thing. Sorry , a bit late replying . I have got a bit confused with so many ' splits' of the initial thread. I have been dodging about a bit , saying some things in the wrong places . And some wrong things in the right places . I have only thought , when I have been swimming over the last few years. At beaches like ' Slapton sands ' where the breakers are near to shore . They give you a fair thump when they hit you in the back. I have often thought ' that was energy , almost like a mass ( like a sack of potatoes , being thrown at your back ) , a packet of energy . I think that is a good demonstration of ' Reality ' you know when those 'hit you ' , all right . Like your two waves hitting one another head on . Keep commenting , as I will probably need your support . .I appreciate your comment about reality .when I took a photo of the three examples , I did think about it quite hard at the time . What quite am I seeing ? The thing , or the hole ? Which is the real bit. ? Maybe it's the bit that ' really matters' ! In case anyone wants a little light reading , before they go to sleep, on the side about ' REALITY ' Here is a Wikipedia link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality And / Or Some interesting reading :- " Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn " by Amander Gefter's is a good read in understanding Reality. Where she discusses this with Famous Scientists around the world . Leading to ' Reality being an external super symmetric view of the World. Seeing all Gauge Forces simultaneously from the perspective of Super Symmetry . ' Was the conclusion proposal ! (if you like that sort of thing ) If this were to be the case about " Reality " , then Reality is more about what we do not see , rather than what we do see! Mike

. I like Your comments about ' notation' , and it's importance . Getting it right . So the issue of " Notations and Definitions " that's Interesting ! " spotting what is going on " I can see this being a Translational Exercise . For the 'representation mechanism'. Interesting ! Mike

Yes , sure , I will be discussing this as previously mentioned . He has worked with a project of his derivation . World wide conferencing on a common subject . What I need to ask him , is can this be adapted to allow research input of a maths style . With a potential output visualisation . This I hope can be adapted with an adaption mode ranging from loose parameters to ridged mathematical computation . At the other end of the project . I would like to see ' user friendly '. Multi input , Math visualisation of Data . I could see this of use in ' inter discipline ' conversation . Mike

Yes, I agree ,that was too a naive a description of Maths . I do agree back in the 1960's . After a two hour maths session in wave theory we in 'Brunel College Electronics Course ," , were known for running out screaming , heading for the Pub. However, was trying to make a point. And your comments about exposure to modern maths is very true . I accept that. But in itself it illustrates my desire that some thing could be done to make such Maths able to be presented ,graphically or otherwise such as to assist many other scientists to digest new innovation and possibly contribute. Also it might enable other less able mathematical scientists to introduce valuable contributions and advances from their subject area . I think as you indicate in your Profile we all have a position in the spectrum of Physics to Maths . As you say of yourself you lay half way with a leaning more into maths . Mike

I think it was a sad day when some bright spark decided they would banish anything whatsoever existing in space . All my pictorial examples are existing in something , either the air with the bubble , the pool with the whirling vortex , the sea with the Very Large wave being surfed. All three exist in the medium, but that there is nothing much inside, nothing at all? So , I ask ? is it not possible for all the standard model particles , to be similar entities , where the Big Bang , and the large hadron collider actually create these particles in the medium . Pretty much unbreakable , unless colossal monumental energy is re applied. But inside the vortex , bubble , or wave , that , there is NOTHING ? The 'entity' , the 'reality', is what got created in the medium . There is no illusive piece of mini- micro string or piece of grit , inside harbouring the key ingredients of matter? Is this not possible ? If that were the case , then what I am asking is. Could it not be out there ? Not inside the particle, but in the surrounding space itself, and beyond. With all its exposure to tremendous energy ? . vortex. Bubble . Wave Notice There is nothing in the Vortex, nothing in the bubble , nothing in the wave . Maybe that is an exception with the surfer . He was there , because he put himself there. Mike

In the example I mentioned earlier from electronics . Electron movement one way through a semi conductor , is only really possible, if a hole appears in a very tightly fitting crystal lattice . So an electron leaps into that hole , in so doing leaving a hole where it has leapt from . So you ' see' an electron moving left say , and a hole right . Both are real . Reality . ( as of coarse, I am arguing in one of these threads that these items of the standard model could themselves be disturbances in space with no actual centre. ) Mike

