Concept of Duality

[ProKeymaster]

Concept of Duality

Concept of Duality in nature

illuminati – ‘Concept of Duality in nature’

Hi all, I’m a currently a college physics student trying to develop my own “theory of everything”.

I’ve been trying to solve the riddle of duality in nature but have been unsuccessful due to limited academics. So far I’ve only taken basic modern physics class and with ideas I’ve learnt I tried to connect religion and language.

I’ve attached an incomplete paper regarding my philosophical inquiry. I know this might not make sense because its not filled with complex mathematics but with simple geometry, but you guys can help me out and point if I’m going in wrong direction.

Please give me honest opinion and don’t be sarcastic as I’ve already mentioned that my academics are limited. However, I’m glad that I’ve at least tried.

P.S. since I was unable to upload my paper I asked admin (Pro) to upload my paper under this thread. This paper is incomplete and I’ll go on including this concept in my own version of “theory of everything” as I progress academically in my mathematics. Thank you.

leroyperez2 – ‘Re: Concept of Duality in nature’

Hi all I am not getting the concept of Duality in nature, as I am little bit weak in Physics, so it will be nice if you could explain me it in detail.

Pro – ‘Concept_of_Duality’

Concept_of_Duality is a physics paper uploaded by user illuminati…[URL]http://www.fprotheory.com/math/PhysicsPapers/Concept_of_Duality.pdf[/URL].

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Good job Illuminati. As zero is, so too are we and all that is or is not. I used Vesica Pisces as the symbol to describe your left/right brain with the middle as the connection analogy.

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Vesica_Piscis.svg[/IMG] but over all we have been speaking of the same Idea + – 0 not one but all three as the whole idea.

My past life is here [URL=”http://www.fprotheory.com/showthread.php?t=188″]http://www.fprotheory.com/showthread.php?t=188[/URL]~ Adam.

illuminati – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Hi Adam thank you for your response, Here’s how I extended the concept of my infinite potential to give the relation between the energy and matter in form of flashing light. Please respond if I’m going in right direction thank you.

This was what occurred to me currently while thinking of the concept of duality and string. I was looking at the lecture by Garret Lisi on E8 structure of particle distribution and found out that we’ll be able to find the missing particles if we look into the “infinite potential quantum well” I deduced using basic geometry.

The links that matter wave is connected with antimatter wave by cosmic waves eventually making a symbol zero which represents nothing as discussed by Buddhist religion.

So if the connection zero is represented in form of flashing lights. I.e if light is constantly flashing and we get simultaneous light and dark that is 0 when light is off and 1 when light is on in form of simple binary signals.

Its like you’re in matter world when light is off and in “enlightened” state when you are in where light is on. So the cosmic wave link between matter and anti matter wave gives rise to matter when the geometric figure is zero and lightened state is when they annihilate to form light.

So this can be in form of vibration of string from “somethingness” to “nothingness” constantly.

But if we think how exactly these vibrations of whole system works, we relate this to the missing particles or the hidden cosmic rays or “lifetrons: the particles that give life to living organisms” , that enter through the potential wells through different channel, mostly black holes and pass through the virtual portal from our skulls into our brain basically suggesting our brain that we’re alive by vibrating the basic sub atomic particles in our body or body of any matter object.

This happens so fast that we’re alternately living in an absolute quantum state because we constantly see matter and light at the same time, i.e. when we look into the surroundings”.

Hence when many physicist against string theory say “what exactly is vibrating when there is nothing to vibrate?”, but I say the state of matter and anti matter is vibrating from existence to non existence (which produces pure energy in form of light).

This is linked to Schroedinger’s “dead and alive cat” there are two possibilities one light energy produced by annihilation and another where linked matter and antimatter world exist, thereby giving only one possibility an instant of time.So I think that every thing is connected by a single string giving the sense of life and matter world. But the undiscovered particle “lifetrons” is the main key to explaining the existence of whole life and matter world.

