Sub-Atomic laws of physics are not contradictory

[dazdaryl]

Hi, I've watched some documentaries and read a little bit about what people say is happening at the sub-atomic level, it bothers my that they use the word "contradictory" to refer to what they see, because I do not believe science has contradictions, so I wrote this piece, I hope you read it and I hope you enjoy it even if it is not 100% accurate, I would like some feedback. There is more I would like to say but I haven't properly formulated it into word or thought within my head, I'm still feeling it out. I have to take a break now and come back later, if you think its a good piece I'll try to continue it.

 

-

 

It is not contradictory for 2 physical objects, such as 2 particles to occupy the same place in space and time if it is not the fact that something being physical that enforces its unique place held in space but the magnetic fields around it. Nor is it contradictory that sub-atomic particles can occupy multiple positions in space, multiple particles in the same space, or change their position in space if they are just the void created by the bending magnetic fields.

 

 

As such these properties are not contradictory as many "scientific" documentaries have suggested, it works in the same way as every thing else we perceive from our naked level of perception, its just that things work differently than how we thought.

 

 

Furthermore it is probable that the only reason we perceive to see physical things such as atoms is because the space-time field is bent into an orbit, which creates a void of space-time at the "physical" location. Meaning that it is not the solid object that is real but the field around it, this makes perfect sense because reality is akin to the perceivable and it is physical objects which block perception, just as if you have a brick wall in front of you, you cannot see past it. So it is the brick wall that is the void, the lack of reality, for if the brick wall where not a void you would be able to see straight through it because it would be completely connected with reality and perception in front and behind it.

 

 

I would like to bring to light, that objects are not made of atoms, they are made of fields of energy, fields of energy that repel other fields of energy, giving the impression of solids, fields of energy that reflect light so we see one solid object, even though atoms are 99.999999999999% empty space. To say that objects are made of atoms and that the fields are the implied reality is to say that we should see holes in everything, so I argue that it is the field that is "real" and the atom that is implied, giving credence to the nature of quantum theory not being contradictory at all.

 

 

So next time your watching the discovery channel or science documentary on you-tube and they say things behave differently at the quantum level, because atoms can occupy multiple spaces, disappear and reappear elsewhere, you'll know that it is not different or contradictory. Atoms are the break in reality, atoms are the void of true existence. To return to the analogy of the brick wall, if there is a brick wall 10 meters in front of you, then you will be able to see objects between you and the brick wall, that is your perceivable area, the brick wall is the break in perception not -the- perception.

 

 

I know what is not real because I can touch it, if it were real then I would be able to exist within it and would not be able to touch it.

 

 

Lets use another analogy, take a piece of paper (the piece of paper is like existence) and a pen (the pen is perception), the ink of the pen is the pens perception of itself, everywhere there is paper, the ink can exist, where there is no paper there can be no ink. So lets cut holes in the paper, the ink cannot exist in the holes, where there is no paper. If you were to ask the pen what is real and what is not the pen would tell you that the holes and the edge of the paper are real, because that is where it cannot exist, and that the holes and edge of paper are proof of reality because it can touch it. The pen would argue that there is no such thing as paper because anywhere there is paper it can exist and multiple things cannot exist in the same location, nor would the pen believe it is a pen, because it cannot go outside to observe itself, the pen believes it is ink. Perhaps you could even further this analogy into a theory of time being like the z axis of the ink as it rises higher off the paper when the pen goes where ink already is, like time generates a curved nature to avoid contradicting itself. Particlesand atomsare not real, but rather they are the void, which we perceive like the pen would perceive the holes in paper.

 

What I am trying to say is that if you can touch something its because it is not real, you cannot seperate youself from reality, therefore you cannot perciebably react with it because you are within it, almost like if you are wearing a blindfold you cannot see the blindfold, but if a third-party were to look at you it would be obvious you are wearing a blindfold.

 

Unlike atoms waves cannot exist in the same place at the same time because once two waves intersect they are no longer the same two waves, but one completely different wave, even though in certain configurations they make immediately break up apart again and become identical to the previous 2 waves.

 

-

Thank you for reading. I hope you see this is something more than mere semantics of what is/is not "real". Perhaps my biggest argument here is that atoms are not the real, but rather they are the void.

-Daz

Edited October 18, 2011 by dazdaryl

[finster]

So if I may summarize: Whether something is something or nothing is dependent on what is interacting with it and perceiving it? In other words, Existence is relative to what you are or relativity applied to existence.

 

This is very close to something I have been working on diagrams for recently. Mine is a little different in that I'm leaning toward things, ultimately and in actuality, don't exist whereas you seem to still maintain that things exist.

 

I will post my diagrams in a new thread when I have finished them.

[The Observer]

They might say paradoxical, but I've never heard anything called contradictory.