OK, nice work; but, qualify the beryl! This is some sort of proximity to rotating and nuclear states not well defined. So the "new" is not definitive.

Also, would like to see hydrogen or ...

Hmmmm..concentric circles, hexagons, and connective dots in the picture. Very nice geometric patterns as art. The question is: does it reflect on the actual patterning of the water molecules within the beryl? Or do the art patterns merely reflect on someone's vivid imagination or guesstimate?
Is there a chance that these patterns can also represent a geometric pattern in the macro level, i.e. planetary, star and galactic form. Solar and other star systems exhibit a concentric circular form, as do galaxies. The connective dots smacks of the EU model, where stars are connected to each other by electric fields/filaments. I hope I got that right.

The question is: does it reflect on the actual patterning of the water molecules within the beryl? Or do the art patterns merely reflect on someone's vivid imagination or guesstimate?

Both, actually. The illustration in this article is a good representation of some of the illustrations in the article, and show the structure of the channels, and a pretty good potential map of the water molecule in it. The vivid imagination part of it comes with the insertion of a nice beryl-in-quartz mineral specimen.

Is there a chance that these patterns can also represent a geometric pattern in the macro level, i.e. planetary, star and galactic form.

I don't think so. They schematic is a good match for the "cyclo-silicate" structure of beryl, and I think was generated by a professional artist at ORNL. It's really a very high content illustration.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

OK, two things we know: A particle, + or - or both, moves; then, an EM field. Also we know the math. So where do we find "new" when we can compute all possible states? Oh; forgot, we didn't do that work. The world is still a mystery; but, we have QM for the best guess? Read everything, compute reality and fix the error in logic and math! Apply only what is known!

Then, there does not exist a "New", with proper logic!

Is there a chance that these patterns can also represent a geometric pattern in the macro level, i.e. planetary, star and galactic form. Solar and other star systems exhibit a concentric circular form, as do galaxies

Sure: circles, squares, nonagons, whatever takes your fancy. I can even sell you some at a GOOD price!

Seriously though, fella, NO planetary or galactic orbit is actually circular: they're all ellipses (ever heard of them?) with major and minor axes all over the place, to say nothing of angles to the ecliptic, or gravitational perturbations from nearby objects...

But hey, why let mere details get in the way of hand-waving?

- FineStructureConstant
Maybe not a perfect circle, but a concentric "circular pattern or form" is exhibited. An ellipse i.e. Solar system is an elongated circle, and presumably, so are electrons. The point I'm making is that the CIRCLE and globe is the obvious form in the way of least resistance. I hope I'm clear on that.

OK, two things we know: A particle, + or - or both, moves; then, an EM field. Also we know the math. So where do we find "new" when we can compute all possible states? Oh; forgot, we didn't do that work. The world is still a mystery; but, we have QM for the best guess? Read everything, compute reality and fix the error in logic and math! Apply only what is known!

Then, there does not exist a "New", with proper logic!

- Hyperfuzzy
My hypothesis is that all Quantum particles/waves are representative of all "objects" on the macro level. Similar, but not exactly, like a computer Fractal program, where no matter where you click in the Fractal graphic, on that level it still looks the same as the larger Fractal version it originated from.
I would love to produce a math equation, but not qualified as a math major in college.

@compose
Thanks for the "polywater" remembrance. I read about it in high school and was amazed at how many were taken in by it.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

My hypothesis is that all Quantum particles/waves are representative of all "objects" on the macro level. Similar, but not exactly, like a computer Fractal program, where no matter where you click in the Fractal graphic, on that level it still looks the same as the larger Fractal version it originated from.
I would love to produce a math equation, but not qualified as a math major in college.

@compose
Thanks for the "polywater" remembrance. I read about it in high school and was amazed at how many were taken in by it.

You're an idiot

My hypothesis is that all Quantum particles/waves are representative of all "objects" on the macro level. Similar, but not exactly, like a computer Fractal program, where no matter where you click in the Fractal graphic, on that level it still looks the same as the larger Fractal version it originated from.
I would love to produce a math equation, but not qualified as a math major in college.

@compose
Thanks for the "polywater" remembrance. I read about it in high school and was amazed at how many were taken in by it.

You're an idiot

- hyperfuzzy
I meant that for retrosurf who gave me a proper answer. Sorry that I copied YOUR name by mistake.

Thanks for the teachable moment. On a learning curve here and have taken a great interest in QM and astrophysics while musing about the correlation of one to the other in Nature.

but the math...will show that there's no basis to the idea.

Still doesn't stop us musing though, does it?

That's something I wonder about. When you have such musings (as all of us have) then it's really useful to be able to do the math. Because otherwise you'll never figure whether your musings are good or not. Specifically if you do the math you can actually go to others and have a fruitful discussion (i.e. one where knowledge is gained rather than just doing the dope-addled "here's an idea..." shtick)

Moreover if you never do the math/put your idea to the test you run the risk of getting stuck on a false idea for months/years/decades/life - instead of spending 20 minutes to figure out that it's wrong and move on to other (possibly correct) musings.

Not making the effort seems like such a lot of potentially wasted time.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Think of the wave as the permanent part of the charge. the motion of the center causes an update of the field. So the wave part of the particle is infinite an always changing. The particle portion is by position only as the center of the field. The position of the center is to accommodate all fields.

Read Gerald Pollack... he has some interesting revelations that precede this "unprecedented" experimentation. Also, Luc Montagnier discoveries are quite revealing. Be skeptical of "science" that comes from well funded organizations, the facts can be twisted to support whatever conclusions desired. The contamination "theory" of polywater doesn't "hold water." Water as a liquid crystal (fourth phase) and the coherent domain structures, are basic to the phenomenon of water's properties.