|
Cracka_X
Spiritual Dirt Worshipper




Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 8,808
Loc: Swamp
|
wavelengths.. hypothetical
#8477697 - 06/02/08 11:42 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
hypothetical...
So we're constructed of good amount of atoms. These atoms are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Electrons seem to be the most wandering/free of these components...
According to Quantum physics, electrons behave like a particle and like a wave.(different atoms have different wavelengths, go figure)
And lets add that the Earth vibrates at a certain wavelength.(The Earth does vibrate, this isn't hypothetical)
And now throw in all the mumbo jumbo you've read about meditation, yoga, accupuncture, and so on....
This is generalized, but accupuncture frees the blockage of chi. Like the body is full of pipes that contain this flowing "chi" and accupuncture seeks to free these blocks in establishing the holistic balance.
Yoga, I'm going to assume it's somewhat the same idea of stretching and creating this uniform freedom throughout the musculature and neural networks.(just assuming)
So now about these synchronous events. WHAT IF, WHAT IF... those who are mentally and physically or just mentally in tune to this vibration, this wavelength experience and make observations in a similar manner to others that are "in tune". And that everyone else is out of tune with this general "one" wavelength... And I shouldn't say "one", as this wavelength could propagate itself differently through different matter(depending on the mineral contents of the land where ppl are to be affected) and this would be like a personalized message/wavelength/reading from different places on this planet. Each that give a different vibration and sway its life and inorganic matter in a certain way.
Either way, we're receiving the same vibration but translated differently. Like a vibrating plate and then we step on it and feel its effects rumble our entire being, what about these micro-vibrations of the earth interacting with all the organisms on the level of a particle and the wavelength? What if this was responsible for this universal connection that Some of Us feel?
Any thoughts, questions, concerns?
-------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
Edited by Cracka_X (06/02/08 11:48 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist



Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: wavelengths.. hypothetical [Re: Cracka_X]
#8478116 - 06/03/08 02:09 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
You're confusing 2 different things here... just because something has a wavelength, doesn't mean it vibrates. Electrons and photons have wavelengths, but they don't vibrate, because we are talking about quantum vibrations - not the physical movement of an object back-and-forth.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Cracka_X
Spiritual Dirt Worshipper




Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 8,808
Loc: Swamp
|
Re: wavelengths.. hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#8478436 - 06/03/08 05:21 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'm gonna have to disagree. What about the kinetics of electrons/atoms of molecules when heated?
What about when they jump energy levels?
The breaking and formation of bonds involves the movement of these electrons?
-------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
|
zouden
Neuroscientist



Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: wavelengths.. hypothetical [Re: Cracka_X]
#8478627 - 06/03/08 07:27 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Well, consider this: when an object is heated, the atoms move around (vibrate). When more heat is applied, the amplitude of these vibrations increase, until they are moving so much the object turns into a liquid, then a gas.
But the wave function of an object (which I say is a separate thing to physical vibration) has no amplitude, only wavelength. The wavelength decreases as the energy of the object increases. This is an entirely different relationship to what atoms do when they are heated, and for that reason I think they are different things.
In any case... in your original post you made a reference to the vibrations of the earth. One presumes that these vibrations are very slow, resonating through the mantle. But the quantum wave function of the earth would be much faster, and the wavelengths too small to measure.
From the wikipedia article on the de Broglie equation:
Quote:
In de Broglie's equation an electron's wavelength will be a function of Planck's constant (6.626 \times 10^{-34} joule-seconds) divided by the object's momentum (nonrelativistically, its mass multiplied by its velocity). When this momentum is very large (relative to Planck's constant), then an object's wavelength is very small. This is the case with every-day objects, such as a person. Given the enormous momentum of a person compared with the very tiny Planck constant, the wavelength of a person would be so small (on the order of 10^−35 meters or smaller) as to be undetectable by any current measurement tools. On the other hand, many small particles (such as typical electrons in everyday materials) have a very low momentum compared to macroscopic objects. In this case, the de Broglie wavelength may be large enough that the particle's wave-like nature gives observable effects.
Finally, the Copenhagen Interpretation states (well, among the many things it states) that wave functions have no effect on macroscopic behaviour.
Dude I think I just blew my mind
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
backfromthedead
Activated


