## Fields and boundaries. Also quantised.

24th April-27th June 2012

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Fields and boundaries.

I will give an example of the word field. Although it can have many meanings; I will restrict it to two specific meanings.

The first is "a field in which grass can grow and I can have my sheep graze in".

The second is "a magnetic field in which I can place things in and they will react to this field dependant on their magnetic properties".

As you can see the same word (field) is used to describe two different things.

In real terms (when you refer to real things that actually exist), you can not use the term field in the first example at any scale.

Although theoretically a field can be of any size, it cannot be a field if it is the size of a continent (or country). It will cease to be classified as a field, therefore it has a natural maximum limit (one can debate what this actual limit is, but whatever it is, there is a limit). Similarly there is a minimum limit. If we had a small field, say 10 metres by 10 metres, we could argue that if it was owned by 100 people (100 shares), that each person owned a field that was 1 square metre, so a field could be as small as 1 square metre (this is an abstract calculation).

This argument is actually partly bogus, you could say you owned a field that was 1 square metre and you can graze your sheep in your field, but this argument is not valid at any scale. If the scale was small enough you would just own a clump of soil, which may have a blade of grass in it or not. If the scale was even smaller than a blade of grass, it would not be a field, you would have to cease calling it a field.

Now what has this got to do with magnetic fields?

I will continue. The field also has a natural boundary, normally this would be some form of fence, hedgerow, path, even a wall, but it could actually be nothing; one field merges into another (continuous grass). The field still has a fixed boundary, which can be calculated from some fixed point(s) which will dictate which is your field from the next persons. If your sheep cannot graze in your field, it is not a real field (it can only be classified as an abstract field, and only certain real things can happen in this abstract field, everything else is abstract and not real).

Now this same principle also applies to magnetic fields. Magnetic fields do not normally have this restriction, and one can calculate to infinity if one wishes too, or go to infinitesimal small scales.

This is where I say in real terms one cannot do this, and there is a maximum and a minimum scale to which magnetic fields apply, i.e. There is a maximum and minimum boundary, going outside of this boundary becomes abstract, and in the real world different rules will apply.

[Below a certain level the ‘minpoynt’, different rules apply].

Let me expand this concept a little more. Let us look at our sheep.

How many sheep can graze in our field?

And where can our sheep be in this field?

Theoretically in the abstract you can have virtually any number of sheep and they can be in an infinite number of positions, but in real terms you can have only a maximum and a minimum number of sheep (minimum being one, and maximum dependent on the size of your field). If your field was the size of a sheep then the minimum and maximum would be 1, and it's position would be fixed in the middle of your field. Now a sheep can only be fixed in the middle in the abstract sense, because we have summed it's existence at a point. It actually exists at multiple points all over the sheep, but these points (together) still create boundaries of the sheep.

Now let us look at a magnetic field, and replace our sheep with electrons.

How many electrons can move in our field?

And where can our electrons be in this field?

Theoretically in the abstract you can have virtually any number of electrons and they can be in an infinite number of positions, but in real terms you can have only a maximum and a minimum number of electrons. The reason I say this is because an electron can only be fixed in the middle (at one point) in the abstract sense, because we have summed it's existence at a point.

It actually exists at multiple points all over it's existence, but these points (together) still create boundaries of the electron; one needs to look at the fine structure of the electron to determine it's real boundaries.

In my model these are the real points that Exist to create the existence of the electron. In quantum mechanics they sum the electrons as point particles with charge and work out probabilities (amplitudes) of where the electrons will be when they measure them using what they call spin states of the electrons. Anyway they have abstract mathematics like the following: - <¥> .... And when they measure the electron the mathematics collapses to what is actually measured.

All well and good that they can predict this, but they do not know precisely why! In my model it would be a representation of what actually happens to the real points that actually Exist (larger Energy like volume), and they really collapse to a smaller ‘poynt’ (particle like volume) which quantum mechanics sums as a point. They do the same with angular momentum when they calculate angular momentum in say the z direction (it ends with an up or down direction, but although they know that it also has an x, y component, they say they do not know, or they cannot calculate this).

Again in my model you can calculate possible values for it (whether they can actually measure this I do not know at this moment in time).

More on Reality.

We live in a real world that actually exists, but we live and experience it at a higher level (and scale) more than mere points that actually Exist.