Looking at my geometric figure you might say what’s the guarantee that cosmic waves link matter and anti matter world in a form of symbol zero, we can link that opposite poles attract, that is the cosmic waves are bent where the field of strength of these two world are the strongest it bends the most and least where there is none, i.e. like the wave linking two poles of these two magnets placed side by side in a three dimensional spaces.

And the channel through which this two world are linked might be black holes where the wave’s space time gets curved and the waves are thrown out into infinite potential until caught in the field of anti matter world.Similarly if we link Einstein’s e=mc^2 formula to this thought, the matter world in which we are is constantly changing from matter to energy(light) and vice versa like a flashing light.

First there is matter and antimatter world when the geometry is ‘0’ and the force of attraction between them gets very big then they attract each other to give out light in third dimension 90 degrees outside the plane where ‘0’ disappears to give symbol ‘1’ (this is just an imagination).

Each interval of time inside the quantum worlds is a infinitesimal section of a sine wave of light and cosine wave of matter and superimposing with each other to amount to zero wave hints at the void world. I exactly don’t know what this void world is but some religion say that this system of nature is “void” and everything in this world is made up of one single string maybe called “lifetrons” which might explain this but my work is still in progress.

I hope to get some more concepts and mathematical equation of my work.

illuminati – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Haha just realized where the concept of “Let there be light and there was everything came” from my hypothesis above and also Adammedici, I think you explained the transfer of cosmic energy in my matter and anti-matter well by your hypothesis of “vacuum creating energy” in “Giving God a name” thread. Thanks.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Hmmm where to start. First I would preface whatever I say with a deep truth: all that matters is what you think. Too many philosophers/mathematicians/scientists have been dissuaded from innovation because of the intolerance so called superiors may have towards new ways of thinking.

Are you going in the right direction? I think so, but without a test to prove it or an equation to quantify it; so far as the scientific mind is concerned it is one of a long list of possibilities.

I opened a fortune cookie yesterday that told me the trick to having people comprehend what you say is by keeping it short and Simple. I realized this was no ordinary cookie… Explaining the Universe/God in a short and simple way is quite hard even if it is made as simple as Pro’s theory +, – , 0.

I think you will know if you are going in the right direction when you can simplify your idea into an equation an inch long. But when you get to that zero which IS the universal constant and which you HAVE identified in your paper (which means you have evolved passed the minds of the limited) the respected scientific community rejects it outright.

They (physicists) tend to not like zero’s because it confirms the infinite exists.

I regard this as putting a limit on your mind. If you accept that you are part of something infinite you have nothing to ever fear, and know there is nothing that is impossible. If you can not except infinities then you are putting your mind in a prison and giving it boarders and walls that it can never surpass ~Adam.

illuminati – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

You are absolutely right Adam, I’m still an 3rd year undergraduate student and question of quantifying my hypothesis by equation might be limited due to my limited courses in Mathematics.

However, the thing you talked about down here:(“If you accept that you are part of something infinite you have nothing to ever fear, and know there is nothing that is impossible”) might be verified by little probability.

For example: Consider a spider inside a room at any point in space. Quantum mechanics says there is infinite possibility of finding that spider at any point in space inside that room.

So the probability becomes P=1/∞, which is equal to 0. so ∞ probability is basically equal to zero explaining the void world. Also i was listening to the lecture of Roger Penrose on series of multiple big bangs.

So might this be related to my flash light hypothesis that annihilation (when light is on i.e. 1) explained in my diagram is the point of singularity whereby energy is changing into matter and anti-matter (which most physicist explain as big bang) and when the two wells are expanding creating “vacuum energy” as you explained they are attracted again to annihilate and this phenomenon continuing for infinite number of time??

Well give me your feedback. I’ll keep you updated on my work. Illuminati.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Thanks. While I have read your paper several times I am still a bit of a neophyte on some of it however, the most important diagram I saw (and one of the simplest) was the second one showing wave and anti-wave. This is called destructive interference and is a phenomena of all waves hence all energy.

