Yes, you got me right. But the wave can BEND, just as spokes on a bicycle wheel would bend. But if the particle center reached the speed of affect, the spinning wave could no longer spin at all, even bent. If it can’t spin, it can no longer hold together as a particle and it would have to disperse as merely a radiation.
A photon spins only the plane perpendicular to its travel, thus it can remain an “object” (half-particle), but it behaves as merely a wave in the direction of travel because it is not tumbling, but merely spinning laterally. the photon has no inertia in the direction of travel yet could not be moved sideways any easier than any particle of similar size.
Is that better? I wasn’t intending to imply that nothingness ever actually existed.
But doesn’t the speed in that perpendicular direction add up to the speed of the spin itself?
Well, it might be good to find a word for it which really does describe what you mean. I can’t see how matter is formed from the notion of nothingness either… I’m not sure that is better.
I don’t mean to be annoying, but it’s a good theory, so it deserves proper terms.
I’m not sure what you are asking with that. I really need pictures in my explanation.
Try to imagine a bicycle wheel spinning but also traveling in space along the direction of is axle, not rolling on the ground, and both spinning and traveling at the maximum speed anything could travel (for whatever reason right now). If half of the tire were painted black and the other half white, the wheel would display a pretty good likeness to a traveling photon wave.
But then to cause that to become an inertial particle, merely bump the wheel such as to cause it to tumble at the maximum speed while it is still spinning. It will then have a 3D spin.
Now if the tire had been traveling at the maximum speed possible for anything to travel, when it began to tumble, it could no longer travel in the direction it was traveling at the same maximum speed, else it would not be able to tumble because some part of the tire, at all times, would have to be going faster than the axle along that trajectory.
If it were impossible for the spokes of the tire to bend at all, even the tiniest bit - 100.0% solid, then once the wheel began to tumble, it would not be able to be moved in any direction at all. It would be frozen in space. Nothing could move it except to break it or slow its spin.
Well as I was just explaining on another thread, articulation is a problem of mine.
What I mean is to say that by the reasoning shown through the article, an assumption that nothing might have existed at any time, would lead to the logical conclusion that waves of affectance and particles of matter must form even without anything else being present. That is to say, as the article points out, that at no time could there ever have actually been a state of nothingness. It is logically impossible. Thus from the notion of nothingness, if we apply merely logic, we see that indeed there cannot be a nothingness, but instead, particles of matter. I’m not sure what word would relay that idea.
IMHO the bicycle tyre isn’t a good analogy James. I think you’d be better of talking about a 511keV photon as a wave travelling linearly at c, and then mention pair production and describe an electron as a 511keV wave going round and round at c, then bring in the circles and helixes.
I read the OP and thuoght, yes, that sounds pretty good apart from our difference regarding the existence of the universe itself. But I must say that IMHO the word “affectance” doesn’t read too well. I can imagine you’re quite attached to this word, but do consider downplaying it, maybe by using the word “effect” and switching to energy fairly early on. I’ve had a shot at this as a demo, see what you think:
You could maybe talk about gravitational time dilation at this point.
Now I get it.
That’s what I was wondering, it is possible to slow spin down?
I see, you were speaking in a context of language. I interpreted it as a statement in the context of physicality.
Obviously ‘the notion of nothingness’ is a linguistic departure point, not a physical one.
As I see it the whole ‘notion of nothingness’ should not be present in your argumentation, given that:
and that in fact we have no notion of nothingness.
Perhaps it suffices for me to understand that the notion of nothingness is self-contradictory. I don’t know if I’m creating the problems in your text or if they are really there.
Well, maybe its one of those Limy things, but in my circles, we try not to conflate “Effect” with “Affect”.
Effect == the End result
Affect == the Act upon
Or perhaps I should just used the word “influence” and “mutual influence”.
Unfortunately, I find that physicists of today, being merely bible-thumpers of another bible, instantly jump into related bible verses, that is… formulas, and don’t realize that energy merely means influence, even if you tell them, over and over and over. So I mention that affectance (influence) means the same as their “energy”, but I don’t get into trying to make it clear that I am really talking about influence, not that formula variable from their bibles. But yeah, maybe gradually moving from one to the other word might be good. I am making quite a few wording changes on the site. Articulation is my weakness.
“So if energy moves at a finite speed, what would that speed be? It would be the speed from which all other speed is measured for it is the speed of affect, the speed at which things happen, the only absolute speed logically possible.”
