A question I did not answer in an earliear thread.
What happens at the Planck scale.
In my earlier work I was working on a proof that at the Planck scale wave form and particle become identicle and indistuinguishable.
Would present as wave form collapse and wave form energy becomes mass energy.
Wave form is converted to mass only particle.
This would happen at some limit just short of the Planck scale.
Consider when frequency is C.
Where an occupied space canot be difined as a filled by a solid form, or an even smaller particle moving at infinite velocity, occupying all the regions at all times.

If solidity were mantained at the planck scale, then compression to a smaller size would result in particle blinking out of gravitational influence and possibly becoming a worm hole.

Solidity is lost when all thermodynamic waveforms can only exhibit as gravitational mass.

Acceleration towards Planck scale size is very large so momentum carries the particle below gravitational limit. However this is temporary because with solidity gone, imternal pressure expands the particle back into gravitational influence expelling it at C or above from a black holes jets.

Wormhole then only exists internal to the black hole and becomes the vector of escape at the singularity poles.

Leaking energy to the jets I think the wormhloe becomes a local minumum, not a global one.

A similar thing occurs as a result of expansion as well.
This is why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
When waveform is so stretched that frequency is zero and again waveform becomes undefined, or equivilent to a solid region.

Half life of decay of all matter to this lowest possible energetic state
again produces a article with no thermodynamic properties. Gravitational equivience.

There are many histories a particle may take to the lowest energy state, but all will arrive there in some time frame of reference.

This is the internal mechanism of a final state of change for a univese size particle.

This would predict that black holes would be the seed from which galaxies would start to grow.
In this primidorial universe, galaxies would form after the black hole ejectii of dark matter has a proportional mass around the black hole.
Star forming then occurs between black hole and it's dark matter halo.

If a collision stripped a galaxy of its dark matter halo, there may be some scattering of stars from centrifical, but more dark matter ejected from black hole will eventually reach stability again.

When not being fed the jets dark matter production would slow down a rate directly proportional to black hole size.

Entropy is a time value function. The universe has entropy because it is an internal mechanism of a change in state that cannot be reversed or stopped.

Time rate of progression is a variable but can only have a positive value because the external process exhibits as a change in state.

All of the energy in the universe is just short of being sufficient to reverse the change in state. Entropy has a time/energy value. It is a one way trip. A subset of physical possibilities for the universe where time value of particles is positive.

Change in state is complete when the universe has uniform structure with all mass at the lowest possible state. Absolute time dilation across the universe. Internal time is a limit approaching infinity. External change in state is a limit approaching zero.

A black holes singularity compresse to the limit just above planck scale.

Wow! what an incredible word salad!

This will never happen. Do you know why?

A public service announcement from the Department of Redundancy Department, perhaps?

More seriously, there are lots of, um, illucid statements that form the word salad that macaw refers to. Another one of several is

Can you provide a definition of "thermodynamic waveform?"

I've had enough veggies for the week.

If they did then there wouldn't have been a massive salad bar.

:-)

My terminology is not conventional.
This is all built on two theorems needing proof.
That the universe is the internal mechanism of a particle in the process of changing state. Thus giving entropy a time value.

And that a solid is equivalent to a particle approaching infinite velocity occupying all of the solid space.

Predictions: Time travel back wards is not possible within this universe.

:Black hole jets will be found to eject particles originating from the black hole.
Wormholes at the singularity point are local to the black hole, and do not connect to other points in space. They connect to the event horizon below the jets.

:In the linear entropy region we observe. The mass and rotational velocity of a galaxy, its galaxy centric black hole, and its halo of dark matter are directly proportional.

At velocity C time rate of progression is a constant. Entropy Curve is linear.

At the big bang and shortly after it, time rate of progression was on the non linear portion of the entropy curve. Inflationary period.

Non linear near finality as well.

TST: In our local region and time frame, the laws of physics appear constant.
Very early in time, and very far away, the laws were changing.
Very late in the time frame of the universe, they are again changed.
This is the region inside a black hole.
And will happen as mass/dark matter ratio changes, as the fuel of the big bang is exhausted.

Black holes accelerate the finality of mass decay.
But all mass/energy will ultimately decay.
The universe Began and will end in a homogeneous state.
During change in state, we observe a heterogeneous state.

I think geometrical and have difficulty expressing my visions clearly.
Call it word sallid as you will.

I have made some predictions.
We shall see what is ultimately discovered I guess.

My question remains unanswered: What is a thermodynamic wave?

Also, you have asserted that your theory makes predictions. Please provide quantitative examples, not handwaving assertions. Start with just one, and outline how it makes falsifiable predictions that differ from those of the mainstream.

