This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This seems to remind me of my high school physics days, when I learned that an electron can jump from one orbital shell, to another, but doesn't exist in between. I thought how can that be?? Later I learned how to calculate a simple emission line for the hydrogen atom using first principles. ie, consider an electron to be a wave of certain frequency at a given radius. A slighter bigger radius means the electron has to travel a bit further, and hence goes out of phase with itself, and thus cancels itself as the wave goes around the circle. Get the radius just right though, and the wave is back in phase, and the electron can exist, ie another orbital shell. So there we have it, the electron DOES travel through the gap between orbitals, just it's out of phase, and you only "see it" when it is back in phase!!! Yeah I know I'm thinking classically here, but it is a good mental picture for me to have, and this article on Solitons seems to back this up. I realise this only works for Hydrogen

More proof of multiple dimensions.
This was very expected, welcome to go back in my posts where I talked about this. The first person to find this was an electrical engineer working with a nano-transistor.

I understand people don't get this stuff, but it's time to break down some barriers and forget everything you learned in high school physics.
If you put all waves in the multi-verse together the net effect would be 0. In essence, everything is nothing or zero.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

I think maybe "erson", in his comment above, is saying what occurred to me... that perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that a BEC (albeit "halved") briefly exhibits the published properties of a BEC?

I have a sneaking suspicion that, even in a discussion among the "experts", it is painfully obvious that we simply don't have the language nor the comparative analogies at our disposal to even have a very intelligent discussion about what is being observed. Case-in-point is found in "tritace"'s comment above... his/her use of "dark matter" is a bit comical to me since the term (in my understanding) is merely a placeholder for some theoretical thing/situation that we don't have any real clue about but adopted to fill-in a gap so that we can forge ahead blindly. Dark matter/energy don't seem like effective variables to be used in "solutions", right?
I'll close with a chuckle about how said dark "stuff" seems shared by both cosmology and quantum theory... Now who's the "kooky cousin"?

Circa 1967, Art Winfree proposed his law of coupled periodic oscillators, which revolves around the relative phases of the periodic oscillators in the system to be organized.

The BEC waves described in this Physorg article are two periodic oscillations, in Winfree terms. Winfree showed that such a system could couple in two ways: either exactly in phase or exactly out of phase. This BEC experiment involves all of the elements of Winfree's law, with the results that Winfree predicted. Even the illusion of "bouncing." The 180 degree phases make the two waves precise mirror images of each other, indistinguishable unless tagged.

I have made many Physorg posts, over the last four years, showing that Winfree's law applies to physics. It must: Max Planck's quantum of energy is a periodic oscillation.

Winfree has several followers, including Steve Strogatz of Cornell. But none are physicists.

...I have a sneaking suspicion that, even in a discussion among the "experts", it is painfully obvious that we simply don't have the language nor the comparative analogies at our disposal to even have a very intelligent discussion about what is being observed. ...

Okay, okay... Either "I have a sneaking suspicion" or "it is painfully obvious", not both! You decide. ;)

jdavis417 made my day with

Okay, okay... Either "I have a sneaking suspicion" or "it is painfully obvious", not both! You decide. ;)

Its like "I like this tech stuff, I have a sneaking suspicion I am intelligent enough to understand this so its obvious I can because I have more than a sneaking suspicion I am conscious of intelligence" or words to that effect - lol !

I read those some years ago on some other forum & your comment jdavis417 on that which you read reminded me, I am still shaking my head wondering what background, education, experience could possibly lead to the type of quote I mentioned in last para.

I wonder if it was uttered by the same person you commented on, presumably some years after the event so its had time to "settle" sufficiently to make it more succinct :-)

If you put all waves in the multi-verse together the net effect would be 0. In essence, everything is nothing or zero.

Or - one...

Whydening Gyre offered me more chance to apply chuckle force re numerical/philosophical paradigms with

If you put all waves in the multi-verse together the net effect would be 0. In essence, everything is nothing or zero.

Or - one...

Ah yes but, one what ?

One abstract notion held in consciousness by one deity of some (one's) sort.

ie. One as in not abstract a unitary thing of what attribute then singular or plural attributes.

If there is no-one to conceive a numeral (or abstract notion of a numeral) then does that numeral exist, who would be there to confirm, deny or even communicate it & to whom ?

Ain't stuff fun.

One of the basic tenants of the new model for an underlying driving mechanism capable of uniting the fundamental forces as well as providing an updated physical mechanism for the formation of the universe based on well known nuclear processes scaled to higher energy levels the further back in history they extend, is that it's not only particles that obey the laws of dispersion, but also waves as well. The results of this study provide a strong indication that I'm on the right track. Waves are ultimately what gives all matter it's structure and the presents that it needs to interact with the rest of the physical world.

...

If there is no-one to conceive a numeral (or abstract notion of a numeral) then does that numeral exist, who would be there to confirm, deny or even communicate it & to whom ?

Ain't stuff fun.

The SPCA is at the door... do you want to recant your story of placing that cat in that box? ;)

...I wonder if it was uttered by the same person you commented on, presumably some years after the event so its had time to "settle" sufficiently to make it more succinct :-)

I hope I don't come across as either "butt hurt" or defensive of my id, but since the comment you replied to was a correction of my own grammar, (although I did reference others in the grammatically offensive one) you've given me an opportunity to further my point (which was admittedly, weakly stated).

1.) I'm no genius and I can prove it (if I didn't already). I do not intent to feign any understanding of this... that would counter my contention that...
2.) These subjects seem to be beyond normal comprehension... At least in the way that we can comprehend that the stove is hot & we shouldn't have a lie-down up there.
3.) In these experiments and observations we seem to be utilizing a very loose "scientific method" (perhaps necessarily).
4.) "Right thinking" may come from outside the field. ;)

...Waves are ultimately what gives all matter it's structure and the presents that it needs to interact with the rest of the physical world.

I'd like to hijack your comment to further my own, due to character limitations for replies. I hope my comments are taken as intended... as the light-hearted, inane musing's of a simpleton. Thanks to those past-and-future for "making it fun".

We could live in a kind of "Flat Land" where the waves that you reference are something quite different from what we can observe.
We ought to admit that our "dark stuff", & perhaps most theories, are like jumping on the back of the cowardly lion because he thinks he might be able to clear the chasm. I'm not saying this is wrong... I'm saying that we could have very little idea what we're observing and it's very difficult (perhaps impossible) to express in terms that we are accustomed to. Keys to their expression may come from "children". Comments from the uninitiated should be considered.