Wave Propagation

[Aireal]

Wave Propagation

One of the stumbling blocks to any wave theory is the subject of wave propagation. Supporters of particle physics contend that there is no means of wave propagation to support wave theories. Supporters of wave theories look for an Aether to provide that means. This is a complex subject, but I can boil it down to this. We are taught in physics that waves require a medium to propagate through. There are two main types of waves, Transverse and Longitudinal waves, and combination waves made of both, like water waves. In all of these, particles are displaced by the passing wave, then return to their original postions. Without this means of transfering energy, waves can not propagate. Waves need a medium of particles to propagate, end of story.

To farther complicate things some types of waves prefer a certain type of medium. Transverse waves prefer a medium in which the particles are close enough to exert large forces on each other. Longitudinal waves prefer a medium that is less dense, meaning a greater degree of distance between particles. Only EM waves can travel through space, so we are told, electromagnetic waves are composed of 2 Tranverse waves that are in phase and 90 degrees to each other. Shock waves from supernovas have been seen. Shock waves have both Longitudinal and Transverse wave components, so it would seem combination waves can also propagate in space. This will be important as we proceed.

Spherical scalar waves are an even greater problem. This became apperant as I worked on my model of the atom. Standard wave theory as I was taught in physics was fine for my basic model, but is lacking for deeper study. While thinking on this problem, I believe I have came across a third means of wave propagation that does not reqiure particles as a medium, but still has a medium. More importantly, this applies directly to the propagation of scalar waves.

I was wondering how to represent an expanding spherical wave, and how one must be formed. Nearly everyone agrees in the wave/particle duality and that every particle has a frequency related to its mass, but how is this frequency produced? If you take a sphere and vibrate it, you can reproduce the correct frequency, but the wave produced will not be a perfect sphere as it expands. It will be distorted in the direction of the movement. The only way to produce an expanding spherical wave is to have the spherical particle expand from a point to full size, the contract back to a point and repeat the process at a given interval. As luck would have it, this is exactly the description of an expanding out wave as described by Milo Wolf. As water waves are combination waves, this would be a good starting point for exploring this concept.

Take a small round balloon and place it underwater in a wave tank so that you can inflate and deflate it. Let us also assume that the wave tank is large enough that we don't have to be concerned with interferance from rebounding waves. When we start inflating and deflating the balloon to repoduce a given frequency, wave motion will be seen on the surface.

These waves will look exactly like the combination waves produced by the standard point type wave tip that works on the surface. The differance lies underwater as we look closer at what is going on. By adding colored dyes we can get a look at the fluid dynamics involved. Just like in the standard physics description of wave action in water, particles are moved then returned to their starting position. On the 2-D surface of the water they travel in a circle, in the 3-D underwater environment they form spheres. The water swirls and forms eddies at intervals as the wave propagates. Also the spin of these eddies organized due to fluid dynamics. If you look at a row of them, the spin of any eddy will be the opposite of the eddies on either side of it. We can follow the path of points on the circumference of these eddies and plot a sine wave, just like the standard physics model does on the surface. But the underwater model shows much more detail.

The sine waves we plot along a line eddies is interesting, but these complex eddies have more to offer. Rotate you view 90 degrees and we can plot a sine wave based on them from this angle also. So we have two sine waves propagating in the same direction, that are opposed 90 degrees to each other. This also happens to be the description of an EM waves shape. If we continue to examine this expanding sphere in detail, we will see Huygens theory in action. Because the diameter of the eddies are restricted by the distance between wave pluses, new eddies must form in advancing layers of the expanding sphere. This will form a base of eddies from which new sine waves can be plotted for the expanding sphere . The expanding spherical wave produces compression/rarefaction longitudinal waves as a result of its expansion. We have all of the wave types present.

When we plot all these sine waves and the expanding spherical wave pluses, we have an interesting graph. The expanding spherical wave front will intersect all the sine waves at their statonary nodes as they propagate together. Also these sine waves will resemble the shape of EM waves as they are 90 degrees opposed. All known types of wave forms can be produced by an expanding spherical wave in a fluid medium of the correct type.

