E = mc2

The most famous equation in this Universe and all Universes, known or unknown. What is the physical interpretation of Al's equation? Or should I say De Pretto's equation? There once lived an obscure Italian industrialist/engineer who derived and marveled over "Einstein's" equation a couple of years before Al's so called annus mirabilis. His full name is Olinto De Pretto. He wrote an article translated "Hypothesis of Aether in the Life of the Universe" published in 1903 where he derived and played with the famous E = mc2; using the symbol v to represent velocity of light instead of c. This he did independent of general relativity. Few if anyone give De Pretto a nod of credit.  But this is for another discussion. (here is a link to his original Italian article where one can see E = mv2 used more than a few times).

What is E = mc2 physical significance? To me it is a boring and forgettable equation that is way overrated. This is forgettable compared to the 'magic' of some other equations like Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics, or the math expression of the fine structure constant. How do I interpret this equation? It is a top-down equation. It describes nothing about the fundamental nature or constitution of matter. This is implied in the equation or read into it. One need understand the fundamental constitution and relation of matter first, before one can interpret the same in this equation.

Also, E = mc2 does not imply that energy is converted into matter. This is nonsense. A concept (energy) cannot change into an object or a set of objects (matter)

Definitions & Reflections

E refers to an object's capacity to do work, specifically the mode of work we call light, or radiation which is performed by atoms and all objects comprised of atoms.

m refers to an object's inertial mass.

velocity of light squared refers to all atoms of the Universe constantly sending and receiving light signals to and from all atoms via an object, that has form, supposedly exists and serves as a nexus and constituent of all atoms.

E = mc2 is a sort of static potential equation. It is a general principle equation. It states the obvious once one understands the constitution of matter. There is no real magic here.

Following Gaede's physics, I see that the profundity of the equation lies in the physical interpretation of inertial mass which is perhaps implied but not explained in this equation. Inertial mass refers to an object's resistance to being pushed or pulled by objects in the vicinity. The object's resistance is rooted in all atoms of the Universe performing a constant tension upon that object via a fundamental and intrinsic mediator connecting all atoms, which I might add are in perpetual motion (rest mass is fictitious). The tension is bi-directional. A sort of nudging of atoms by all atoms from all directions in all directions NOT hook line and sinker. This interaction between all atoms is worked by all atoms in the dynamic concept we call light or radiation.

This is Mach's principle to the max. When a star moves its pulls on you. When you move your little pinkie finger . . . you pull on all the stars. When a lone hydrogen atom moves it pulls on all the stars . . . and all stellar atoms pull on it. All atoms are in perpetual motion so there is no end to this tugging. The tension needed to mediate this tug o war is sustained by the atom's work of light mediated by that rectilinear 3D nexus connecting and constituting the same atoms. This nexus is assumed to be a continuous two stranded Thread that is DNA like. Atoms are critically dense matrices of this same Thread.  But back to the point . . . this is why m is related to c2 in the equation. For those who have eyes to see it inertial mass is inseparable from the work of light performed by atoms and the invisible nexus intrinsically connecting all atoms. The relation is simple and profound. C2 refers to an atomic work that is always done, light. So the Energy in the left side of the equation must imply capacity to do the work of light. All E does is calculate an object's capacity to do the work of light, specifically receive and send off light signals.

Furthermore, the velocity of light is significant in that if light signals happened to communicate between atoms at a greater velocity all objects would have a greater inertial mass, and gravitational potential would be greater for the entire network of matter or conceptual Universe.

What is interesting is that the more resistance an object has to being pushed or pulled is proportional to that object's capacity to do the work of light. So a hydrogen atom has a certain inertial mass that is equivalent to its capacity to perform light. A hydrogen atom's inertial mass is less then that of a star. Obviously a star has more capacity for light as one can imagine it is sending out and receiving more light signals than a lone hydrogen atom. So an increase in inertial mass multiplies the amount of light signals an object absorbs and emits, which implies that there are more fundamental connections to all atoms of the Universe in that object. Where else would a light signal go other than to or from an atom? However the payoff for increased light capacity is that it will take more work to push or pull on that object.

A hydrogen atom has less capacity to do light work than cesium atom because it has less permanent as well as potential connections to all the atoms of the Universe. A cesium atom on the other hand has greater capacity to do light work because it has more permanent and potential connections to all the atoms of the Universe.

