Intro of David

[David]

Hi Geoff;
To introduce myself:
I am a retired Electronics Engineer that has worked primarily in the fields of radiometric instrumentation and high energy plasma systems.

We share the realization of the importance of Dr. Wolff’s work in standing wave mathematics. I found your other website several years ago when it was still “work in progress” but not having visited it for some time, I was unaware you had started a forum. I am going to take some time to browse through the postings before doing any serious posting myself. Hope you don’t mind!

For those who may be interested in my basic way of thinking, other posting of mine can be found on “Toequest.com” under the name “dleviwing”.

After reading Dr. Wolff’s post commenting on the movie “What the Bleep Do We Know”, I find I like him even more. He seems to have had the same response I did.

You have done an excellent job with all your sites.

best wishes;
Dave

[nigel]

Hi Dave and welcome

It is interesting you use the term "standing wave mathematics", this was my immediate response. I was excited about the recent proof of the ponicare conjecture. Not to get to technical

(I had a discussion with Aireal where we workshopped the ideas as related to wsm here http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=468 ).

We now know of the existence of nice 3 dim manifolds homomorphic to the 3 sphere. The natural wavefronts on the 3 sphere will be spherical. We have a hope now of a mathematical model for 4 dimensional waveguides.

I have been thinking of the implications of this for the last few weeks, the natural wavefronts on the 2 spheres are circular, by observation the small perturbations of the 2 dimensional surface by the waves amplitude extend the mathematics of a 2 dimensional matter wave into 3 dimensions. Analogous to this a spherical 3 dimensional matter wave will extend into 4 dimensions.

This possibly explains the success of the Dirac formalism, we had a good discussion on the implications of this here
(http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=474)
once again this grew out of Aireal's inquiries, (Aireal seems to have this ability to home in on important areas).

Dirac’s formalism grew out of his success in constructing an eigen equation that related energy and momentum in dim = 4 space.

Due to the nature of the nonlinearity of his operator the interpretation of his solutions has become at once exceedingly technical (harmonic analysis) and fragmented.

I now embarking on a period of study in non-linear analysis and I hope to revisit his operator and its spectrum on terms of WSM.

There is a ontological argument as to the spectrum of this operator, for instance it is not bounded below and much effort has been put into modifying this operator to create lower bounds to model ground states.

These modifications have led to a complexification in the theory that has to be seen to be believed

Do we really need to construct a lower bound, could we understand the infinite spectrum of negative energy states in terms of wave mechanics and hence WSM.

As a retired high energy physics engineer I expect you have a formidable mathematical intuition.

Kindest Regards Nigel

[Aireal]

Welcome David

You came here the for the first time before I did it seems. Geoff has done a great job with the sites, and is always trying to improve them.

I came here by mistake while working on my radiation shielding concept, but got more help here than the other sites that were related to my work. If you browse the postings you will find out all about my background, so I will spare you the redunancy. I have not been to Toequest.com but I will have to check it out in my spare time. If you see the name Aireal on any forums, it is most likely me. I have not run into anyone else on the web with that spelling yet.

This is currently a small forum, but we have some lively discussions.

Welcome and enjoy
Aireal

[David]

Hi Nigel and Aireal;
Thank you for the warm welcome.

Sorry Nigel, my pencil and paper math is lacking and my slide-rule became obsolete many years ago. I rely on programs like MathCad and other computer programs to do the heavy thinking these days. Sometimes I’m forced to do my bank balance with a pencil. Fortunately I have retained the ability to recognize the mathematical symbols and their functions so I can translate them into common English languages if that’s what you mean.

After reading some of your posts, there is one thing that may assist your thinking. Try to view wave interference as though destructive interference causes expansion and constructive interference causes condensing of the wave medium. This process can be used to explain the forces of nature and allow one to visualize the set of wave functions involved in atomic structure when standing waves form harmonic interference with the field waves. Field waves are like shell structures about the core symmetry wave particle. I believe they are referred to as the in/out-waves by Milo and Feynman. They are easily dispersed or converted into magnetic structures and are the primary cause of the charge phenomena. I’m not a fan of current particle physics models.

