The Laws of the Universe

[Robin]

So Hume argues that there is no link between cause and effect? That they are simply constantly-repeating chance relations of two occurrences?

No, he argues that there is no deductive basis for the concept of cause and effect, also that we don't observe cause and effect, we simply observe succession of events and infer cause and effect.

 

[Nonpareil]

No, he argues that there is no deductive basis for the concept of cause and effect, also that we don't observe cause and effect, we simply observe succession of events and infer cause and effect.

Okay, thanks.

 

[Nonpareil]

Perhaps the whole thing is a matter of semantics. Perhaps if you rephrased the term "laws of the universe" as "properties of the universe" all the emotinal baggage and connotaions called up by the word "laws" could be sidesteped.

Hmm. I may have to try that.

 

[maatorc]

1 - Energy, as the power to do and work, IS the Universe.
2 - The Universal energy spectrum of vibrations IS the Universe at work.
3 - The spectrum is unlimited.
4 - The entire spectrum is universally ubiquitous.
5 - The primary particle arising from the vibrations of the spectrum is the Electron.
6 - As a universal law, electrons are of two types, those vibrating evenly, and those vibrating unevenly.
7 - Electrons vibrating evenly attract and combine with those vibrating unevenly, and repel those vibrating evenly.
8 - As a universal law, vibration ranges of manifestation within the spectrum operate within doubling and halving groups of octaves of perception from touch through electromagnetic, visible light, to gamma rays and above.
9 - Universal Mind operating as universal energy is universally ubiquitous.

 

[Beerina]

I view the "constants of the universe" as being "set to yield life" being far more likely, which isn't saying much, to indicate we're a simulated/toy world of advanced minds than we are to be a construct of some "god" creature.

After all, if that premise is true, then that we're some experiment/playground of real creatures not much different from us (if at all) is exceedingly more parsimonious than a mystical "god" existing.

 

[Dancing David]

1 - Energy, as the power to do and work, IS the Universe.
2 - The Universal energy spectrum of vibrations IS the Universe at work.
3 - The spectrum is unlimited.

Oh, how disappointing, You haven't heard of the infrared disater?

You also have the order of the speheres all messed up.

4 - The entire spectrum is universally ubiquitous.
5 - The primary particle arising from the vibrations of the spectrum is the Electron.

Wrong 28,29,16,17

6 - As a universal law, electrons are of two types, those vibrating evenly, and those vibrating unevenly.
7 - Electrons vibrating evenly attract and combine with those vibrating unevenly, and repel those vibrating evenly.

Oh my, you don't get it do you, a down quark is not an up quark plus an Electron.
There are 6x2x2+4or5=16 or 17 base particles.

Your teachers have failed you again.

8 - As a universal law, vibration ranges of manifestation within the spectrum operate within doubling and halving groups of octaves of perception from touch through electromagnetic, visible light, to gamma rays and above.

No there are the resonances of the particles, but EM forces are arranged in the spectrum.

Um it has been a while since i read Strange Beauty, but you are wrong about the doubling.

9 - Universal Mind operating as universal energy is universally ubiquitous.

Nice word salad Maatorc, not only did your teachers fail you, you fail you.

If you want to combine physics and mysticism, you need the four fundamentdal forces at least
strong, weak, e-m, gravity
fermions: leptons (6x2), quarks(6x2)
bosons: four gauge (photons, W,Z and gluons) and the potential Higgs

so we have 6x2,6x2,4/5
so if we collapse the antipartcles, we have 6+6+4 or 5= 16 or 17.

These are of course just the base resonances, exclduing the Strange Beauty of Gell-Mann and others.

I do not fault you but again, you need better teachers, this material, including the mysteries is all available, and they still got it wrong.

 

[maatorc]

Oh, how disappointing, You haven't heard of the infrared disater?
(Did you mean 'disaster'?)......

If you want to explain the Universe by quantum physics you need to understand it is but a 'current' perception, and judged at the highest level of cosmological scholarship as not a real candidate for a 'final theory': Its 'particle' creation seems open-ended!.
It is very clever and very helpful and useful, but is unlikely to survive this century as serious 'science'.

