Skip

The Spherical Wave Structure of Matter in Space
January 30, 2009 4:05 PM   Subscribe

On Truth and Reality. Despite several thousand years of failure to correctly understand physical reality (hence the current postmodern view that this is impossible) it is actually very simple to work out how matter exists and moves about in Space. The rules of Science (Occam's Razor / Simplicity) and Metaphysics (Dynamic Unity of Reality) require that reality be described from only one single source existing, as Leibniz wrote: "because of the interconnection of all things with one another."

The Four Main Purposes of this Website

1. To help people understand truth and reality
2. To realize that we are structures of the universe
3. To solve the central problems of knowledge
4. To share this knowledge with others

Deduce the most simple science theory of reality, the wave structure of matter in Space, then deduce from this to show that it works. There is no opinion involved - it shows that science does work - we just needed the correct (most simple) foundations.

Given the Wave Structure of Matter in Space it is now possible to explain what mathematics is, how it can exist in the universe, and thus why it is so well suited for describing physical quantities (mathematical physics).

We can simplify Einstein's foundations of representing matter as continuous fields in space-time, to waves in continuous space. It does lead to a very simple, sensible foundation for understanding physical reality, and thus how you exist in the universe.

This article basically explains the main subjects of quantum theory from a Wave Structure of Matter foundation (wave mechanics). If you prefer shorter summaries just browse the quantum physics links on either side of the page.

The purpose of the Cosmology page is to simply explain the two cosmology theories that are consistent with current observations. You will need a basic understanding of the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) before you read it. This WSM cosmology is actually describing what you really are, how you exist in this space of the universe and interact with everything around you.

There is a revolution coming in the foundations of our knowledge because we have solved the central problem of metaphysics, of what exists (space) that causes and connects the many things we experience (waves in space that form matter, the discrete and separate particle an illusion of our limited senses). Matter is large, a structure of space, and this truth about reality will change humanity.

If we are to discuss God and Religion, it is obvious that we must clearly define the meaning of these words (as all words are human constructions). In Philosophy God is generally referred to as the One thing that exists, infinite and eternal, that causes and connects the many things. Likewise, Religion, from Latin 'religare' meaning 'to bind', describes our connection to God as the One thing which exists. From this foundation we then see the clear connection between the sciences of philosophy, physics, metaphysics, and theology, as they are all founded on this Reality of One thing existing.

As humans have evolved from Nature they ultimately depend upon Nature for their survival. Until we understand what we are as humans (what matter is) and how we are connected to the universe (reality), it is impossible for humanity to be wise, and to be able to evolve cultural knowledge that enables us to live in harmony with Nature.

It is well known that our senses are deceptive, that when we see things as being separate and discrete bodies this is an illusion. Using science terminology then all we are really talking about is evolution and ecology. That all things in the universe (including life on earth) are interconnected and changing (the dynamic unity of reality).

Teaching people how to think correctly and to use language carefully (to work out the truth for themselves) is a pretty good start for education (i.e. by teaching philosophy to students from a young age).

If we are to improve human societies (which has become an urgent problem) we must consider the forces that determine their evolution. And four of the most significant factors are market economics, politics, education (the knowledge foundations of the people) and Nature.
posted by netbros (46 comments total) 13 users marked this as a favorite

 
Gentle suggestion: www.blogger.com/netbros
posted by Optamystic at 4:08 PM on January 30, 2009


I swear that this nut-job has been linked here before, but it does raise the fascinating metaphysietymological question: is "nut-job" hyphenated or no?
posted by joe lisboa at 4:15 PM on January 30, 2009 [2 favorites]


The Four Main Purposes of this Website

1. To help people understand truth about making a good fpp
2. To realize that we are numbers in sequence
3. To solve the central problems of eating food left out
4. To share this knowledge with others
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 4:19 PM on January 30, 2009 [6 favorites]


That depends on whether the job is an act being committed on the nuts or an action being performed involving the nuts, or whether job is descriptive of the nuts.

I prefer "whackjob", though.
posted by ardgedee at 4:19 PM on January 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


What a whacknut.
posted by TwelveTwo at 4:23 PM on January 30, 2009


5. Linking to 15 pages on the same site is not quantitatively better than a single link to the site.

The Spherical Wave Structure of the Internet in Space allows us to click around and discover Truth for ourselves. Truth is often nude and quite stimulating, I have found.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 4:23 PM on January 30, 2009 [2 favorites]


Wow this is either brilliant or utter jibber jabber.