We have reached the limit of what we can learn from our water tank model. We can not approach the frequencies of particles in our wave tank. Even if we could expand and contract our balloon at the speed of light, we would not want to. At least I would not want to be near the wave tank when it was done, the results would be explosive. Water is far too dense a medium, and our balloon has far too large a displacement. Waves have intensity. The intensity of a wave is the amount of energy which passes through an area. The formula for this is:

Intensity = 2pi squared X Frequency squared X Amplitude squared X Velocity of wave X Density of medium

Water has a density of apx. 1, so a large wave moving at the speed of light in water would have a lot of energy. Tidal waves move at about the speed of sound, and look at the damage they can inflict. The electron has a very high frequency, a very small amplitude, and its waves move at the speed of light. So the density of the medium is the only factor left.

The matter density of space is a hotly debated topic, and varies a lot depending on where in space you are talking about. Reguardless of whose numbers you use, the number of atoms is to low for wave propagation by particles. Then the thought occured to me that energy would act like a very low density fluid medium. Energy itself could just be the low density medium needed for the high energy waves of particles. A fluid medium of energy would not have a minimum amount needed for wave propagation, as long as it was above zero it may be enough. The primary wave front, the spherical wave, is mainly a compression wave, and a low density medium is their perfered medium.

So I looked in to the energy density of space. Recent work in high energy particle impacts so that when matter is converted to energy in this manner, the sphere of energy produced has interesting properties. The energy behaves as if it was a perfect fluid with zero viscosity. This would make the perfect wave medium. I found that the energy density of space is even more hotly debated than the matter density of space. Numbers for the energy density of space run from barely above zero to nearly infinite. As the largest amounts would make the electron waves resemble a small super nova in energy levels, it is probably safe to assume it is one of the lower values. But would the lowest value be enough for wave propagation?

A farther complexity is that many believe that the energy density of space is caused by waves themselves. See the thread on Stochastic Electrodynamics for one of these theories. Because waves have energy, the amount determined by the afore mentioned formula, some theories include this in the energy density of space. S.E.D. states that planer waves in space, traveling in all directions, is what many call the energy density of space. Interestingly this turns out to be what W.S.M. calls the Wave Density of Space.

I now realized why there is such a great range of values for the energy density of space, and I think these values can be reconciled. Waves have energy, this is true, but they also have a vector(direction) associated with them. This is not "free" energy that can be used for the propagation of new waves fronts,ect., it already has a job and is only passing through. In other words this wave related energy is energy of motion and does not contribute to the latent energy of space. It does not count untill it interacts with matter. The other thing that makes it hard to use this wave energy is because it can be thought of as an infinite number of waves passing through in all directions at once. This largely cancels out the benifits of this large amount of energy in a given area when it comes to trying to extract power from it. If we substract the wave energy from the energy density of space, we arive at the value which is slightly above zero. This reconciles the smallest and largest values for the energy density of space. Now for the mid range values.

The formula for the Wave Density of Space shows us that the amount of waves in a given region can vary a lot based on the mass present nearby. In other words, The matter density of space affects the energy density of space. This explains some of the mid range values. Even though there may be an infinite number of directions that cancel out, that does not mean that there is not a net energy amount with a vector component after you average all the values. So after all the canceling out, you could still have a wave moving in a given direction and energy. This should explain the rest of the mid range values found for the energy density of space.

The vector component left after all this represents a wave moving in a given direction. This is the reason why we can think of a large object like the sun as having a wave based on its mass insteed of having to calculate the effects of all the waves which make it up. Indeed this canceling out of wave energy may be the means by which space averages out all the gravitational effects from many objects to arrive at a single gravitational force in a given direction.

This leaves us back at the question, will this lowest value, which is slightly above zero, be sufficent for wave propagation? The easy answer would be yes because we can detect waves in space. Or that because energy being a perfect fluid medium, very little is needed. But the easy answers are not always the right one. At this moment I can not answer this, but I will come back to it later after I have worked on this problem some more. There is always the possibility that the scalar wave has its origin in a higher dimension and needs no medium for its propagation also. But I have a few more wrinkles on wave propagation to cover before I bring this paper to a close.

