[math]E = CA^2[/math]

 

But you didn't prove that

 

if [math]E \propto A^2[/math] which I took as a given from you.

 

Then:

 

[math]E \propto C_1A^2+C_2[/math]

 

I just assumed C₂ was 0... Dunno why really....

if E \propto A^2 which I took as a given from you

 

Oh, right no sorry I had previously defined it as: [math]A^2=\frac{E}{c^2}[/math]

 

 

It appears I might have some evidence of what I'm describing: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bosenova.htm

Edited June 15, 200817 yr by nstansbury

Oh, right no sorry I had previously defined it as: [math]A^2=\frac{E}{c^2}[/math]

 

Why, surely you're just saying that...

 

A^2 = m

 

For a massive particle

 

From:

 

E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²

 

Or:

 

 

[math]

A^2=\frac{E}{c^2}

[/math]

 

 

[math]

A^4=\frac{(mc)^2+(p)^2}{c^2}

[/math]

 

What's the physical meaning of this deffinition, it seems that you may have just defined things to prove what you want...

It appears I might have some evidence of what I'm describing: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bosenova.htm

 

You really haven't brought up anything related to a collapsing BEC, so somehow I doubt that this is evidence of anything you've discussed.

You really haven't brought up anything related to a collapsing BEC, so somehow I doubt that this is evidence of anything you've discussed.

 

If the self-interaction is repulsive, all the parts of the wavefunction push each other away. If it is attractive, they all pull towards each other, like gravity.

 

Exactly what I am suggesting.

 

 

Dirac's constant is really defined as: [math]\hbar = 4\pi r^2Rcm[/math]

 

Where:

[math]R[/math] is an atomic wavenumber

 

I'm suggesting that gravity is a consequence of these wave's amplitude: [math]m= A^2[/math]

 

A wave amplitude is: [math]A^2= 2\pi r[/math]

A 3d wave is: [math]A^4= 4\pi r^2[/math]

 

That being the case I can re-write Dirac as:

 

[math]\hbar = 4\pi r^22\pi r\lambda c[/math]

 

Or: [math]\hbar = c\lambda A^4A^2[/math]

 

Which contains 3 dimensions of space, and 1 dimension of "space-time" or mass, my waves themselves would have neither.

 

 

I think this might be what Bose Enstein Condensate is, by cooling you are removing energy and thus reducing the square of the wave's amplitude, and the superimposing of the amplitudes are what causes mass. By reducing its amplitude, you reduce it's radius of propagation and matter literally falls apart.

 

The energy and thus amplitude can explain why neither absolute zero or the speed of light can be obtained by matter.

 

 

Fundimentally, all I am doing is proving we can use wave functions to describe relativity.

Edited June 16, 200817 yr by nstansbury

I think this might be what Bose Enstein Condensate is, by cooling you are removing energy and thus reducing the square of the wave's amplitude, and the superimposing of the amplitudes are what causes mass. By reducing its amplitude, you reduce it's radius of propagation and matter literally falls apart.

 

BECs are fairly well understood; the basic theory behind them is 80 years old. The change of scattering length, as I understand it, comes about because of a Feshbach resonance (achieved with a magnetic field) that allows one to adjust the scattering length and change sign on the other side of the resonance. These things weren't discovered accidentally, these were effects that existing theory predicted.

 

Claiming that you've explained something to do with BECs is an incredible reach. You offer no new insight into them here.

BECs are fairly well understood; the basic theory behind them is 80 years old. The change of scattering length, as I understand it, comes about because of a Feshbach resonance (achieved with a magnetic field) that allows one to adjust the scattering length and change sign on the other side of the resonance. These things weren't discovered accidentally, these were effects that existing theory predicted.

 

Claiming that you've explained something to do with BECs is an incredible reach. You offer no new insight into them here.

 

It appears I might have some evidence of what I'm describing

 

Whether predicted or discovered the effects are still as my idea suggests, and I didn't suggest I'd "magically" explained BECs, just that there appears to be evidence of what I describe:

 

The equations suggest matter "falls apart" at absolute zero, exactly what "appears" to happen in a BEC - where it becomes a single quantum state.

 

And that the quanta seen in BECs can be attractive, in the same way these equations would predict.

 

It does however show not only is the current evidence not contrary to my proposal but that my proposal would expect such an outcome.

 

I'm not making any suggestion that [math]like==is[/math]