This is not much help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haselhurst
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:25 PM on January 30, 2009


I was going to read the "postmodernism" article in order to rebut it in detail, but it just isn't worth it. Logorrhea, to paraphrase Schopenhauer, needs a cure, not a refutation.
posted by nasreddin at 4:27 PM on January 30, 2009 [3 favorites]


Who do I write the check out to? C. Ash?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:30 PM on January 30, 2009


Thanks, nas, you said it for me. (But I was going to that for the Leibnizian metaphysics stuff).
posted by oddman at 4:31 PM on January 30, 2009


I'm getting a strong whiff of Time Cube.
posted by Joe Beese at 4:48 PM on January 30, 2009


I refute it thus!

*points at Schopenhauer's hair*
posted by fleetmouse at 4:55 PM on January 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm getting a strong whiff of Time Cube.

That's just the thetans in your brain talking, man.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:57 PM on January 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


Props for making a post about a crank in that crank's own style as if it were a self-link!
posted by blasdelf at 5:11 PM on January 30, 2009


The most simple theory must be founded on One thing (substance) existing with properties

The capitalized One is what let me know.
posted by cmoj at 5:37 PM on January 30, 2009


This is probably a viral ad for portraits of scientists.
posted by shadytrees at 5:42 PM on January 30, 2009


I'm getting a strong whiff of Time Cube.

NO no no.

Spherical <> Cube
posted by mwhybark at 5:42 PM on January 30, 2009


The Four Main Purposes of this Website Metafilter

1. To help people understand truth and reality
2. To realize that we are structures of the universe
3. To solve the central problems of knowledge
4. To share this knowledge with others
posted by nax at 5:52 PM on January 30, 2009


AT LEAST DR. BRONNER CREATED A USEFUL PRODUCT!
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 8:02 PM on January 30, 2009




When I read stuff like this, I find it helps to imagine it as spoken by a sweaty 43 year old man affecting a phony french accent whilst trying to impress high school girls with his "insights". It's not fair, but then again, neither is the fact that my stupid brain is going to keep me up all night obsessing over the breathtaking magnitude of the insanity it was just subjected to. Stupid brain, maybe a little alchohol poisoning will shut it up.
posted by Humanzee at 8:23 PM on January 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


Before clicking through to the "more inside," I silently predicted that this post would have a batshitinsane tag.
posted by jayder at 9:28 PM on January 30, 2009


Hello dear critics,
You have all had a lot of fun at my expense, but sadly at the expense of truth too.

It seems to me that the following things are true. Can anyone show they are not?

In every one of your above criticisms there is no science argument as to why the wave structure of matter is not true. None at all! Is this not strange!

You all experience existing in space - every one of you.

You all experience falling back to earth if you jump. Why is this so? How are you connected to the earth, how is the earth connected to the sun such that it orbits around it? Yes I know, you just say "Duh! it's gravity". But that is just a word, what is gravity, it does not explain how things are connected together. We have the same problem with understanding light.

Physics evolved from Newton's mechanics, based on an absolute space and time, and many discrete matter particles that move about and instantly attract one another across space. The problem is that it does not explain how matter is connected. Newton acknowledged this.

"It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not matter, operate on and affect other matter without mutual contact. ... That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at-a-distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."
"So far I have explained the phenomena by the force of gravity, but I have not yet ascertained the cause of gravity itself. ... and I do not arbitrarily invent hypotheses."(Newton. Letter to Richard Bentley 25 Feb. 1693)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics-sir-isaac-newton.htm


And at the start of the last century we discovered that matter just does not behave as particles - it does not work. Both quantum physics and Einstein's relativity contradict it.

From quantum physics we know four things;

* There is a particle-wave duality for both light and matter.
* Matter has a de Broglie wave that effects its motion.
* Schrodinger's wave equations use this fact to determine the allowed wave states of electrons in atoms / molecules, their difference equates to light energy.
* Matter is non-local, I.e. Bell's inequality and the EPR experiment.

"Experiments on interference made with particle rays have given brilliant proof that the wave character of the phenomena of motion as assumed by quantum theory do, really, correspond to the facts. ... de Broglie conceived an electron revolving about the atomic nucleus as being connected with a hypothetical wave train, and made intelligible to some extent the discrete character of Bohr's 'permitted' paths by the stationary (standing) character of the corresponding waves." (Albert Einstein, On Quantum Mechanics, 1940)
"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics / quantum theory held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. ... I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Schrödinger E, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, CN, 1995)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechanics.htm

Einstein's general relativity tells us that matter is spherical and spatially extended and curves space-time. That matter is not a discrete 'particle' but a structure of space.