 

[Dancing David]

If you want to explain the Universe by quantum physics you need to understand it is but a 'current' perception, and judged at the highest level of cosmological scholarship as not a real candidate for a 'final theory': Its 'particle' creation seems open-ended!.
It is very clever and very helpful and useful, but is unlikely to survive this century as serious 'science'.

Considering you ignore the evidence and drivel about Electron when there are 12 basic partciles and four gauge bosons, just means that you understanding of physics is as poor as your understanding of the mysteries.

I blame your teachers, they must be scoundrels and laughing at you behind your back.

Your mish mosh of delusions is holding you back, your alleged teachers are far from explaining reality, much less understanding it.

Four basic forces Maatorc, not one. The electron will not make the W,Z force carriers either, nor will it make anything other than itself.

But please shame the name of Maat longer. (Darn shame that.)

Your lack of theory is amazing, please tell us why the particles have the energy levels that they do?

How does the doubling work in your mystery of emptyness?

So how does the pairs of electrons explain the mass of the proton?

 

[maatorc]

Considering ...... proton?

Your babyish derisory drivel identifies you as one I do not speak to: End of discussion.

 

[yy2bggggs]

maatorc:

Do you have any evidence for this electron theory?

 

[Dancing David]

Your babyish derisory drivel identifies you as one I do not speak to: End of discussion.

i see, when confronted with your lack of knowledge you run away?

I still blame your teachers and it is a darn shame Mattorc.

You are wrong about physics and they lied to you about the mysteries.

It is not baby drivel to point out that you can't build the world we see out of electrons and that you can't predict the mass of the proton.

But your 'secret masters' are scoundrels and they are abusing you. Turn your back on them. If they knew the truth they would not hide, and you would know it because they would not hide. Yet they hide and pretend. And you are abused.

Test them, challenge them, exert your freedom to choose. Why do they hide? The mysteries CAN NOT be abused, they have no such power and they are lying to you.

They hide because they are bad teachers. They either encourage you in foolishness, or feed you foolishness.

I swear this by the stars, my sacred heart and my sacred tounge. If they were true teachers they would not hide. The mysteries are what they are, they are available to all, they are seen by all, many turn away from them, but they are open and not hidden.

 

[dlorde]

Hmm. I may have to try that.

It seems to me that these people are deliberately interpreting the semantics of the terms you use in the least appropriate way, and criticising your argument as meaningless or invalid on that basis. A subtle straw man. Using this, ridicule, and superciliousness, they hope to frustrate and humiliate you and boost their own egos. I doubt you can make them question their assumptions.

 

[Nonpareil]

It seems to me that these people are deliberately interpreting the semantics of the terms you use in the least appropriate way, and criticising your argument as meaningless or invalid on that basis. A subtle straw man. Using this, ridicule, and superciliousness, they hope to frustrate and humiliate you and boost their own egos. I doubt you can make them question their assumptions.

I hope that's the case, as the alternative is that I'm making a complete and total *** of myself.

 

[Terry]

Oh, how disappointing, You haven't heard of the infrared disater?

What is the infrared disaster? Is it related to the Ultraviolet catastrophe^WP ?

 

[Malerin]

It seems to me that these people are deliberately interpreting the semantics of the terms you use in the least appropriate way, and criticising your argument as meaningless or invalid on that basis. A subtle straw man. Using this, ridicule, and superciliousness, they hope to frustrate and humiliate you and boost their own egos. I doubt you can make them question their assumptions.

The skeptics here aren't that bad.

 

[Dancing David]

What is the infrared disaster? Is it related to the Ultraviolet catastrophe^WP ?

I was sooooooooo wrong.
Oh man i knew I should have looked that up! Um... no! It is an obscure doctrine of Negatory Nabobs.

 

[maatorc]

maatorc: Do you have any evidence for this electron theory?

Quantum Mechanics and the Electron.

QM calls ‘quarks’ elementary particles, but they never exist separately.
Quarks can just as easily be understood as composite particles comprised of electron clusters.