I like that wording.
I’m not sure why you want to leave photon spin out of the discussion and introduce pair production…? That would seem to confuse the issue to me.
In the case of a photon spin, definitely not. The wave is the speed of affect/influence/energy-propagation that propagation speed is self regulated and thus it determines all else, not the other way around.
The propagation of affect is the “Go-spell” that creates all things.
Well, actually I had a slight ulterior motive for that.
“I thought about from where it all came. How from nothingness did all of this universe appear? And then Logic spoke to me and the light shone upon affect and how it matters into all things.”
To exist, something has to exist with respect to something else, “mutual affect/influence”. What other entity could the entire universe as a while exist with respect to? Or did you want to bring God into this?
James: maybe it’s just that “affectance” doesn’t seem to convey action, as in Planck’s constant of action h in E=hf. I quite like affect and effect, but not affectance, because it’s not familiar. I see it’s mentioned in wireless networks though, good old google. The photon spin thing was because it wasn’t clear to Jakob. It can be tricky to pitch things right to get the meaning across without missing out too much or making things too complicated. Looking at your post above, I’d say don’t forget impedance Z0 = √(μ0/ε0).
It’s quite an interesting one. Take the universe as a whole, and ask yourself if it affects anything else. The answer is no, because there isn’t anything else. But the universe does exist. It’s maybe interesting that the entymology of the word existence stems from “to stand out”, see existence. Or maybe not, but I sometimes toy with the idea that we are made of difference. And maybe I should stick to physics.
The Universe is a conceptual construction, our name that denotes everything - except maybe, for the sake of argument, God. In which case, we define a Universe’ which means the Universe plus God - and what does that stand in relation to?
Affectance would actually relate to the “f”, not the “h” in that equation, but I can accept that to some people it might give too much pause.
But to the casual reader, the brakes immediately lockup when anyone presents an equation. Technical readers don’t have very much trouble because they are used to slowly analyzing each sentence. Typically, my writing is too dense at it is, if I casually throw in equations, it gets to be much too dense (requiring serious concentration). Granted if I were trying to convince a skeptical physicist, which is usually where you spend most of your time, I should word things in very technical terms. And if I introduce impedance, I have to justify from where it came and what it truly means.
What I liked most in your rewrite was that in certain instances, you expanding the wording a bit, making it flow much easier.
But don’t get me wrong, I very much appreciate your scrutiny of the wording. As I said, articulation is a talent that I lost years ago. I seriously need a writer who can comprehend exactly what I am trying to say and rewrite it in easier, more eloquent English (and graphics would help a LOT).
The “universe” does NOT “exist”, as odd as that sounds. We typically say that the universe exists because we are thinking that it exists to us or to any other person or object and in that regard, we are right to think that. But we are actually thinking of the person as separate from all else when we make that kind of thought and forget, or often do not realize, that existence merely means to have affect/influence upon something. So very technically speaking, and very precisely, the universe as a whole, actually does NOT exist. It is a metaphysics issue (meta- “beyond” the minds of physicists ).
That is one of those “intellectual masturbation” issues common amongst diehard philosophers, pedantically annoying, and of absolutely zero practical value, yet there t is with an logical answer contrary to intuition.
Yet Farsighted reason for asking the question is relevant.
If The Universe positively exists in the same way that its components exist (i.e. if it is “affectance”), then it must affect something outside of itself.
There are several forms of argument that bring us to this conclusion, not only with RM:AO. The Universe can not both be “a whole” and “all there is”. If the universe is all there is, it must be open ended; i.e. a concept rather than a physical “object” or even situation.
That is how you can know that it is infinite:
Infinite = “open ended”.
It tells of what must have been in order for there to be what is.
It tells of what must be in order to achieve what is yet to be.
Past and future.
Although it would be nice if it could reveal more of the present.
It is a more real science and of use for the same reasons.
There you go again with the frickin’ false dichotomies. As if there is a special degree that only philosophers can get, and physicists, not. A secret metaphysical handshake that only designer ontologists know.
You can turn a physicist into a philosopher in fifteen minutes (if he isn’t already a better philosopher than you), but turning a philosopher into a physicist takes years. If there were ever anything ‘beyond the mind’, that mind would probably belong to a philosopher sooner than a physicist, I’d think.
You oughta see how Hawking puts philosophers on blast in a couple of his older books. He ain’t pulling any punches.
[-o<
).