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter."
(Albert Einstein)

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ... The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high." (Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)

However a pure field theory of light and matter does not work - it does not explain discrete quantum phenomena.

"The great stumbling block for the field theory lies in the conception of the atomic structure of matter and energy. For the theory is fundamentally non-atomic in so far as it operates exclusively with continuous functions of space, in contrast to classical mechanics whose most important element, the material point, in itself does justice to the atomic structure of matter." (Einstein, 1954)

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, I.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Theory-Relativity.htm


We have tried particles - they don't work.
We have tried continuous fields - they don't work.

So what is the only other option based on the above - waves.
And we know matter is spherical so we must use spherical waves (like surface of the earth).
And you then quickly realise that they must have a wave center that looks suspiciously like a 'particle'.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/science-physics-wsm-wave-diagrams.htm

And they must resonate together which is discrete - suspiciously like light is discrete - and consistent with the fact that we use wave equations to determine this in quantum physics.

Then you deduce the de Broglie wave and relativistic mass increase - it is just due to Doppler shifts of the in and out waves of two wave-center 'particles in relative motion. This is a phase wave with high velocity - suspiciously like the non-locality of EPR.

These waves travel more slowly where there is more matter in space (like the sun). This causes wave centers to move in this direction of slowest incoming waves, suspiciously like gravity, the curvature of light past the sun.

I could go on - once you understand the spherical wave structure of matter you see how it works - how matter is connected together in space by its spherical in and out waves.

Then you will understand that it works - it correctly deduces the laws of nature, which have been calculated over many centuries, but their source was never understood.
Now we know - matter is made of waves in space.
Thus humans are made of waves in space.

You can also deduce that the wave structure of matter in space is the most simple science theory for describing reality - as we all experience existing in one common space, yet there are many minds and material bodies. So Occam's razor selects this explanation over more complex particle or mind theories.

So please address the above statements - is any one not true? If so please copy and and paste it and show, using rules of science, that it is not true.
Where rules of science are;

1. Evidence from our senses - we all sense existing in space, and interaction with other matter around us - that both light and matter have wave properties.

2. Logic from most simple principles. Space as the one substance that exists, and its wave motions, is the most simple foundation for logic, and it correctly deduces what we observe, thus uniting these two sources of science knowledge for the first time.

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.
Science is simply common sense at its best - that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic."
(Thomas Huxley)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm

In ending.

If you reply and ignore these rules of scientific discussion and continue to insult this knowledge - well this is probably useful, as anyone with a brain will realise this and ignore your comments for what they are, rubbish.

Our world really is in deep shit. Human overpopulation, destruction of Nature, pollution of our world, ... these things are going to cause us a lot of grief (they already do, it will get worse). So stop and think about your children, those you love and care about - surely you all want to live in a better world.

It is now obvious that we have worked out reality - this unity of reality will in time transform humanity as it is the source of truth and thus wisdom about how we should live here on our beautiful little planet which is really part of a most amazing universe / infinite space.

"The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it." (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

I realise that you are just acting like humans in all centuries - condemning something you do not understand and are not prepared to think about. This is due to our tribal evolution.

"I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600)

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Max Planck, 1920)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/evolution-ecology-nature-culture-society.htm

But amongst you all there are some who are genuine in seeking to know the truth about things.
This knowledge is for you - to help you help yourselves and the world around you (which is part of you).

"For the incredibly great majority of men are by their nature absolutely incapable of any but material aims; they cannot even comprehend any others. Accordingly, the pursuit of truth alone is a pursuit far too lofty and eccentric for us to expect that all or many, or indeed even a mere few, will sincerely take part in it." (Arthur Schopenhauer)

To the raving mob - try and stop and think a bit - read it and go away and think about it - look at things in the space around you and ask yourself "How can I see that, how am I connected to all this other matter in the space around me?" .
Thinking and observing are very useful things!

"The task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen,
but to think what no body yet has thought about that which everyone sees."
(Arthur Schopenhauer)

I hope you will stop and think - I am trying to help you!