. How would we know? I am sure I have heard it said , even in 'civi street ' . Just need to make a ' reality check ' . Reality is good , keeps your feet on the ground . Keeps you grounded. Self esteem . I appreciate what you are saying about ( all you kneed to know is how it works ) . But the rest of life needs to know ' why ' certain things work the way they do . I do think that if we knew ' there were NO particles , it's all effects of various sorts, coming from within space time , I think it would lead us on to other things , even if it did not help us one bit as regards performance . I think we would look more OUTWARD for other answers , to other questions . Like if there is a swirl or a spin what causes it ? How far out did it cause it.? What caused it ? Mike

.Well even if this went no further , it would make a huge difference . Even if the responses were the same . The absence of any particles at the centre , and it was the environment was responsible for providing a phenomenon with the same responses . The particle standard model would be in trouble , and we would need to look much further out, to the environment for answers . And a new model . Mike

I have a colleague locally who is a software man , who works on visualisation for conferences . He may have some ideas , as to how this can be applied to science'/maths based problems . May be analogue computers , or simulated analogue computers , may make things happen , and be tested as you go. Mike

To put the illustrations here to simplify understanding of the point . Not like this particle central of some substance . But like this no particle central , effect caused by field disturbance etc . Mike

(A) I am saying that mathematics tends to be Formulae based . As such to understand the phenomenon it is often necessary to plot the variables in order to understand ' what is going on ' . This tends often( not always ) , as lines , on a 2D or 3 D graph . That leaves a lot of uncovered space . Is there a possible better way to illustrate what is going on ? I suppose , with (A) I am suggesting , most of us do not 'See' with our brain ( our 'minds eye ' ( lined graphs , and mathematic formulations ) the question being , could there not be a better way of understanding what is going on , other than the formulaic way. The formulae can give the ' spot values' and other accurate specific points on a graph or calculation . But this other way of understanding ( I am asking , not sure what it could be ? But I think it is worth finding . There are other way of comprehending something other than mathematical . ( such as 'he says ' ) . Perhaps some form of illustrative , Pigeon Maths . Not Mathcad but PigeonCad ( based on abbreviated critical variables , boundary conditions , core formula. Even illustrative running models of key concepts. Wikipedia has this sometimes which is really illuminating . Other times it's awl to wall formulae , which can be overpowering , (B) I am asking , is it possible that there are NO actual particles of substance , there are only effects produced in the Fields , and in whatever else is there? ( as spoken of a post or two ago , and illustrated (B) except no green particle at the centre ? Mike

If what I have described above is how it is , then there is NOT anything there( as in some material solid object . But a lot of energy is at play to disturb the field , medium , or whatever that constitute ' space-time ' , so as to bind it up into , the entities we describe in our terms , like " particle " , "wave" , " distortion bending, vortex in space-time " Is this how you see it , or do you feel we will find some ' things ' at the core of each particle ? ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- The two related things that I wanted to Talk about , and Discuss with members of the forum is :- (A) Is it possible that there are new discoveries that we can find out about in the Three dimensional region of space-time , that are not confined to the ( Mathematical style ) continuous line sort of approach (illustrated Red (A) . Namely , instead of looking to confine things to a very specific line orientated way, but rather looking outwardly ( illustrated green ) (B) Is it possible that rather than in our endeavour to pin matter down , as Particles and carriers by the standard model and string Theory type of inward looking approach , that :- We could explore the Idea that " there is nothing there " . But that these particles are in fact the effect that certain critical energies has been inflicted , somehow or other , on Space -Time to produce EFFECTS , that show themselves looking like Particles , with different energies , when In fact there is nothing of substance there. See illustrated (B) To discuss. (A) (B) NOT THIS BUT THIS Mike