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 3,592
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: wavelengths.. hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#8478989 - 06/03/08 10:38 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
How can a wave function have no amplitude when wavelength implies frequency and is a measure of cycles?? How would you measure with no reference point, peak, or trough??
--------------------
|
deimya
tofu and monocle


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
|
It does have an amplitude and (roughly) the square of the amplitude at one point gives you a density of probability at that point.
The big problem with all this frequency thing is that there is too much noise, there is too much disorder at our scale, in a urban or natural environment, for anything to ever "resonate" with our brain, so there is no way extremely faith signals could hope from one person to the other, let alone immerse a whole population. It might resonate for a very short time in a very localized region but in no orderly fashion on the whole.
|
ChiefGreenLeaf

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,596
|
Re: wavelengths.. hypothetical [Re: deimya]
#8479706 - 06/03/08 02:28 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
your right, we destroyed the vibrations long ago. they're still there though. only now u have to look.
|
deimya
tofu and monocle


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
|
|
Nothing compared to today but quite a substantial amount of EM noise was there before civilization as we know it. The body itself is quite a bad emitter and receiver of any kind of coherent, or "in tune" effects. It will only pick up very strong perturbations. I reckon these statements would require quantitative scrutiny but you get the idea: it is not as clear cut as you would like it to be.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist



Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: wavelengths.. hypothetical [Re: deimya]
#8480093 - 06/03/08 04:11 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It does have an amplitude and (roughly) the square of the amplitude at one point gives you a density of probability at that point.
That makes sense. I knew I was missing a piece of the picture.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Boots
Disenchanted


Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 1,137
Loc: Northwood, Ohio, U.S.A.
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: wavelengths.. hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#8483164 - 06/04/08 10:54 AM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Cracka, been playing Final Fantasy VII lately? lol
|
Cracka_X
Spiritual Dirt Worshipper




Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 8,808
Loc: Swamp
|
Re: wavelengths.. hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#8484129 - 06/04/08 04:11 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: Well, consider this: when an object is heated, the atoms move around (vibrate). When more heat is applied, the amplitude of these vibrations increase, until they are moving so much the object turns into a liquid, then a gas.
But the wave function of an object (which I say is a separate thing to physical vibration) has no amplitude, only wavelength. The wavelength decreases as the energy of the object increases. This is an entirely different relationship to what atoms do when they are heated, and for that reason I think they are different things.
In any case... in your original post you made a reference to the vibrations of the earth. One presumes that these vibrations are very slow, resonating through the mantle. But the quantum wave function of the earth would be much faster, and the wavelengths too small to measure.
From the wikipedia article on the de Broglie equation:
Quote:
In de Broglie's equation an electron's wavelength will be a function of Planck's constant (6.626 \times 10^{-34} joule-seconds) divided by the object's momentum (nonrelativistically, its mass multiplied by its velocity). When this momentum is very large (relative to Planck's constant), then an object's wavelength is very small. This is the case with every-day objects, such as a person. Given the enormous momentum of a person compared with the very tiny Planck constant, the wavelength of a person would be so small (on the order of 10^−35 meters or smaller) as to be undetectable by any current measurement tools. On the other hand, many small particles (such as typical electrons in everyday materials) have a very low momentum compared to macroscopic objects. In this case, the de Broglie wavelength may be large enough that the particle's wave-like nature gives observable effects.
Finally, the Copenhagen Interpretation states (well, among the many things it states) that wave functions have no effect on macroscopic behaviour.
Dude I think I just blew my mind
no doubt, just a thought since "everything" is has electrons.
So what do you think about gravitational forces? I'll say the wavelength idea is a bit out there but, in the midst of studying my organic shit, I thought why not see what others have to say about this.
But gravity. Gravitational forces are fairly significant. The moon has enough of a presence to significantly raise the tides.
What about the tremendous forces of the sun? ...butterfly effect?
I'm not looking for an answer that would belong in mystical and paranormal, just your thoughts about it.
-------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
|
|