So at the basic level certain points Exist and other points don't Exist so creating something that exists with all the dimensions.

Let us take a balloon as a simplified example, a balloon can be represented as having a solid part (the rubber itself, which would contain all the points that Exist) and the empty part (no rubber, actually the air inside, but for our example assume that it is completely empty [null space]) the empty part will have all the points that do not have Existence.

At the lower level scale this would be the case, but on our higher level (larger scale) we experience the whole balloon which encompasses the null points as well. So you have to specify the scale and distinguish between existence and ‘Existance’ (see glossary).

Now when we make measurements we need to take the previous into consideration. The measurements will be different for the two examples. If we are measuring what actually Exists; it will follow points that Exist. If we are measuring existence at our level and above we will include points that don't Exist as well (they will be encompassed by ‘real points’ that Exist), therefore it follows that you cannot start or end a real measurement with a null point.

So if we take our simplified example of the balloon, we can measure the width of the balloon (it's diameter), but we cannot measure space beyond a point outside our balloon, because there is no ‘real points’ that Exist beyond to take the measurement from (unless there is another balloon close by to measure to). Measurements of null space are meaningless on their own unless you can have reference points that actually Exist to measure them against.

So you can measure the space between stars, even though there is a lot of empty null space and real space between them. The real space has points of ‘Existance’, even though it appears to be empty.

Section on expansion and contraction of the universe.

The Real universe that Exists stays the same volume, but on our level the volume appears to increase or decrease because we experience it at our level (which includes the null spaces). No new material is created nor destroyed in the process. The distance travelled along the points of ‘Existance’ may be the same in both the condensed (more dense space) and the expanded (less dense space), but the distances on our level change (deceases and increases) because we are measuring two different things.

Illusion. Normal illusion like a mirage appears to be somewhere else when first observed, until you find where it really is, by observing it in it's physical form in it's true position. e.g. oasis.

‘Ellusion’ Electron illusion the electron appears when observed at a point in it's physical form, but was actually elsewhere before being observed.

This is the opposite to normal illusion. This occurs because it is not a point source until it is observed. It is a complex (minimal) volume when not observed. Note: - the electron when observed is not a real point source, but a much smaller complex minimal volume (‘minpoynt’). We summarise it as a point source, but can not do this when not observed. Emotions govern the states of mind, there are many states of mind. Theses are normally in balance and work together, but at the extremes you can have schizophrenia. Energy pushes things (‘Aspace’) outwards, Matter pulls things (‘Aspace’) inwards.

So at the point (not actual physical point) of the big bang scenario, there was more energy than matter, so the universe expands. As the universe expands and creates matter and losses energy, the universe will stop expanding when the ratio of matter to energy is in favour of matter, which will pull back the universe towards a big crunch scenario. Note: - Energy and Matter pull and push all the time, but in the case of Energy there is a bias to push more than pull, and in the case of Matter there is a bias to pull more than push (Gravity). We notice the pull of gravity, but not the push, it pulls matter towards it and energy away from it. It is a form of displacement.

Think of a sponge absorbing water. If the sponge was matter and contracted under gravity it would squeeze out the water (the Energy). This is a continuous process, effectively matter pulls in denser energy and pushes out less dense energy. The majority of the flow of energy is the same energy that changes its density as it flows in and out of matter. So things appear to be pulled in by gravity to the imaginary centre of mass, but this same energy is pushed back out in less dense form. Note this is the same process of black holes where light is pulled in due to its density but energies are pushed out that are less dense than light. Also in black holes another process occurs whereby matter and light are disassembled into less dense energy and so can escape pushing outwards.

I believe in the CORE (Conservation Of Reality Exists) concept. And ‘IDIOTICs’ I Deal (delve) In (into) Opposing Things In Concepts.

So when you put ‘IDIOTICs’ together they must end up making sense.

Or put another way if you put two (or any number of) idiots together and they don't make sense to each other, then they will both (or all) remain idiots.

16th January 2021

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Just to clarify what fields are.

They are also quantised, at the lowest detail level they are not continuous because they are created by the flow of ‘APEs’ through space/time/density which are themselves quantised, creating a ‘force’ orthogonal (perpendicular) to their plane and proportional to all their curvatures.