Atomic nuclei can just as easily be understood as consisting of electron clusters comprising protons.
In QM there are too many so-called elementary particles.
The standard model is too complicated to qualify as the true unified understanding of the universe.

As a grand unification QM is seen at the highest level as not entirely satisfactory as it suffers from many problems of interpretation and fails to provide an answer why there are 3 rather than just 1 or even 999 particles.

Although a part of modern theory of particles, quarks and gluons never emerge directly or in isolation.

An accurate agreement between calculation and experiment in QM is not evidence that the theory must be the literal description of the physical world. The theory of electron clusters, as found for example in subatomic expansion cosmology, is seen as an alternative explanation of the QM multiple elementary particles concept. Whatever explanation is sought, for any observation, it is possible to find an abstraction to model it.
With the electron as the one-only subatomic particle in the universe, protons and neutrons are subatomic objects composed of many hundreds of electrons.
Quarks are smaller sub-groups of electrons.
A positron is seen as a particle with the same mass as an electron but with a positive charge.

Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks composed of electrons.

QM will continue to excellently ‘explain’ the physical world even though it does not identify quarks as electron clusters, and the electron as the one only particle type in the universe.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Quantum Mechanics and the Electron.

QM calls ‘quarks’ elementary particles, but they never exist separately.

Sure they do. They just don't tend to exist separately under lower energies.

Quarks can just as easily be understood as composite particles comprised of electron clusters.
Atomic nuclei can just as easily be understood as consisting of electron clusters comprising protons.

Can you show me how?

In QM there are too many so-called elementary particles.

Too many for what?

The standard model is too complicated to qualify as the true unified understanding of the universe.

I'm confused. I don't understand why this is relevant. The claim that an electron is a fundamental particle is indeed simpler, but:

• I don't understand why the unified model needs to be simple
• I don't understand why, if the unified model were simple, electrons would be the fundamental unit

As a grand unification QM is seen at the highest level as not entirely satisfactory as it suffers from many problems of interpretation and fails to provide an answer why there are 3 rather than just 1 or even 999 particles.

Sure... the standard model is incomplete. I can buy that.

Although a part of modern theory of particles, quarks and gluons never emerge directly or in isolation.

Not sure what you mean by "emerge" here.

An accurate agreement between calculation and experiment in QM is not evidence that the theory must be the literal description of the physical world.

I'm not sure what you mean by "literal description", but this finally gets into the realm of philosophy.

I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "literal description". Descriptions will always remain descriptions, and there will necessarily be a intension/extension dichotomy. At best you can only get levels of understanding of the fundamentals in the mind.

The theory of electron clusters, as found for example in subatomic expansion cosmology, is seen as an alternative explanation of the QM multiple elementary particles concept.

But this is passive tense. "The theory ... is seen as". That doesn't sound to me like reason to believe this particular theory.

Whatever explanation is sought, for any observation, it is possible to find an abstraction to model it.

Sure.

With the electron as the one-only subatomic particle in the universe, protons and neutrons are subatomic objects composed of many hundreds of electrons.
Quarks are smaller sub-groups of electrons.
A positron is seen as a particle with the same mass as an electron but with a positive charge.

Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks composed of electrons.

QM will continue to excellently ‘explain’ the physical world even though it does not identify quarks as electron clusters, and the electron as the one only particle type in the universe.

Okay, and again, this is simpler, but I don't see how this establishes that it's true. So far, it appears that your argument is that the standard model is complicated, and your model is simpler. But I don't see why your model is particularly suggested by evidence. What about the muon neutrino (which has a fraction of the mass of an electron)? And what about the fractional charges of quarks? I can easily see that there could be a more fundamental, simpler theory, but I can't see how its fundamental particle can be an electron.

If QM explains everything fairly well, you should at a minimum be able to map from the electron theory to the standard model, perhaps even with testable implications. But even if not, the mapping should be possible.

 

[Dancing David]

 

[maatorc]

Sure they do. ...... the mapping should be possible.

The subject is so vast we could talk for ever.
This discussion, there are others of course, on the electron concept may interest you: < http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=1581126018 >.
I will finish here as I do not want the question of a fundamental particle to hijack the thread.