It is indeed true that your "terminology is not conventional." This is not a strength; it counts very much against you. A wholesale redefinition of common terms is unnecessary. It just gets in the way of communication. If your true purpose is not obfuscation, then use scientific terms the way that mainstream scientists have been using them. If you need new terms, then make them up, and explicitly state what your definitions are. When you ramble on about things like "thermodynamic waves" without explanation, you might as well be saying "Blorgashnorbs extrude through wormhole bridges elephant-style."

Please try harder to be clear.

yes.

Wave functions are any presentation of mass/energy that is not gravitational.

Thermodynamics. Temperature and solidity. All expressed as a wave function of mass/energy.

Reduced to its lowest possible state, mass/energy can exhibit no propertires of wave functions. Only gravitation and velocity. No thermo, no solidity, so no impacts. Slide through mass and each other.

No mechanism to add thermodynamic energy. Temperature undefined.

All wave functions in mass/energy decay and ultimatly collapse with time.
Black holes accelerate the time frame of reference.

Doing the best I can with termonology.
Just sharing the results of a study I no longer do.
I just no longer have enough interest to develop my termonology skills to the level requested.

Life changing event has changed my priorities for me.

Relating prior work, make of it what you will.
Label it word sallad, I just don't care.

I will answer questions to the best of my ability.
I won't jump through any hoops.
Or try to meet any expectations but my own.

Problematic, since it is yet to be shown that DM interacts with itself.

?????

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

You seem to be confused, as well as confusing. You first introduce us to the term "thermodynamic wave," and then you provide a definition above that says there can be no such thing.

I point out, also, that "thermodynamics" is a subject, not a "mass/energy." Blorgashnorbs extruding elephant-style.

{Bold mine.} Well, then, this forum may be the wrong place -- did you actually read the rules of the forum, as you were directed to upon your first post? If your true intent is merely to document your ideas, rather than subject them to scrutiny (which therfore involves the hoop-jumping you don't want to do), then perhaps you should consider posting them on some blog somewhere. If you're not willing to put in the work to communicate clearly, then that's a serious problem.

bart5050,

I agree with these two predictions of yours.

What particular mass decay are you referring to?

I may have a vague idea of some of your meaning here. Could you clarify your meaning to make it more understandable?

Traditional physics states that there is no vector for a particle to exit a black hole.
The wormhole from central singularity to event horizon at the poles (rotational axis) below the jets provides the wormhole. However only dark matter particles that have no temperature or solidity and are near the Planck scale in size can traverse the worm hole.

All mass has a half life of decay. More stable particles have a very long half life. Any particle with wave functions has a decay. When a particle finally decays to its lowest possible state, it has only gravity and velocity.

It has lost all thermo properties and has no mechanism with which to add any energy but velocity and gravitational space/time distortions.

Why must all particles eventually decay to dark energy?

How about a comparitive parable.
The example is imaginary and not indicitive of actual photon behavior.

Consider a photon at velocity C.
Convert it to mass that is at rest.

The instantanious deceleration is a limit approaching infinity.
Time dilation across this event is absolute.

Watching the particle convert from a photon to a mass particle it happens in a time frame approching zero time.

However the time dilation is absolute.
Anything could happen in there, it is unobservable.

If I were an observer who was created by the photons conversion, then what do I see.
The process of energy to mass occurs in a time frame with a limit approaching infinity. My entire existance is internal to this process.

This is our universe.
Some event prior to the big bang removed energy from the pre big bang primidorial particle.
It changed to a lower energy state particle.
Like steam condensing to water.

The external time frame of reference is a limit approaching zero.

The internal frame of reference, where we live, is a limit approaching infinity.

We observe the laws of physics as constant because we are observing the linear section of an asymptote curve.

Close to the big bang and close to the finality of the last bit of all mass energy converting to dark matter, the physical laws change.
The time curve is not linear, it is an asymptote.

There is only one imescapable predestination, The energy conversion will complete and space time will collapse.
Many paths for a particles history, but all paths lead to finality.

Dark matter has reached finality, no further changes in energy can be internally added. they can only exhbit velocity and gravitation, because these are external observations.

Now consider a universe size particle undergoing the opposite change in state.
As in steam to water, mass to photon, from our parable.

A universe with a negative frame of absolute time dilation.
Effect precedes cause.
All events are over before they begin.
No matter how short the external time is observed to be, the internal time is something shorter than that.

This kind of universe is not around for long.

Our universe is likely a single spark in a shower of sparks.
Each is in its own time bubble of absolute time dilation.