Morph your mind with Morphological

apepes.com

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Fields and boundaries.

I will give an example of the word field. Although it can have many meanings; I will restrict it to two specific meanings.

The first is "a field in which grass can grow and I can have my sheep graze in".

The second is "a magnetic field in which I can place things in and they will react to this field dependant on their magnetic properties".

As you can see the same word (field) is used to describe two different things.

In real terms (when you refer to real things that actually exist), you can not use the term field in the first example at any scale.

Although theoretically a field can be of any size, it cannot be a field if it is the size of a continent (or country). It will cease to be classified as a field, therefore it has a natural maximum limit (one can debate what this actual limit is, but whatever it is, there is a limit). Similarly there is a minimum limit. If we had a small field, say 10 metres by 10 metres, we could argue that if it was owned by 100 people (100 shares), that each person owned a field that was 1 square metre, so a field could be as small as 1 square metre (this is an abstract calculation).

This argument is actually partly bogus, you could say you owned a field that was 1 square metre and you can graze your sheep in your field, but this argument is not valid at any scale. If the scale was small enough you would just own a clump of soil, which may have a blade of grass in it or not. If the scale was even smaller than a blade of grass, it would not be a field, you would have to cease calling it a field.

Now what has this got to do with magnetic fields?

I will continue. The field also has a natural boundary, normally this would be some form of fence, hedgerow, path, even a wall, but it could actually be nothing; one field merges into another (continuous grass). The field still has a fixed boundary, which can be calculated from some fixed point(s) which will dictate which is your field from the next persons. If your sheep cannot graze in your field, it is not a real field (it can only be classified as an abstract field, and only certain real things can happen in this abstract field, everything else is abstract and not real).

Now this same principle also applies to magnetic fields. Magnetic fields do not normally have this restriction, and one can calculate to infinity if one wishes too, or go to infinitesimal small scales.

This is where I say in real terms one cannot do this, and there is a maximum and a minimum scale to which magnetic fields apply, i.e. There is a maximum and minimum boundary, going outside of this boundary becomes abstract, and in the real world different rules will apply.

[Below a certain level the ‘minpoynt’, different rules apply].

Let me expand this concept a little more. Let us look at our sheep.

How many sheep can graze in our field?

And where can our sheep be in this field?

Theoretically in the abstract you can have virtually any number of sheep and they can be in an infinite number of positions, but in real terms you can have only a maximum and a minimum number of sheep (minimum being one, and maximum dependent on the size of your field). If your field was the size of a sheep then the minimum and maximum would be 1, and it's position would be fixed in the middle of your field. Now a sheep can only be fixed in the middle in the abstract sense, because we have summed it's existence at a point. It actually exists at multiple points all over the sheep, but these points (together) still create boundaries of the sheep.

Now let us look at a magnetic field, and replace our sheep with electrons.

How many electrons can move in our field?

And where can our electrons be in this field?

Theoretically in the abstract you can have virtually any number of electrons and they can be in an infinite number of positions, but in real terms you can have only a maximum and a minimum number of electrons. The reason I say this is because an electron can only be fixed in the middle (at one point) in the abstract sense, because we have summed it's existence at a point.

It actually exists at multiple points all over it's existence, but these points (together) still create boundaries of the electron; one needs to look at the fine structure of the electron to determine it's real boundaries.

In my model these are the real points that Exist to create the existence of the electron. In quantum mechanics they sum the electrons as point particles with charge and work out probabilities (amplitudes) of where the electrons will be when they measure them using what they call spin states of the electrons. Anyway they have abstract mathematics like the following: - <¥> .... And when they measure the electron the mathematics collapses to what is actually measured.

All well and good that they can predict this, but they do not know precisely why! In my model it would be a representation of what actually happens to the real points that actually Exist (larger Energy like volume), and they really collapse to a smaller ‘poynt’ (particle like volume) which quantum mechanics sums as a point. They do the same with angular momentum when they calculate angular momentum in say the z direction (it ends with an up or down direction, but although they know that it also has an x, y component, they say they do not know, or they cannot calculate this).

Again in my model you can calculate possible values for it (whether they can actually measure this I do not know at this moment in time).

More on Reality.

We live in a real world that actually exists, but we live and experience it at a higher level (and scale) more than mere points that actually Exist.