.It is surely difficult to ' tell' , if anything is actually ' there' . An effect is there, but when you dig deep, really deep , has anyone yet found a small piece of anything , at the heart of a particle or a string, or whatever smallest conceived ' thing' . If so, please tell me what it is ? Is it an infinitesimal ,micro small piece of spinning micro quark grit , or what? Maybe I missed something , but it sounds like it is more like a screwed up field, charge , energy packet, string or something , which we have not yet got to grips with. But the effects we are well used to and versed in . IS THERE . I am not sure , quite what these ' sprites ' are , but if it's anything to do with lightning? Not sure, ? Then the massive contortions of the electro- magnetic field , given a major ' Bolt ' , might just send something that looks like a free-standing ionised particle , go winging off into space. Again with ' quarks ' ( the ingredients of many sub atomic particles ) , I might be behind the times, but I was of a mind that the collider only saw where quarks should be , but not the actual ' thing' . Again, an humongous impact , screwing and twisting ' space' up into something free standing . But is there anything there, at the centre , or is it just , screwed up fields. Anyway , what is a field , is there anything there ? Is there anything ' anywhere? Three equivalent examples of ' things ' as is 'any things ' of no solid content , but contrived out of the surrounding environment ( equivalent to fields, etc ) . Waves out of wind and water Vortex out of hose and water Bubble out of air and water and soap Each case has an energy input , plus a field or malleable environment /medium . Mike

Well , I did not say it was going to be easy ! Could be quite an exciting ride though ! I am serious however . Think of particles. The standard model is all about particles. I am sure Richard Feynman had something to say about opposites . Maybe as particles move in one direction , something else moves in another direction . But Gravity is what excites me. We are always thinking, in terms of mass 'over there ' , distortions in space time , making us move toward the mass . Is there the equivalent of Electrons and Holes moving in opposite directions ? Even if not , I am still interested in ' what is over our shoulder ? ' . There is much more space as you go outwards , so much more opportunities. Mike

For every thing there, IS. There is far, far, far more that , IS NOT . Or maybe IS as well ! Exploring the opportunities that are in these vast open spaces , could well be , :- THE FINAL FRONTIER It always used to bother me with Mathematical equations , when plotted out on a two dimensional , or three dimensional graph. The line was there wiggling away. That was what was there! But that was a minuscule amount of the space offered by the 2 dimensional , or three dimensional , Space, also there. In Electronics , say Conductors , or Semi conductors , we surmise there are negative 'electrons' , flowing to produce an electric current, but we can also say there are positive ' Holes' flowing in the opposite direction ( this is pretty well two dimensional ) . What of three dimensional activity ? Say Gravity ? Things move toward the centre of the Earth ? What moves in the opposite direction , away from the centre of the Earth ? So is the rest of this 'Three Dimensional Space ' The final Frontier ? Ref link to sprites going into space :- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2188689/Sprites-space-Lighting-high-Earth-captured-unique-video.html Mike

.I showed these images from Google to my wife 10 minutes ago. Her reaction was " it just looks like something of ' Biblical proportions ' ! " I do not suppose she is the only one to have thought this , is she ? Some have wondered. " is this part of ' Armageddon ' ? * Mike * ref link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon

But I do not think we can attribute these current pictures of Syria in this current Crisis . To Global warming ? can we ? . . Google :- Images of current Syrian Crisis Mike

. Meanwhile , as reported this morning , the migration ' log Jam' coming from The war zone areas, in the Middle East , in an attempt to reach Europe :- They are getting more and more desperate for food and the ability to take their families , more on into Europe . . About this situation :- one can not help but recall .." Nero Fiddled while Rome Burned. " To quote the Google Display of this sentiment :- Quote " Nero fiddling while rome burns.Google According to a well-known expression, Rome's emperor at the time, the decadent and unpopular Nero, fiddled while Rome burned. The expression has a double meaning: Not only did Nero play music while his people suffered, but he was an ineffectual leader in a time of crisis.20 Nov 2012 Unquote " Mike

An interesting point was brought up at a Public Presentation by a respected abstract Artist of the South West of England. ( this week ) I was in attendance at the Demonstration and he started with something important , that I have heard other practicing Artists say . That is Paint Quick , certainly in the origination stage. This applying to Abstract art , or free flowing compositions. ( and he demonstrated it ) His rational , he explained , is :- if you thrash around very fast, your controlled part of you brain ( supposed left Brain) can not cope with that sort of speed, so your ( supposed Right brain) , the creative , intuitive bit takes over. And takes over in a very creative and intuitive way. I have tried this on many occasions , and it works! This does sort of link ART and SCIENCE , but in a very creative way . In this case Art ( the creative Picture ) being the product. Science being the explanation ( Neuroscience ) . He did the top half of this painting in about 2 minutes, and the bottom half in about another 10 to 20 minutes ( if that ) . Mike