If you consider those two waves as a part of a whole system, that whole system is three parts made up of two waves. This is very illogical via 2=3.

But it is true, the system is made up of wave and anti-wave and together the two waves cancel. So the whole system is Zero, wave, and anti-wave all at the same time….. 0,+,-. haha Pro again.

But this can be explained with the Vesica Pisces symbol I use as well…. What I’m trying to say is that Pro, You, and I (as well as all who’ve taken on zero) are all trying to say the same thing in different ways.

It is very cool that three people with separate lives to have all found the same idea and came to the same conclusion. And we all have met via our interest/obsession with this one phenomena. Perhaps we aren’t so separate after all. ~Adam.

illuminati – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Just watched Roger Penrose’s before the big bang video on YouTube and he talks about the idea I proposed in form of superimposing waves using cosmology way before I did. I was real pissed that my hypothesis has already been proven. haha.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Penrose? It dates much farther back than Roger Penrose, check out Georg Cantor in the late 1800’s. Or Archimedes who dates pre 200 B.C.

flammableeye – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

Just have to completely agree 🙂

uponit_12 – ‘Re: Concept_of_Duality’

[quote=Pro;1087]Concept_of_Duality is a physics paper uploaded by user illuminati…

I will make my response brief concerning problematic content or misinformation in your article posted in this forum. I will preface this by stating that I as a general rule I live by the motto question everything like many others, and therefore encourage others to do the same, and having said that even with some disagreement regarding some of your conclusions I think it is great that you take the time to actually think outside of the traditional box of acceptance which virtually everyone falls into.

Ignoring the religious context in the article, which creates more problems for your argument than benefits you may think it adds. Theoretical study which is often combined with experimental observation and analysis does not in any way work towards the support or negation of religious ideology, but if one is making assertions towards science, math, etc…

Which may stem from anything presented in the religious arena, you have now tried to validate the methods of study in science with opinion, perceived revelation, or hearsay, and the two absolutely do not mix, true or not.Back to disregarding this as a basis for duality, and addressing the problematic content. I will only mention one aspect of your approach in order to cut down content.

Concerning your observations on the atom and electron duality, annihilation, skin the portion of your document is clear now. What do we know about the atom, electron, protons, and neutrons (excluding the smaller particle existence)?

Well in order to make any assertions concerning the nature of electron movement or Heisenberg, the atom must resemble the hydrogen atom and deviations and exclusion from these general rules will apply for all other multi-atomic particles. We know that the hydrogen atom weighs ~1.008g, the proton weighs ~1.6e-27 kg, and the electron weighs ~9.9e-31 kg. Electron radii is ~e-22m and proton radii ~8e-15m.

While the proton does indeed on occasion have a complimentary anti-proton, typically the electron is the mediating balance of reactivity in either direction depending on which has greater quantity. A case addressing your assertion, assume you have a hydrogen atom with one proton and one electron.

To start with you do not have duality as the electron and proton number is variable and you are just as likely to have H+ and H- or H2 for that matter (even though they are not chemically equivalent).

Now assuming you have a solution of only Hydrogen atoms with each having equal numbers of protons and electrons (not real) so that you can actually determine what might happen if UV was to strike some electron in the mixture (this is a rare occurrence and therefore a small number of electrons are actually affected in the solution, as determined from measurement) it is assumed, or seems to be obvious, that the path of the electron with be ever so slightly modified.

If perhaps the energy level is just right, not too high or low) then the atom might release a proton (perhaps in the form of light) and this light or lack of can be measured. A very small number of the hydrogen atoms are now H- (for equality assumes some are H+ too) does this show that the hydrogen atoms are now less?

The answer is no. You perhaps have lost a value in the order of e-27kg per proton which by itself is 1800 times smaller than the atom itself. It might seem to be a process which gradually decreases the value of the hydrogen atoms which come into contact with the UV light but this is not true, even in a closed system where the water in the air will readily donate a proton if needed.