[Aireal]

David

Sounds to me like you are dead on the mark and already have an excellent grasp on W.S.M. In the model of the atom I tried to construst, I attempted to describe this shell like structure from the interaction of in/out waves. Your knowledge and understanding will be of great help, even if your slide-rule is broke. My math is not that great, but I am trying to fix that, studing in my spare time. Nigel with his greater understanding of math has been a invaluable help to me as I delve into theories beyond my math ability and training in science.

[haselhurst]

Hi David,
I had a few very close friends who were electronic engineers, back in the days (1990) when I was developing a stupid laser game (Quasar or Q/zar) which I subsequently sold and which has allowed me to retire to the country and read philosophy and physics!

I find engineers more practical, more abiding by the real world rather than theoretical constructs (e.g. particles, big bang, probability waves, collapse of wavefunction, ...)

I am also member to another small group (that do not really post here much) which includes Milo Wolff, Denys Lepinard and Mike Harney.
I think you will find their work interesting ( I realise you have read Milo's work), in particular Mike's work as he has a business developing electronics (and works from WSM foundations). He is a great guy (just busy!) so i hope you can discuss things with him over time (search Google - you will find some of his pages on this forum and at his website).

And i wonder if you have read Carver Mead's 'Collective Electrodynamics' It is important and you will relate to it.

Anyway, just a short hello. My contributions here are spasmodic, still have a LOT to do to improve spaceandmotion website.
Hope we can do some good work together over time.
Geoff

PS - Thanks Nigel for your welcoming post. Hopefully over time I will better understand your work and can contribute.

[nigel]

Hi Geoff

"Hopefully over time I will better understand your work and can contribute."

Geoff you have made a huge contribution

Today the science community accepts Standard Model SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1)
Here U(1) is time.

You are proposing in mathematical terms this (I think) WSM SU(3)*U(1)

If this were to be true it would be a tremendous advance for physics not least to get rid of all the endless SU(2) representations.

I don’t know which is correct but I do know we have to move on from Principle of Complementarity, that matter and energy exhibit wave properties, or particle properties, but never both at the same time

When you point out "The correct answer is that Space in itself must have Properties"[1]. You are correctly pointing to the major error in physics (that can be so easily hidden by a mathematical formalism),

Simply consider the 3 dimensional atoms, which must exist as three dimensional standing waves otherwise what else will fill the space except particles which somehow must be everywhere at once, or else you have a vacuum inside the atom, which is again problematic, or you have these virtual particles, or you have the probability distribution which so upset Einstein.

This error leads as you correctly in my view state to "the current confusion of modern physics due to the incorrect conception of the Motion of matter 'particles' in Space and Time"[1].

Further on the ontological status of U(1) (time) I think it is a very valuable contribution when you say "Kant's error was to not realize that Time is Caused by the Wave Motion of Space, and that it is actually Motion (not Time) that is necessary (a priori) for us to sense things Kant's error was to not realize that Time is Caused by the Wave Motion of Space, and that it is actually Motion (not Time) that is necessary (a priori) for us to sense things" [1].

I think there are a few people who are intuitively constructing a conceptual framework around motion, and in the past we have Einstein and his inertial rest frame and its vast consequences in field theory

Another validation to question the ontological status of time can be found in the metric, no one really has a satisfactory metric for the space described by SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1), what is happening is people just make up a metric that models what the observe which seems pretty ad-hoc and far from satisfactory to someone like myself who has a mathematical world view.

For example the Schwarzschild metric [2] from the relativistic theory of black holes is different to the Kerr metric [3] and they both contradict Hawkins model[4].

It is in the way the metric use time that we find the divergence. I think it is good to challenge orthodoxy as to the state of “current confusion” we find in modern physics and indeed on the ontological status of time, I am certainly glad that I am considering it now and for me personally this is a direct result of your contribution.

Finally my whole philosophical journey relates to your quote when you say

“Thus Kant's problem, which he cannot solve, is that he does not know 'what exists' thus he does not know how we are 'necessarily connected'”[1].

