Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-12 Bad

About Butch

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/13/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Tampa, FL
  • College Major/Degree
    A.S. Computers 1976 (weird science at the time)
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical physics
  • Biography
    Fool on the hill
  • Occupation
    Commercial fisherman

Recent Profile Visitors

5169 profile views
  1. Time-Dilation and Information Theory

    Yes, that is propagation delay. What is the method used to make the most accurate measurement of light speed?
  2. Time-Dilation and Information Theory

    As you have so many times reminded me, words have meaning... c does not change, it is the speed of light in a vacuum, the speed of light however can change. Perhaps however I am still incorrect as that is a matter of propogation.
  3. Time-Dilation and Information Theory

    Hmm, Just because we cannot discern the information does not mean it isn't there. I say give it a chance, I will follow, but, no I won't Wade through 62 pages... Yet. c is a value under specific conditions, it varies a great deal when those conditions change, also measurement is interference. Am I wrong or is it true that particles are manifestations of energy?
  4. Particles as excitation of a field

    I would say you are getting back on topic.
  5. Particles as excitation of a field

    I misused the term stable, Swansont straightened me out.
  6. Particles as excitation of a field

    Time I suppose to introduce some of my model, I always tend to learn a great deal from members, even about my own ideas. I will do this in steps, and wait for discussion before moving on. As I have previously stated I am thinking of fermions as perturbations that affect space(lets keep it simple for now and address time at a later date) the particle is a point source for this perturbation, a singularity of sorts. The effect of this singularity diminishes by the inverse square... Wouldn't galaxies receding at more than c predate the Big Bang? The galaxy we see would be moving at a much, much greater velocity now than it is in the time frame that we observe it.
  7. Particles as excitation of a field

    It does not decay, however(feel free to educate me on this) it can give up all of its energy and cease to exist. I am very pleased to see this discussion is on going! I haven't a lot to show as a model, yet... However I do keep up with the discussion and continue to learn. I will mention one thought I have had. What think you of the idea that fermions and bosons share the same field, fermions being perturbations(not oscillatory) while bosons are wave packets as described previously in this topic. My thinking is that the quasar they see would be in a much earlier time frame where indeed it's velocity would not be greater than c. Does special relativity dictate that nothing can travel faster than c, or does it rather dictate that nothing can accelerate to greater than c... That is to say it cannot be witnessed from a reference where it is traveling greater than c?
  8. Particles as excitation of a field

    The only model I have at this point is in the abstract, I will do better. Is a photon stable?
  9. Particles as excitation of a field

    A note to all that have participated in this topic, you have helped me immensely. The information you have provided for me I can agree with completely for bosons. I think I have a better explanation for fermions. Swan is nearly correct I have not provided a complete model, but I did not have a complete understanding, thanks to you all (especially you Strange!) I do now. I am confident I can produce an excellent model for all of you to take apart. I would think that they would not see each other because their difference in velocity is greater than c, but then I am a neophyte.
  10. Particles as excitation of a field

    Here is a puzzle to consider... You look to the east and see a quasar receding at 60%c you look to the west and see a quasar receding at 60%c, what is their velocity relative to one another and what does the observer on the eastern quasar think about the western quasar?
  11. Particles as excitation of a field

    Ah, but I am learning. When I began this post I could not relate my perturbation to wave function... It was you who cleared that up for me Strange. Thank you.
  12. Particles as excitation of a field

    This is a consequence of a particle being a wave phenomenon... This is what I have been saying, review previous content! If a particle were a wave of any sort, it would cease to exist without reflective boundaries... Such as a free electron.
  13. Particles as excitation of a field

    The wave function of the particle is undefined until it meets outside influence, such as an electron being bound to an atom. I elaborated in my previous post, please take a look. The particle does not have a wave function, it manifests a wave function.
  14. Particles as excitation of a field

    First start thinking in terms of a single unbound particle, for now. Maybe the term "particle well" would be better to describe the perturbation of the field. A fermion particle is an excitation of a fermion field or maybe the fermion field (chicken or the egg) either way works here. The wave function is apparent only as the particle interacts with outside influences. Picture a well, you have seen the graph, two hyperbolic curves representing the depth and width of the well. The wave function is dependant upon what the slope of the curve is where the perturbation is "bounded" to a system.
  15. Particles as excitation of a field

    No, I am speaking of the perturbation/exitation of the fermion field. Regardless if the field exists because the particle does or the particle exists in the field (chicken or the egg) am I correct to say all fermion particles share the same field? I am saying that the wave function of the particle is a result of the perturbation interacting with outside influence. For example two electrons in proximity would produce a common recurvature of the field between them, this would produce a sinus curve that would describe a wave. The closer they were the higher the implied wave frequency. You can extend this process to the two slit experiment or to Schroedinger equation in an atom. And yes this would occur without charge. You can do the same with two neutrinos or an electron and a neutrino etc.