No matter what the equilibrium or number of protons and electrons in a system will never change, even if you consider protons can become neutrons and vice-versa (short periods of time). You have not decreased anything or annihilated anything. For no matter what the counter reaction to any reaction is happening with equal periodicity to the reaction under observation.

The exact effect the UV has on the trajectory of the electron has not ever been measured and unless something miraculous comes into existence it never will be, and so you have people like Heisenberg stating that there must be a duality and statistical analysis shows this movement to generate deviation in concurrent measurements of varying observables to be too great in extent for reliable results to be obtained.

A video you posted which makes not of this and the relevancy to the wavelength indicates you have read some about it, but also shows you do not understand the nature of combining the experimental evidence with the theoretical predictions is impossible when it comes to electron location in real-time, there really is only experimental observation and the formulas for which this could be understood have already been created.

You assumed that this might seem contradictory, and others have as well including myself at one point, but this is not true. While it may not have been clear to the founders of Quantum Mechanics as to what the electron was doing, it has since become reality and the probability density diagrams have easily shown where the electron travels and the probability of where it may be at any one time.

Of course you already know how this defies your interpretation of the Heisenberg Principle. All he had to contribute to this was to say that once the measurement had occurred applying it to the wave functions we currently know and use would only yield the value for one observable at a time, and no matter the triviality of the time increment imposed on the subsequent observation the value (even if it happened to be the same electron, which is impossible) would not be the same as if it had been the observable being calculated the first time with the data from the first measurement.

An unavoidable problem with the modern understanding of Quantum Mechanics, and the methods used to produce experimental data. As for you interpretation of the duality in reference to the Schroedinger wave function for analysis of the wave nature of particles, and the Heisenberg Matrices method of analysing the particle nature of a particle (odd but the only way to say it which is currently used).

There are some problems in his theory and some have been brave enough to try and publish something to that end, but unfortunately the common consensus if you make a discovery like the duality theory being false and even go so far as to develop another one, no one cares unless you do all the leg work for them and reform every other equation based on them as well. This is unfortunate but true.

Duality has been successfully argued as non-existent by several individuals with respect to Quantum Mechanics. One such site is: [url]http://milesmathis.com/index.html[/url] you will find this site very interesting if you like to questions things, and believe one large problem is conformity to prescribed methods of thinking and observation.

He in a way copies (among other things) the fact that duality has problems based in the fact that you have tried to apply a Cartesian coordinate system, or any other coordinate system to it for that matter. By doing such a thing you have now lost the actual importance of the particles position and location.

Assuming the particle occupies a position zero at any time relevant to itself and every other particle in the real world holds this very same property. Only analysis which would allow all points of view of this particle can bring the coordinate system into correctness.

Example let’s say you have a hydrogen atom and you hit it with UV and the machine makes the appropriate measurement of the light passing through, or actually the lack of light. What is wrong with this is that you have now assumed that the hydrogen atom is some distance from the source and you can only measure what happens within that coordinate system as a consequence.

If you do not see the fallacy in this perspective, you should read the article on his site concerning the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and you will see the problem and the resolution to such train of thought, which also unfortunately creates problems which your argument cannot cope with.

You should be able to read over the various things he has posted on his site some with mathematics and some without and learn a much more thorough and full proof method for making assertions like you have.Lastly, when making an assertion like yours regarding atoms and light, comparing it to skin at that point destroyed your original assertion by reason of relevance and scope of argument.

Quantum Mechanics cannot even be mentioned in the same sentence as anything occupying a system outside the boundaries of its perceived relevance. If you can find a way to do this a Nobel Prize is waiting for you.

Furthermore the argument on skin is incredibly shallow and lacking any real scientific evidence to make clear the reasons why you make the claim, and how it is shown to be true. Simply claiming the sun is destructive to the epidermis is not a viable means of argument, because the reason it is left out along with the actual consequence which you claim to be destructive, and the subsequent reason that such a consequence can be interpreted as being detrimental.

Anyway, that is might attempt at bring an issue to duality, there are others, and hopefully it makes since, and was detailed enough to follow.

[Author]

Posts