I feel we have travelled together as refugees from idealisim, that you have built a home for realists here allows me to find strength and shelter, the fact the world still contains followers of logical positivism means there is a need for philosophies such as Direct Material Realism[1].

Thankyou for your contribution.

Kindest Regards Nigel

Notes for the interested reader

[1] Hazelhursts “Direct Material Realism of the Metaphysics of Space and Motion” and in particular his reflections on the ontological status of time can be found at
(http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Immanuel-Kant-Philosopher.htm)

[2] (casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) it is interesting to note that in the Schwarzschild metric time is a simle space like measure but negative

[3]( http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0004016) apolgies for this link as it is extremly technical, however it shows the lack of a unified ontolgical structure for the metrics on spacetime. The Kerr metric introduces a frequency component into the time parameter.

[4] ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0505/0505068.pdf )

again apologies for another technical article, however this one is worth attempting (any serious engagement of Hawkins work is technical) as it shows how the radiation escapes in terms of entanglement, this directly contradicts relativity. It was a huge schock for the physics community when he proved this. Everyone is familiar with tunneling a wave phenomena, he shows a mechanisim for matter to tunnel out of the black hole in a complicated entanglement/entropy argument. If matter was a particle could it escape?

[haselhurst]

Nigel,
Do you work? Doing what? How do you get time for all your contributions here?
Karene and I want to take my kids (who live in Canada) to Alice Springs possibly next year. Hopefully we can catch up and have a nice chat about truth and reality (not many people discuss such things with any real knowledge!).

And have you read Milo Wolff's book (very important) and also Carver Mead's Collective Electrodynamics.

Thanks again for your enthusiasm, kindness and intelligence, all wonderful traits!
Good on ya!
Cosmos,
Geoff

[David]

Thank you Geoff;
I have always found engineers to be the interpreters for the PhD’s. This simply means putting the mathematics into common language for management types.

This is a little scenario others have found to be interesting and totally classical physics. It may give you insight to how I translate the complexities of QM and Relativity equations once you through out the absurd hype phenomena. These are excerpts from one of my threads in the ToeQuest forum. I would be interested in any comments or discussion.
I have not read Carver's book. I'll check it out and let you know.
Thanks;
Dave

A Scenario of Absolute Fundamentals for the Creation of a Universe.
Let's try to create a new scenario to explain the observed expansion of the universe and maybe some of the other phenomena while we're at it.

First let's assume a place has always existed that we can work in and call it the "Void". Cosmos will work just as well.
Now we can imagine a fundamental entity we will need to make everything from. Imagine that this substance has a fundamental ability to stick to itself or to bond. We can call this property "Self-affinity".(Sa for short). We now have an aggregate of substance that does nothing but occupy a finite volume of the Void and has in effect, infinite mass according to current mathematical models. Unfortunately mass does not exist yet. What we have is an object of "infinite density" due to the strength of its bonding Sa.

Why is it just setting there doing nothing? Well we need to give it some energy. Oh this doesn't exist yet either. Rather than "Let there be Light" we will say "Let there be motion" and give it as much speed as it can handle as another property and call this "Absolute motion". Now we have an object of fundamental substance with absolute bonding and absolute motion. Still, no universe.

Well I guess we will need to make another object and then guide them into a collision. Science has speculated as to what it would look like if two galaxies were to collide their black-hole cores. Now we are about to create a collision that would make these black-hole encounters look like the spark from you socks as you take them from the dryer as viewed from the space station.

If we use the velocity suggested by quantum physics for expansion, then these objects are on a perfect head-on collision course at 2.0x10^20 meters per second. Even at this velocity, the objects bonding cannot be broken. Though the bonding is too strong to fragment the object, the enormous motion of their velocities must be converted. The conversion of this uniform motion of linear velocity is now converted into a chaotic vibration that results in the object experiencing a rapid expansion producing waves of matter in all direction within the object. This produces the so called Quantum Foam phase of the evolution of the universe.