When work is done to an atom does it ever lose a little inertial mass? I suppose that is possible. Say we send in a neutron and fission a U-235 isotope. They say that after the nuclear reaction the whole system may have lost a little mass. Perhaps this inertial mass was locked up in some temporary critical electron thread densities established in the isotope that participated in light phenomenon, but after fission were dissolved. But essentially the products end up having less inertial mass than the mother isotope because they have less inherent connection to all other atoms in the Universe. And they have less capacity to do the work of light.  However all of the mediators were already present in the fission and simply let go of by the atoms.

E = mc2 has nothing to do with nuclear bombs or nuclear potential energy. This is urban legend, Time magazine b.s. pop/mainstream science or Wikipedia stuff. Nuclear potential energy is distinct from Energy in Al's equation. Nuclear potential energy is locked up in the nucleons extremely close proximity. On the other hand Al's or de Pretto's E = mc2 implies is that certain atoms or objects have more or less potential to complete light phenomenon via a nexus which also serves to maintain inertial mass relation. In nuclear reactions Nature does not literally inject energy or release energy into and out of the system of atoms nor does it lose or gain mass. In a fission an object called a neutron works to break the nuclear bonds and there will be extreme replusions, nuclear and electric mediated by the atoms which in turn will work light, work each other kinetically and ultimately all atoms in the blast radius. In a fusion, atoms or objects such as electron threads or magnetic threads work to crush together say two hydrogen atoms which at a certain distance and in certain circumstances (perhaps in the presence of neutrons) fuse.

Even though an atom, absorbing or emitting light signals may vary it's inertial mass a teenie tiny little because of the dynamics of electrons but E = mc2 implies a relation that is more simple and profound for those who have eyes to see it.

E = mc2 implies a profound physical relation subsuming all atoms of the Universe.  In objects, beginning with the hydrogen atom and ending in the greatest superstar, inertial mass is inseparable from the work of light performed by atoms on the passive mediators of light intrinsically connecting all atoms.  The totality of this work which never ends is abstracted and symbolically represented by E on the left side of Al's or De Pretto's equation.  

Non-Locality

I parsed emeritus professor John W. Moffat's book, Cracking the Particle Code of the Universe.  The definition he uses is about the same one as one finds on the net. Nonlocality is synonymous with action-at-a-distance. The concept refers to a direct action between two separated objects, say atoms or stars, WITH no perceivable mediator, agent, or nexus or any perceivable mechanism. Notice the word perceivable. Some definitions modify with perceivable and others do not.

Einstein described the quantum non-locality of so called quantum entanglement as "spooky action-at-a-distance". Before him, Newton whined that action-at-a-distance is "so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it". It is only an absurdity if no mediator is supposed to connect the two separated objects that are stated as a matter of fact to be in direct action.

One of the core strengths of EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory is that to attempt to address these issues of non-locality. Direct action between two objects separated at great distances WITHOUT some sort of mediator of a mechanism is irrational. How is an electron that moves in one location suppose to influence the electron across the Universe without some inherent physical connection, mediated by a real object?  Nature doesn't perform miracles like God.  Angels don't mediate atomic electron transition.
So we need to suppose and visualize a nexus, or an agent, or a mediator, that connects these two atoms and make manifest how it works. This mediator must be an object with form. It must have some unique properties like it can superpose with another similar to it. It can wave and yet signal like a particle. Even two mainstream boson sparticles, are suppose to overlap and share the same quantum state, whatever the hell that means in reality. They supposedly transmit action-at-a-distance and are called force-carriers. These sparticles carry verbs like push and pull. On the other hand two or more fermions supposedly cannot overlap. In Thread Theory we have our own terms like EM Rope, Thread, Critical Thread Density, electron thread, magnetic thread, electric thread, etc. Atoms and stars are already connected by mediators constantly activated by atoms which account for a mechanism. The underlying assumption is that a single closed looped entity underlies all the atoms of the Universe. Matter is a web, and atoms serve as matrices.

Bosons are very roughly like Thread or EM Rope. Fermions are very roughly like Critical Thread Density or derive from a CTD. Thread Theory notions of proton, neutron, electron are completely different then that of mainstream Standard Model. Suppositions and explanations are also somewhat different. Mainstream seems to want to continually divide up a supposed fundamental entity and its similar yet radically distinct opposite in the atom, as well as their actions it into hundreds, even thousands of categories and state these categorical particles as if they were proven fact (when they cannot even be perceived), even going so far as to name one type of particle a 'wino'. Lol . Mainstream also seems to want to treat concepts as objects. Mainstream also tries to thrive off of ambiguous, ill-defined, and irrational concepts such as wave-particle duality, spin-orbit, superposing quantum states. Much of the problem of mainstream modern physics is communication (which individuals and organizations are at fault for).