Cheers,
Geoff Haselhurst
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Haselhurst-Biography.htm

See also:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical-physics/logic-truth-reality.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/society/politics-economics-truth-utopia.htm
posted by physics1philosophy at 1:22 AM on January 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


tl: dr

It reminds me of this semi funny but very accurate philosophy joke:

A philosopher went into a closet for ten years to contemplate the meaning of the universe. When he came out, he went into the street and met an old colleague who asked him where the hell he had been all those years.
"In a closet," he replied. "I wanted to know the meaning of the universe."
"And have you found an answer?"
"Yes, everything is a bridge."
"That's all well and good" said the colleague a little annoyed, "but what do you mean by bridge?"
"Oh, maybe you're right" said the philosopher "I need to go away and think about it more."

Wake me up when it gets published in a respected academic journal.
posted by leibniz at 3:17 AM on January 31, 2009


Your joke is important as it shows the problem philosophy has faced for thousands of years - how does language and our words and ideas relate to physical reality and real things that exist.
The Kant page explains this more.



The solution. This Space we all commonly experience does in fact exist - it is a wave medium, matter is formed from waves in this space. This is the most simple metaphysics - from the motion of matter in space and time to the wave motion of space that causes matter and time.

We know this is true because it deduces what we observe.

A joke is fine - but this is an important subject - how we exist in the universe as a foundation for thinking and acting wisely.
So I remind people to address my post above and paste in any comment I have made that is not true and show by the rules of science it is not true.

It is very simple - the electron is a spherical standing wave in space.
It is also very complex, the interaction of 10^80 spherical standing waves in our universe produces mind boggling complex wave patterns (which is why maths physics is so complex).

Cheers,
Geoff Haselhurst

On Truth and Reality. Philosophy Physics Metaphysics of Space - Wave Structure of Matter.
posted by physics1philosophy at 3:32 AM on January 31, 2009


For some reason my links don't show if I use html code.

The Kant page;

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Immanuel-Kant-Philosopher.htm
posted by physics1philosophy at 3:34 AM on January 31, 2009


Wake me up when it gets published in a respected academic journal.

Do you really trust academics? History shows this is foolish.

"Numerous are the academic chairs, but rare are wise and noble teachers. Numerous and large are the lecture halls, but far from numerous the young people who genuinely thirst for truth and justice." (Albert Einstein)

And censorship of ideas contradicting particle physics / Big Bang is a serious problem.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-censorship-nobel-prize-laureate.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical-physics/censorship-physics-forums.htm

Geoff
posted by physics1philosophy at 3:43 AM on January 31, 2009


no, you still haven't got it.

what's a wave?

What makes you think that when physicists say an electron is a wave, they mean the same thing as we ordinarily think of as waves? We have reason to think they don't- because ordinary water waves for instance, are compressions and rarefractions within an array of particles. So why can't I ask what the waves are made of in your case? And since you apply the concept even more broadly (to space and time) I am inclined to think you are using the concept very vaguely indeed.

Scientific/philosophical publishing is indeed highly restrictive of new ideas, but that's because it's incredibly hard to prove anything. It's quite possible that you have a good idea, but you will need to be a lot more patient if you want it to be endorsed by anyone at all, and ultimately for it to be applied. You will need to convince the relevant expert community by utilising their forums for analysing and building theories.
posted by leibniz at 4:19 AM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


What just happened here?
posted by nax at 4:53 AM on January 31, 2009


Oh. My. Dog.

It is very simple - the electron is a spherical standing wave in space.
No, the electron is represented by a 4-D spinor field that couples to a 4-D vector gauge field (the photon). Got all that? Welcome to fucking 1950. You're trying to argue a debate that was pretty definitively settled in 1905.

If a dumber-than-average chimp was to wander out of the jungle, communicating solely by grunting, and dipping its penis in ink to write out physics equations, and those physics equations were found to be useful, then that chimp's work would be celebrated. Hell, since Einstein stopped combing his hair once he turned 50, I think most people expect a physicist to act like that anyway. All cranks obsessively quote Einstein, because he was fond of making silly off-the-cuff remarks. They fail to take note of what he actually did. When he was a nobody, with no PhD, he published several peer-reviewed papers that revolutionized physics and made him famous. Then, at the height of a career that left no doubt that he was the greatest living physicist (and perhaps the greatest ever), he began to be wrong. And physicists began to ignore him. There's no conspiracy against you. No one's listening to you because they're waiting for a smarter ape.