Within our universe, time is a variable, but can only have a positive value.

You cannot reverse or stop time.
The past, you can't get there from here.
The future is a one way trip.

This is why the universe has entropy.
Gather up all of the energy the universe contains.
This will be just short of enough energy to restore the pre big bang particle.

The change in energy that initiated the change in state is outside of our time frame of reference.

Our time frame of reference is bound by the process of the change in state.
We only exist within the process itself.
All of our observable existance is in flux, the internal process of a change in state.

Space appears flat and infinite to us. This would require that the universe has infinite energy.

Space/time is curved in time, not spacial dimension.

The size and, so the total energy of the universe, is finite because it has a limit on its time of existance for it to expand in.

All mass/energy has a wave function that defines its physical properties.
Below the Planck scale, wave functions collapse. At this scale, the only property is gravitation.

The internal time frame of reference is a limit approaching infinity, but has a finite value.
This value is a varible determined by how long it takes for all mass/energy to decay to dark matter.
Black holes burns the fuel faster. But it burns at its own rate anyway.

Finality, when the universe is homogenous. It is a long time, but it will happen.

The universe has a time value of energy.

Please answer my question. You are required to answer.

Thermodynamics is a discipline.
Thermodynamic is not a wave.
My reference was meant to say that a particle with no solidity or temperature, and no mechanism to have a temperature or exhibit solidity has lost all thermo properties. And cannot exhibit those properties again.


All properties except gravitation and velocity are wave functions.
Wave functions collapse at the Planck scale.
Black hole can convert energy of wave functions to planck scale dark matter.
Natural decay will also do this with a very long half life.

Dark matter has reached finality.
The physical laws of the universe will change when the ratio of dark matter/matter reaches the entropy curve where the time rate of progression is not linear.

Similer non linear local for a short time frame at the big bang.

Time/entropy curve is an asymptote. We are observing the linear sector.

Well, thank you for responding, at least. I still have difficulty making heads or tails out of your writing, but it goes well with a light vinaigrette...

Scrutinize away. Ask and I will try to answer.
Declare it word sallid.
I don't care.
I live in constant pain and poverty.
I want to document, but realize that my conceptual communication skills are lacking and my vocabulary limited.

Here, there is discussion that will help me communicate my work.
If someone finds that any little part of it has merit, they can use that as they wish.
If none can find any merit in any of it, then so be it.

Within our universe, every physical change requires a time frame of action.

No matter how fast you go, even if you can exceed C, you cannot attain infinity velocity.

Infinite mass = infinite energy = reversable time = relativity limit = not possible.

It might be possible for mass in a local maximum of spacial expansion to exceed C.
Not sure.
But time is the determinate for entropy of a universe size particle changing state.
Within our universe, nothing can happen in a zero time frame.
All events require a time frame to occur in.

Telling me the concept is flawed and why is worthy of debate.

Telling me that nothing in the concept is understandable in any way.
Either I am not communicatiing anything, or you are unable to grasp the concept in any termonology.

Look at the regions and structure of a galaxy.
Black hole with jets. Jets powered by dark matter ejected at the poles.
Synchronistic shaping for visible mass/energy in jet, but powered by gravitational engine of ejected dark matter.
The accretion zone.
The star forming region.
The halo where ejected dark matter orbits the galaxy.

Suns would produce a small amount of dark matter, there is likely a very faint halo around a solar system.

All mass will eventually cool and condense and undergo a half life decay, even without benefit of burning up or undergoing compression.

To talk about the temperature of a single particle is meaningless. Temperature only has meaning for an ensemble of particles/things/stuff/etc.

Temperature is energy. All energy has a mass equivilence. Is an emergent property as a wave function of the particles in the ensemble.

If every particle in the ensemble has no mechanism to support wave functions, then there is no emergent temperature properties.

No mechanism to even have a temperature.

Mass/energy in its lowest possible energy state.
Cannot form chemical or nuclear bonds, which are wave function dependent.

All wave function energies are reduced to their mass equivilence.

Consider how hot it must get at the event horizon of a black hole.
Consider all that thermodynamic energy converted to mass equivilence.
Compression to the planck scale is the mechanism of conversion to mass equivilence.

At the black hole center is the singularity where compression has a velocity.
Dark matter velocity at the planck scale, worm hole becomes emergent as the velocity of compression translates to velocity of diplacement to the event horizon.

They may slow down after crossing the event horizon, but the path through the wormhole is in excess of C.

Please explain, in your own words, what you you think a wave-function is.
Please can you provide an example of a particle that does not support a wave-function?

bart5050,

Thank you for your extensive answers.