On the other hand Thread Theory takes a non-pluralistic approach and strives to live up to a clear cut and cutthroat rational analysis and critical thinking. Plurality should not be posited without necessity. Concepts should be clearly defined. One should be able to visualize and give illustrations, make movies, and be ready to answer for them (as lowly and as simple as they maybe). One should be able to provide some reasonable explanation for action-at-a-distance, other than having to circumvent and lead the audience into a maze of literally millions of ill-defined concepts, absurdities and circles. One should be forthright.

It is not as if rigorous modern research, experiment, data-collection, technology, math equations etc. aren't neat and a great starter but someday someone has to start to put the pieces of the puzzle together and try to clearly explain just what the hell is happening. There must be a somewhat reasonable and unified explanation that can be worked out here. Marshaling relevant information provided by all sorts of scientists is important. Brainstorming is very important. Critical thinking and rational analysis is important. Thinking outside the box: important. Understanding the difference between an object and concept is important. Trying to get back to that attitude that you are child-like and detached from fame, status, qualifications, money, etc. is important. Striving to be a sort of like a renaissance man is important. Explanations stand or fall on their own merit. Having a good attitude and not being extreme is important.

Electron Bubbles?

Electron Bubbles

You are creating all the bubbles at night
I'm chasing round trying to pop them all the time
We don't need to trust a single word they say
You are creating all the bubbles at play

--Biffy Clyro, Bubbles

These are my rough brainstorms and I know that my pictures look like garbage, but I'm not going to spend hours on this.

Electron Bubble refers to a concept conceived by mentally-ill quantum mechanics and particle physicists. The referent of 'electron bubble' lacks form, and cannot possibly exist. They are appearances, or patterns conceived from an empirical analysis of the chamber. One could say electron bubble is synonymous with space but this is misleading and ultimately useless.

What roughly happens is 'electron' threads are injected from an electrode into a group of super-cooled helium atoms contained by a metallic canister. In the canister, helium atoms are cooled to what they call a liquid state. This merely refers to a relation of helium atoms where they are just shy of stationary in reference to one another. In other words the helium atoms aren't travelling far in relation to one another like one would except of a gaseous relation. Their relation is more liquid or solid like, but there is no bonding between the atoms.  Just low frequency light signals exchanged between them via EM Threads inherently connecting the Helium atoms to one another.

When a beam of gazillions of electron threads are forced into the canister of super-cooled helium atoms, what happens is that helium atoms wedge the beams, thus splitting the beams into subsets of electron thread and these press against the helium atoms and get redirected in circular, spherical or all sort of patterns between the CETD locations of the helium nuclei. These electron threads form a pattern akin to mishap-pen cocoons. So a cocoon would IMHO be an analog, not bubble. Many countless of these cocoons of electron thread form between the helium atoms and may temporarily separate the helium atoms, a little. The helium atoms in a liquid state contain the electron threads.  However, some electron threads might even tunnel through helium atoms and back through cocoons. Thread is interfaced throughout the canister and worked in all sorts of directions. If the current is kept up some cocoons will push helium atoms aside and appear to move to the bottom. If more electron threads are burst into the chamber more cocoons will temporarily form. If the electron threads of the electrode are induced to burst in at higher speeds and numbers perhaps some electron thread of the helium atoms will be pulled out of the nucleus.

electron bubbles are like cocoons of electron thread forming between the super-cooled Helium atoms

In reality, electron must refer to a temporary location where and when 'electron' thread crisscrosses, overlaps, superposes to a critical density. This enables that location to temporarily participate in light phenomenon and enables that threaded location to be pushed or pulled on by incident magnetic or electron threads all of which are twisted in helices, are inherently wavy and ultimately rooted back in proton. The anti-parallel crosses or twists of thread running along electron or magnetic threads or EM Ropes, account for the particle like behavior.  These threads can push and pull on atoms, specifically locations of the atom that have attained critical thread density (all fundamental interactions of the Universe involve Thread, and at least one Thread in the interaction must have attained critical density: an intersection, overlap, or superposition of Thread through which no more Thread may penetrate).  When a beam of gazillions of these electron threads is lead into a chamber . . . the helium atoms, specifically the locations of helium atoms that have attained critical thread density, force the beam to split up, sort of like roots growing out of the main root. These continue to whirl around the chamber until bubbles begin to appear (note I said appear).

The electron threads must also need EM Ropes to cross through so as to attain a critical thread density (this would certainly be the case in a metallic chamber, there would be countless EM Threads crossing through and intersecting). This maybe why their precious electron is measured as 1/1836 the mass of a proton. There are less electron threads involved in the CETD relation as opposed to the critical thread density location at 'proton'.