If you actually want to do physics, then take all this energy you seem to have and enroll in some classes. Work LOTS of problem sets. Come back when you can use your theory to calculate the perturbative corrections to the .
posted by Humanzee at 6:07 AM on January 31, 2009 [8 favorites]


That '.' was either the first evidence of early-onset Alzheimer's, or my way of dropping the mike and walking away. Word.
posted by Humanzee at 6:11 AM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Suggested reading: The Crackpot Index.
posted by Dumsnill at 7:37 AM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


Holy cow. I've never seen a thread quite like this before. On Metafilter, at least.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:01 AM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]



"Suggested reading: The Crackpot Index."

It has some good points and a sense of humor - but also a couple of stupid comments of its own that are in the crackpot realm. e.g.

"10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". "

This is the problem of causation and necessary connection. This is central to physics, philosophy and metaphysics. Postmodern philosophy assumes this is a permanent limitation - but there is no reason given for this.

You can see for yourself, a spherical standing wave explains this causal connection.

"40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is."

I may as well quote Carver Mead on this.

"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics. ... The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system – the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser – they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart." (Carver Mead, Professor Emeritus at Caltech. Received $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize in 1999)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Mead

Modern physics is full of nonsensical concepts. Every time they discover further things they just create a new particle and give it the necessary properties to make the maths work. And you just need to read Halton Arp to see that the big bang is wrong - that quasars are not far distant objects with ridiculous energy outputs - but closer thus their high redshift has nothing to do with expansion of universe.
Physics is in a poor state - this is well known. (So are philosophy and metaphysics.)


And as i keep asking - what have i written that is crackpot?
What evidence do you have that matter is not made from waves in space. I assume that you experience existing in space, and being causally connected to the matter around you.
WSM explains this simply sensibly and logically.

Cheers,
Geoff Haselhurst

PS - Suggested reading - David Hume on Causation and Necessary Connection.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-David-Hume-Philosopher.htm
posted by physics1philosophy at 2:45 PM on January 31, 2009


This American Life had a great segment (act three in A Little Bit of Knowledge) with a physics crackpot where they get feedback on the manuscripts from a physicist. Extreme doggedness and the urge to share something that can't communicated intelligibly, matched with the inability to listen and learn, have always made me think that crackpots reveal something deep about the nature of human belief. Haven't found any such revelation yet, though.
posted by Llama-Lime at 2:47 PM on January 31, 2009


"No, the electron is represented by a 4-D spinor field that couples to a 4-D vector gauge field (the photon). Got all that? Welcome to fucking 1950. You're trying to argue a debate that was pretty definitively settled in 1905."

True, in modern physics they represent the electron this way. But it has several well known problems.

Feynman's QED is based on his PhD thesis where he proposed that the electron is at the center of advanced and retarded spherical vector electromagnetic waves.

Two problems;

There are no solutions for a spherical vector wave.
Using vector waves causes infinite singularities as r tends to zero.
This led to the problem of re-normalisation.

"Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!" (Paul Dirac)

Richard Feynman also knew this;

"No matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent. ... I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate.'But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent. ... I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate." (Richard Feynman, 1985)

Milo Wolff found the solution. To discard the particle (as Einstein realised) and just work with scalar spherical waves. They have spherical solutions and a finite wave amplitude at the wave center.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-Structure-Matter.htm


And if you think about QED and Feynman diagrams you will see that they are just mathematical representations of spherical waves. i.e. You must draw all possible paths and rotate your little amplitude dial based on the distance AND the frequency of light. It is just representing wave amplitudes and how they cancel and combine.

See;

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Richard-Feynman-QED.htm

So yes, QED is close to the truth as it is founded on spherical waves - he just used the wrong waves and maintained the discrete particles. Silly in hindsight - but history shows that humanity is like that.

Cheers,
Geoff
posted by physics1philosophy at 3:04 PM on January 31, 2009


"This American Life had a great segment (act three in A Little Bit of Knowledge) with a physics crackpot where they get feedback on the manuscripts from a physicist. Extreme doggedness and the urge to share something that can't communicated intelligibly, matched with the inability to listen and learn, have always made me think that crackpots reveal something deep about the nature of human belief. Haven't found any such revelation yet, though."

I would say most humans have some 'crackpot' beliefs.
This is one of the central problems of philosophy - to use language carefully, to connect words and ideas with real things that exist rather than just imaginary things.

This is difficult to do. However, we can deduce the most simple language for describing reality, you find it must be waves in space.

