Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:24 am
Hello, I have the username cyberchip; but, call me Chip, as in Chip off the old block. my education is varied, I have a degree in Metrology, which I always have to mention is not Meteorology. My work background is more interesting. I have worked as a technician at NIST, DOD, NASA, and a nuclear power company in my function of Metrologist, which makes me a standards bearer, as I work with specifications, and measurement technology with primary standards.
Since 1970's I've been keenly interested in Quantum Physics, and am self taught and consider myself a Quantum Theorist. I claim this distinction by virtue of the 'amateur' status, which my wife can attest to the number of hours I spend at this; and the lack of pay. For good or bad, I am a highly functioning Autistic which has blessed me with a capacity for absorbing huge quantities of information, in relatively short periods of time; and I have chosen Physics as my primary and fairly obsessive area of interest, more specifically Quantum _____ (fill in the blank).
I ran across your post to one of viascience's videos on Quantum Mechanics, and was curious. And, now I'm here. I find your perspective relevant and interesting, and like myself evolving from a POV in that I observed something in physics which caused me to question everything.
I principally follow wave mechanics, and much to my surprise, my theory seems to correlate to 'most' of what exists, even if I developed my ideas independently of those theories. However, I'm not sure how relevant my own concepts are to this, only that I find your concepts to be strongly coherent at the specific scale at which they apply, and your interest in nuclei and electrons, which adding photons includes my area of focus. I have also worked on a Zero Point Energy, or Space, and do a lot of research at planck levels. I find Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle extremely disconcerting, as he did himself, and love the concept of adhering to the concept of proton potential as a fundamental state of existence at our scale, which indeed is most of the scale of particles in the cosmos.
I don't think you should discount your model fitting into the standard model, as so far, it appears it does, but, with other aspects of that model, I would like to discuss in the forum. Thank you for the invite, and I hope I might contribute something to either of our theorems. I look forward to talking with you and others.
Since 1970's I've been keenly interested in Quantum Physics, and am self taught and consider myself a Quantum Theorist. I claim this distinction by virtue of the 'amateur' status, which my wife can attest to the number of hours I spend at this; and the lack of pay. For good or bad, I am a highly functioning Autistic which has blessed me with a capacity for absorbing huge quantities of information, in relatively short periods of time; and I have chosen Physics as my primary and fairly obsessive area of interest, more specifically Quantum _____ (fill in the blank).
I ran across your post to one of viascience's videos on Quantum Mechanics, and was curious. And, now I'm here. I find your perspective relevant and interesting, and like myself evolving from a POV in that I observed something in physics which caused me to question everything.
I principally follow wave mechanics, and much to my surprise, my theory seems to correlate to 'most' of what exists, even if I developed my ideas independently of those theories. However, I'm not sure how relevant my own concepts are to this, only that I find your concepts to be strongly coherent at the specific scale at which they apply, and your interest in nuclei and electrons, which adding photons includes my area of focus. I have also worked on a Zero Point Energy, or Space, and do a lot of research at planck levels. I find Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle extremely disconcerting, as he did himself, and love the concept of adhering to the concept of proton potential as a fundamental state of existence at our scale, which indeed is most of the scale of particles in the cosmos.
I don't think you should discount your model fitting into the standard model, as so far, it appears it does, but, with other aspects of that model, I would like to discuss in the forum. Thank you for the invite, and I hope I might contribute something to either of our theorems. I look forward to talking with you and others.