There is no splitting of wavefunction into parts or any of that mumbo jumbo. In addition since thread is being redirected in all directions there will be some crisscrossing of electron thread through cocoons. They may temporarily establish a CETD which can signal light to an observer (because all the atoms of the observer are connected to all the atoms of the objects of the experiment); and the physicists might gleefully think that they have captured, contained or isolated an electron.

"Here is some of the b.s. coming out of the quantum mechanics/particle physicists mouths:

"Electrons . . . only exist as oscillations . . . they exist as a wave function, or a probability distribution."

[Me: impossible for oscillations and wavefunctions to exist. Wave and oscillate refers to the action of electron threads.]

"If the physicists are correct, then some of the wave function pieces must actually hold the electron and others do not. It may be possible in the future to narrow down the location of an electron. Dividing and trapping pieces of the wave function can increase the likelihood of finding the electron."

[this is how mentally-ill they have become. They imagine themselves dividing and trapping pieces of a concept: wavefunction]

Read more at http://guardianlv.com/…/could-quantum-mechanics-change-fo…/…

"Experiments led by Humphrey Maris, professor of physics at Brown, suggest that the quantum state of an electron—the electron's wave function—can be shattered into pieces and those pieces can be trapped in tiny bubbles of liquid helium."

"Electrons are elementary particles, indivisible and unbreakable. But what the researchers are saying is in some ways more bizarre."

[this is true, to divide a probability into pieces is more bizarre and they take pride in their insane thoughts. What they have failed to realize is that their electron refers to a crisscross, overlap or superposition of gazillions of thread. If a set of these threads is unreeled from a metallic atom and focused into a beam that collides with adjacent atoms then it can be divided into multiple subsets that continue to move around.]

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-function-electron.html#jCp

So then . . .

Giggles then dribble from my lips.
Bubbles to breeze. Thousands.
Not one popping. Bubbles forever.
Just floating forever.
Popping forever.

From Mark Z. Danielewski's Only Revolutions

Some crude visual aids:

In summary: Classically, bubble refers to atoms in a liquid relation containing atoms in a gaseous relation. In this conception of electron bubble helium atoms crunched together in a so called liquid state split, redirect and contain the injected beam of electron threads so that they temporarily cocoon between the helium atoms. However vice verse some of these cocooning electron threads contain helium atoms pushing up against them and in addition can tunnel through the helium atoms and back through the cocoons. Of course both helium atoms and electron threads are contained by the metal.

So bubble may be an analogy, but the mathematical physicists have electron bubble defined as the empty space created around a free electron in a cryogenic gas or liquid of helium or neon. That just doesn't cut it. The helium atoms are not containing discrete electron balls (unless those balls are continuous convergences of electron thread).  And it is clear from the descriptions that something more is happening here than meets the eye.

Helium Dreams (Hairy Head Model of the Atom)

Some crude ideas about the Hairy-Head model of the atom.  

Feynman debates fundamentals of Science with Dawkins, Krauss, Tyson... a...

The rock stars debating the great whore called 'science'.

"That which is added to what is observed, Attempts to simplify the overwhelming complexity."

"That which is added to what is observed, Attempts to simplify the overwhelming complexity."

by Erik Cortes

Not math, but visualization is the language of Science

New video from Mike Huttner.

This is an excellent video. Mike makes a brilliant rational analysis to find the root of knowledge, understanding and perhaps even wisdom from a natural point of view.

Visualization is supreme in intellectual life. Our brains continually visualize. And without objects there is no seeing or understanding.

And not only in science but even in religion. From a religious viewpoint even God respects and uses our ability to visualize. I believe God stimulates visualization, especially in say the elect prophets. We have visionaries, like Isaiah in ancient times and Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich in more modern times. "Vision of the valley", "tell the vision to no one" "I saw this", "I had a vision" etc. God makes movies in the brain of the visionaries. And of course there are also false and evil visionaries.

But vision is a key concept in the Bible and in the Judeo-Christian religion and I hope it is not completely lost in Roman Catholic Faith. This is a prime way in which God communicates and helps us to understand or to know. According to Blessed Anne, some ancients Jews even taught that Adam and Eve had some mode of primitive vision stimulated by God which they lost when they sinned. When I pray to Jesus or Mary, I am in some manner visualizing them.

Religion aside, visualizing is of paramount importance in science. Think of Watson and Crick visualizing DNA as a double helix.

We also need to visualize the atom and that fundamental entity that underlies all atoms and enables it to initiate and perpetuate light and electron phenomenon. This is the very core and heart of physics.