From that you can deduce that it works.

So I wonder why this crackpot discussion has arisen - what is crackpot about describing matter most simply in terms of waves in space?
The wave properties of light and matter are well known - we use waves in quantum physics to explain particle phenomena of light, and the de Broglie matter wave is well known.
WSM deduces this.

Cheers,
Geoff
posted by physics1philosophy at 3:20 PM on January 31, 2009


"What evidence do you have that matter is not made from waves in space?"

None whatsoever.
posted by Dumsnill at 3:21 PM on January 31, 2009


"What evidence do you have that matter is not made from waves in space?"

None whatsoever.
--------------------------------

Well there is a lot of evidence that matter is made from waves in space.
People just need to read and think about it for a while.
It now seems simple and obvious to me - but then I have thought about it for 12 years while reading physics philosophy and metaphysics.
It seems to work fine - I have not found any problems.

So I guess another question presents itself.

Does anyone know of any experiment that cannot be explained with the wave structure of matter?

Geoff
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
posted by physics1philosophy at 6:22 PM on January 31, 2009


retarded spherical vector electromagnetic waves.

Hey now. No reason to get mean.
posted by cortex at 6:59 PM on January 31, 2009


Let me know when you have a hypothesis which is:

1) testable by one or more physical experiments we could perform

2) falsifiable by one or more physical experiments we could perform

3) predicts measurable results which, in the experiments describe above, differ from current physical theories

'cause, right now, you've used Baez's Physics Crackpot Index as a checklist.

I've seen a hell of a lot of Guys with Websites Who Have These Ideas They Want to Explain, and none of you seem to agree. Frankly, I'd like to chuck the lot of you in a room and find out who wins, because not all of you can be right, you know? But it's more than likely that all of you are wrong.

Sitting in a box and thinking very hard about reality isn't physics. Where are are your equations? I don't see any math which produces numbers we can measure. What I do see is a picture of concentric circles, repeated over and over again. That's not physics, that's a logo.

Every major physics department in the world receives hundreds of papers per year full of things which resemble your "ideas" (though not in particular flavor) by not having the three above listed parts to them. Most of them have better illustrations than what you have. They all go in the trash. We didn't have time to even laugh over most of them.

What you have produced is something not even worth evaluating to see if it is wrong. So long as you continue down that path, you will be unheard and increasingly bitter. Eventually, you will die and the only remnant of your ideas will be a cache on archive.org that nobody even looks for.

That's a terrible way to spend your golden years.
posted by adipocere at 7:17 PM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


It's nice to see that positivism is finally finding the advocates it deserves. Please can we see this Haselhurst fellow debate Tom Cruise about the relative merits of their cosmologies? Once they're done with that, I'd like to see them discuss why postmodernity is an illusion and we're all about to enter a bright new era of simple certainty.

The sad thing is, I suspect that many scientists with a far less damning aura of obsessive megalomania, like Richard Dawkins, are just as wacko.
posted by macross city flaneur at 8:51 PM on January 31, 2009


I would love to see a revolution in physics, but am skeptical that writing of this nature, which seems over-reliant seemingly relevant quotes from mostly dead thinkers will result in one.

There's alot of beautiful writing on that site though.
posted by phylum sinter at 9:13 PM on January 31, 2009


over-reliant _on_...
posted by phylum sinter at 9:14 PM on January 31, 2009


Dear Geoff

First of all, please stop linking to your site everytime you post. This is crackpot behaviour.

Second of all, look up Prof. Jose Croca of the University of Lisbon. I heard a lecture by him last year that described ideas not a million miles away from yours.

Third, read Everything Must Go by James Ladyman and Don Ross, which is a very good book on the philosophy of physics. You can access this on oxfordscholarship.com but you will need an athens password. I will even give you mine if you ask nicely.

Fourth, get a phd in the philosophy of physics with someone like James Ladyman (who is top philosopher in this area that I know of). You can do this from a distance.

Finally, write a book or a series of articles and publish with OUP or in a respected journal, attend conferences, give talks etc. Do not scorn intelligent people who have spent many many years thinking about the same area as you.

sincerely...
posted by leibniz at 2:27 AM on February 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


I love the Philosophy Gift Shop that Geoff has put together at CafePress. Very classy touch.
posted by jayder at 12:15 PM on February 1, 2009


« Older à la rue..   |   "Don't have a thetan, dude." Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post