Not really. Heat is energy. Temperature is something a little subtler. I can have two objects, one of which contains far more heat than the other, but they can be at the same temperature. Look at the zeroth law of thermodynamics an that might help you.
Not sure what the relevance of this is.
What does this mean? I suspect that this is another example of non-standard nomencalture, but I'm really not sure.
Please can you back this up?

Irregardless, you can call something a word salad ("nonsense") but you should say why you consider it a word salad. Unless your definition of word salad is just "impressive-sounding words" and then it's OK.

I should like to make this a rule, if I can get enough backing.I assume you mean that C is a speed, which cannot be a frequency, right?

That would be an example of nonsense.

Does my vote count as support? Feel free to move this to "Feedback" if you want, since I can't.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Dark matter has no wave functions. Only example I know of, and is purely theoretical.

Bose-Einstein concentrate, still theoretical, would demonstrate some of the same properties. Such as no solidity. Warm it up and wave funcions are emergent. Cannot warm dark matter.

Wave functions in my definition is any property other than gravitation. Velocity is an emergent property of some wave functions. However dark matter can have velocity so strictly speaking, it is not a wave function.

Light is a wave, photon carrier is an example.

Electroweak, Nuclear, Electromagnetic, these are all emergent as wave functions. It has been shown that all of the forces have an equivilence, except gravity. There is a predicted equivilence for gravity, but it has not been achieved.

I think you mean B-E condensate. And I'm not sure what you mean by "theoretical" -- are you aware that a trio of scientists (Cornell, Wieman and Ketterle) won a Nobel in 2001 for creating a BEC? Or are you saying that your threshold of "real" versus "theoretical" differs from that of the mainstream?

I understand about temperature and heat. I was in the nuclear field in the Navy. A point source can be very hot, and have far less heat energy than an ice cube.
I was trying to express the concept that heat energy has a mass equivalence and within a black hole, all energy is converted to its mass equivalent.
I thought the concept would be understood.

All energy has a mass equivalence.
The relevance is that a black hole converts all mass/energy to an equivalent quantity of dark matter.

Galaxy mass, rotational velocity, dark matter halo, and galaxy centric black hole mass are all directly proportional. Black hole is the seed that forms a galaxy in the early universe.

Total mass and time since formation will change the proportional relationships.

Heat energy is the ensemble of which you refer. Temperature is an emergent property depending on heat, mass, material, etc.

Any property of mass other than gravitation is a wave function in my definition. This is because at the Planck scale energy can only exhibit as gravitational mass. All other functions have to be converted to mass equivalence to be compressed to the Planck scale.

That takes the compressive force of a black hole to do.

The lowest possible state of mass is dark matter. It is terminal. It cannot be heated. It can no longer exhibit any wave functions. Given enough time, all mass/energy in the universe will ultimately decay to this state. That is finality, when the change in state initiated by the big bang will be complete.

What that ultimate particle will be is not observable. It is exterior to our time frame of reference. Just like the particle before the big bang.

The only back up of this is theoretical.

We don't know exactly what dark matter is, but there is no reason to think that it cannot be described as a quantum mechanical system. Please can you point to any evidence for your claim?
I think you mean "condensate"
Bose-Einstein condensates exist. Physicists have been making them for over a decade.
A Bose-Einstein condensate can be described by a wave-function. This means that it isn't a very good example of a system without a wave-function.

Why do you believe that dark matter cannot be warm?
Here is another example of non-standard nomenclature. This does not fit the standard usage of the term, so by using it you wil lbe confusing pretty much all of your readers with any technical background. I would suggest that you avoid using it, and define some other term instead.
What does this mean? A complex plane-wave is an example of a wavefunction for a particle with a well defined velocity. This is very confusing, and if there is any real physics in what you are saying, no-one will know because your words do not seem to make sense once you have strung them together.

I really suggest that you make an effort to at least learn the standard meanings of the words that you are using.

Sorry for the mis statement. I think in shortcuts sometimes.
Consider when a frequency is so high that the peaks and troughs are at the same points at the same time. Then the voltage is not .707 of PTP.

It is the same as dc voltage and ac voltage being equivilent at some frequency where the peaks and troughs arrive at some reference point at the same velocity as propigation. C velocity. The state of mass/energy at the big bang.

Consider anothe definition. A solid mass region where there is no molecular motion and no empty space as in valence shells etc.
A particle within this region moving at infinite velocity has this solidity equivilence. It would occupy all points of the region at all times.

The state of mass/energy at the Planck scale. No emergent wave functions. Solidity equivilence.