So at the basic level certain points Exist and other points don't Exist so creating something that exists with all the dimensions.

Let us take a balloon as a simplified example, a balloon can be represented as having a solid part (the rubber itself, which would contain all the points that Exist) and the empty part (no rubber, actually the air inside, but for our example assume that it is completely empty [null space]) the empty part will have all the points that do not have Existence.

At the lower level scale this would be the case, but on our higher level (larger scale) we experience the whole balloon which encompasses the null points as well. So you have to specify the scale and distinguish between existence and ‘Existance’ (see glossary).

Now when we make measurements we need to take the previous into consideration. The measurements will be different for the two examples. If we are measuring what actually Exists; it will follow points that Exist. If we are measuring existence at our level and above we will include points that don't Exist as well (they will be encompassed by ‘real points’ that Exist), therefore it follows that you cannot start or end a real measurement with a null point.

So if we take our simplified example of the balloon, we can measure the width of the balloon (it's diameter), but we cannot measure space beyond a point outside our balloon, because there is no ‘real points’ that Exist beyond to take the measurement from (unless there is another balloon close by to measure to). Measurements of null space are meaningless on their own unless you can have reference points that actually Exist to measure them against.

So you can measure the space between stars, even though there is a lot of empty null space and real space between them. The real space has points of ‘Existance’, even though it appears to be empty.

Section on expansion and contraction of the universe.

The Real universe that Exists stays the same volume, but on our level the volume appears to increase or decrease because we experience it at our level (which includes the null spaces). No new material is created nor destroyed in the process. The distance travelled along the points of ‘Existance’ may be the same in both the condensed (more dense space) and the expanded (less dense space), but the distances on our level change (deceases and increases) because we are measuring two different things.

Illusion. Normal illusion like a mirage appears to be somewhere else when first observed, until you find where it really is, by observing it in it's physical form in it's true position. e.g. oasis.

‘Ellusion’ Electron illusion the electron appears when observed at a point in it's physical form, but was actually elsewhere before being observed.

This is the opposite to normal illusion. This occurs because it is not a point source until it is observed. It is a complex (minimal) volume when not observed. Note: - the electron when observed is not a real point source, but a much smaller complex minimal volume (‘minpoynt’). We summarise it as a point source, but can not do this when not observed. Emotions govern the states of mind, there are many states of mind. Theses are normally in balance and work together, but at the extremes you can have schizophrenia. Energy pushes things (‘Aspace’) outwards, Matter pulls things (‘Aspace’) inwards.

So at the point (not actual physical point) of the big bang scenario, there was more energy than matter, so the universe expands. As the universe expands and creates matter and losses energy, the universe will stop expanding when the ratio of matter to energy is in favour of matter, which will pull back the universe towards a big crunch scenario. Note: - Energy and Matter pull and push all the time, but in the case of Energy there is a bias to push more than pull, and in the case of Matter there is a bias to pull more than push (Gravity). We notice the pull of gravity, but not the push, it pulls matter towards it and energy away from it. It is a form of displacement.

Think of a sponge absorbing water. If the sponge was matter and contracted under gravity it would squeeze out the water (the Energy). This is a continuous process, effectively matter pulls in denser energy and pushes out less dense energy. The majority of the flow of energy is the same energy that changes its density as it flows in and out of matter. So things appear to be pulled in by gravity to the imaginary centre of mass, but this same energy is pushed back out in less dense form. Note this is the same process of black holes where light is pulled in due to its density but energies are pushed out that are less dense than light. Also in black holes another process occurs whereby matter and light are disassembled into less dense energy and so can escape pushing outwards.

I believe in the CORE (Conservation Of Reality Exists) concept. And ‘IDIOTICs’ I Deal (delve) In (into) Opposing Things In Concepts.

So when you put ‘IDIOTICs’ together they must end up making sense.

Or put another way if you put two (or any number of) idiots together and they don't make sense to each other, then they will both (or all) remain idiots.

16th January 2021

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Just to clarify what fields are.

They are also quantised, at the lowest detail level they are not continuous because they are created by the flow of ‘APEs’ through space/time/density which are themselves quantised, creating a ‘force’ orthogonal (perpendicular) to their plane and proportional to all their curvatures.

Morph your mind with Morphological

apepes.com