The wave interference of this early stage of the universe produced pockets of angular momentum and thus the beginning of physical structure with the first fundamental quantum unity particle. Matter today in all its structures, still has the same motion it started with and thus all conservation laws of physics, owe their consistence to that motion.

The substance of the universe has been interacting with its self-affinity bonding to change the chaos of random wave motion to the stability of uniform motion as it had in the beginning and thus angular momentum of the elements and structures of the universe is the reduction of entropy and thus order rules rather than chaos.
Absolute motion and how it is distributed between wave and uniform motion is the key to understanding most all physical phenomena.

__________________________________________________
There seems to be some confusion on how to interpret this scenario.
There are only two fundamental existences:
1… The void of pure emptiness. (This should not be interpretive as pure nothing) The void is the place of existence.
2… The fundamental substance that exists within the void.
Time is not a true fundamental. It is the concept needed to communicate the fundamental properties of the fundamental substance.
Properties of Matter:
1… Volume (occupies a portion of the void, similar to particles occupying space)
2… Motion (Absolute Motion: The quantitative amount of motion of the velocity of the substance prior to collision.)
3.. Bonding (The simple property that fundament matter sticks to itself – Self-affinity)

Space of the universe: The state of matter when its absolute motion is randomized wave function. Waves have momentary uniform directional motion and thus allows matter to condense forming a greater spatial density and producing electromagnetic properties. (another topic)

Particles: Quantities and structures with absolute motion distributed as both uniform motion (angular momentum) confining a quantity of fundamental matter to a volume of symmetrical wave interference producing a standing wave surface. This surface will interact with spatial state matter when these wavelengths are harmonics of the primary wave of the particle structure.

Mass: A measure of the quantity of uniform motion of an object or structure referred to as inertia.
Linear velocity causes increase in the mass value of objects due to this motion allowing the bonding property of matter to increase and thereby increasing the spatial density of the object while collapsing the object to shorter wavelength symmetry (less chaotic wave function motions).

If you all get this, then maybe we can go on to provide a fundamental interpretation of the scientific terminology in a classical physics view. This is still only a philosophical paradigm; we will still need all the terms of measurement to perform experiments and design video games
__________________________________________________

If you wish to review the entire discussion, go to :
http://www.toequest.com/forum/forces-nature/1329-absolute-fundamentals.html

[haselhurst]

Hmmm! Hard to reply to this!

Firstly, the opening sentence is not true.

"Let's try to create a new scenario to explain the observed expansion of the universe and maybe some of the other phenomena while we're at it."

We do not observe an expanding universe.
We observe a redshift with distance, the expansion is a theoretical interpretation, and is only true if Doppler effect is cause of redshift.
The WSM provides a far more satisfactory explanation. See;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm

I agree that it is good to examine the properties of space, this is the foundation of the WSM where space is a continuously connected wave medium. And your addition of motion to space (rather than time) is also correct (where the wave motion of space causes matter, time and forces / fields).

I assumed that you has some knowledge of the Wave Structure of Matter, which explains most of the things in your post. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case.
Anyway, if you are interested in learning about WSM the information is pretty easy to find on our main website (see search function).
It is simple, it deduces the fundamentals correctly.

Sorry I can't be more positive!
Sincerely,
Geoff

[David]

Hi Geoff;
Actually the Doppler effect of EM radiation is caused by the required force to promote propagation. Propagation in the direction of motion requires a greater force and thus shorter wavelengths are propagated and longer wavelengths in the opposite direction of motion that require less force. The reverse is true for the absorption of a moving sensor of EM radiation. Once propagation occurs, it is independent of the source. Red-shift due to expansion is the result of a changing spatial density of the universe. Scientist indeed do know the difference. If you wish to interpret the data differently, that is your prerogative but, unless your interpretation is simpler than the mainstream model, it is of no greater significance.

I think you should be attempting to understand the medium of EM radiation before claiming you understand the process of the formation of structured matter. Though it is simple, it is not just wave interactions that you need to understand. One problem is that waves are defined by their electrical and magnetic properties and not by the spatial density of the medium. Thus we have the transverse phenomena of the properties being used to provide imagery of waves and not the longitudinal phenomena of the spatial density variance.

Don’t confuse the dimension as an entity. Dimensions are terms that represent quantitative measurements and are not the mysterious domains of parallel realities that promote science fiction. The terms mass, energy, time, charge, force, and so on are only dimensions and should not be promoted to entities of the universe type of status.

I hope you will forgive my amusement of your comments. I find it fascinating that those who write about physics can think that way about those who practice physics in the real world of applied sciences. There is a significant difference between the theories of physics (philosophy) and the actual application of scientific methodology. I work in methodology, not the debating of ideas. I can tell the difference between plausible theories and the colorful hype used to get the grants and sell the books. I have yet to see a theory that is complete regardless of the number of people claiming success or promise. If you can only explain a theory in the language of mathematics, then you do not understand the math.
Best regards;
David

[haselhurst]

Hi David,
I have copied you post (below) and added in further comments based upon the wave structure of matter.
Geoff

Hi Geoff;
Actually the Doppler effect of EM radiation is caused by the required force to promote propagation. Propagation in the direction of motion requires a greater force and thus shorter wavelengths are propagated and longer wavelengths in the opposite direction of motion that require less force. The reverse is true for the absorption of a moving sensor of EM radiation. Once propagation occurs, it is independent of the source.

Geoff - WSM is not founded on em waves. They are a relic of particle theory, where particles have charge and generate continuous em fields.
The WSM explains light as a discrete phenomena due to resonant coupling / standing wave interactions (which as you would know are discrete).
Continuous em fields are really many discrete quantum wave interactions. This explains foundations of QT.

Red-shift due to expansion is the result of a changing spatial density of the universe.

Geoff - As I wrote in first reply, that is a theoretical interpretation - we observe Doppler shift for relative motion of matter, not for expanding space. Do you have any empirical evidence of space expanding causing redshift?

Scientist indeed do know the difference. If you wish to interpret the data differently, that is your prerogative but, unless your interpretation is simpler than the mainstream model, it is of no greater significance.

Geoff - Well that is the whole point of this forum - to show that there is a much simpler explanation of physics / cosmology. I posted cosmology link but it seems you did not read it.

I think you should be attempting to understand the medium of EM radiation before claiming you understand the process of the formation of structured matter. Though it is simple, it is not just wave interactions that you need to understand. One problem is that waves are defined by their electrical and magnetic properties and not by the spatial density of the medium. Thus we have the transverse phenomena of the properties being used to provide imagery of waves and not the longitudinal phenomena of the spatial density variance.

Geoff - You are still working from em waves. Milo Wolff has shown that they are not real waves but continuous mathematical approximations of discrete standing wave interactions. The waves that propagate in space are scalar (rather than vector) as used in QT (though misunderstood as probability waves for finding particle).

Don’t confuse the dimension as an entity. Dimensions are terms that represent quantitative measurements and are not the mysterious domains of parallel realities that promote science fiction. The terms mass, energy, time, charge, force, and so on are only dimensions and should not be promoted to entities of the universe type of status.

Geoff - People use dimensions loosely. My only point is that a spherical wave is 4D - 3D for sphere, 1D for wave motion. The 'curvature of the 4D space-time continuum' thus becomes the change in shape of the spherical (ellipsoidal) wave as it interacts with other wave structures and changes shape / velocity.

I hope you will forgive my amusement of your comments. I find it fascinating that those who write about physics can think that way about those who practice physics in the real world of applied sciences. There is a significant difference between the theories of physics (philosophy) and the actual application of scientific methodology. I work in methodology, not the debating of ideas. I can tell the difference between plausible theories and the colorful hype used to get the grants and sell the books. I have yet to see a theory that is complete regardless of the number of people claiming success or promise. If you can only explain a theory in the language of mathematics, then you do not understand the math.
Best regards;
David

Geoff - I hope that you will take the WSM seriously - but it means starting again from new foundations, reconsidering your existing knowledge of physics based on WSM.
However, given the feeble programmed nature of our minds it is very hard to do this.
Regards,
Geoff