The Electron

The scalar out wave starts at the very center of the electron. So during this early part of its pulse, it is moving through the energy density of the electron itself. At the start, wave propagation is totaly independent of the energy density of space in which it is located. Thus the scalar wave starts out with a great deal of energy associated with its wave front due to the greater desity of the medium. If we could see it, it would resemble a small explosion.

This raises another issue, what happens when this wave front leaves this dense region of the electron, and enters the less dense region of space surrounding the electron? What happens to the energy lost from the wave front passing between these two mediums? The wave can not pick up speed, as would be expected, as the wave is already moving at the speed of light, and can not go faster, only slower. The electron will continue to emit new waves at the same rate, the amplitude and frequency is controled by the structure of the electron in the first pulse, so they can not change. Remember the wave is spherical, which puts constaints on it that tranverse waves do not have. Also a spherical wave is a pure longitudinal wave that has compression in front of the wave and rarefaction behind the wave.

One of the possibilities is that reflection occurs at the boundary of the electron, causing an inwave to form. This would imply that the electron is at least partly if not completly self substaining once formed. Also this self created in wave could act as a wave guide for other in waves to follow for the transfer of energy between particles. This process may explain one of the problems mentioned by others about W.S.M.'s description of the electron as being dependent on other electrons out wave for the in waves that keep it in existance. If reflection at the boundary is forming an in wave, we have a far more stable structure. Also of interest, in W.S.M. we can show the mass as covering the surface of the standing wave center, or as being at the center for our calculations. This may be closer to reality than we supposed due to compression and rarefaction of the wave fronts as they go in and out

Another possibility is that refraction occurs at the boundary of the electron. This could provide the energy to start the sine waves and the spin to create EM waves out of them. Both sine waves and EM waves would be useful and when in step with a spherical wave would be an effective organiser of space and matter, and able to exchange energy effectivly betwwen them.

Lastly there could be both reflection and refraction at the boundary of the electrons standing wave center causing In Wave, Sine Waves and EM Waves to form.

Super Novas that collapse and then explode resemble an expanding spherical wave close enough that we may gain insight to the electron in examining them and their wave front.

[nigel]

Hi Arieal

I have learnt to respect your ideas mainly thru the conceptual evolutions that seem to occur when I workshop with you.

I am still digesting this rather mammoth post but it is certainly worth it! I will write more later but I want you to consider this initial point.

Recall we are working in a 4 dimensional space. Time is playing a similar role to the other dimensions. We exist spatially on the surface of a 3 dimensional manifold embedded in this 4 dimensional space.

The spherical wavefronts are perturbations of the 3 dimensional surface into the 4th dimension time. So in a sense the 3 dimensional subspace is the medium that the 4 dimensional waves travel in.

Also we can unify the concepts of longitudinal and transverse wave. If we travelled in time the EM wave would appear as a longitudinal wave.

That is to a static time observer the longitudinal wave appear to be traverse.

So thinking 4 dimensionally the 3 dim subspace is the aether or medium for the 4 dim matter waves that will appear transverse to a time traveller or longitudinal to us.

I will read your post some more and get back to you.

Kindest Regards Nigel

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

Just reading through each post getting a feel for the subject.

[nigel]

Hi Aireal

I am still reading thru this post when I get time, some responses

(i) Totally ignoring the risk of being pedantic! When you say

“Nearly everyone agrees in the wave/particle duality and that every particle has a frequency related to its mass”

I would say frequency related to momentum for particles (de Brogile) and frequency related to energy for waves

(ii) How does your exposition of WSM relate to Einstein’s Equations

(1) G = kT Ensteins tensor G is directly proportional to stress energy tensor T

(2) G = R -gX here R is the Ricci Tensor and X is the curvature of the geometry/manifold you are working with, g is the metric.

Now I am stiil not completely with your logic is as it is still percolating thru my conscience, but you have clearly stated

“The energy behaves as if it was a perfect fluid with zero viscosity. This would make the perfect wave medium. “

If we look at the form of Einsteins field equations (1) they are like Hookes Law (which explains the search for gravity waves) for a spring where the spring is a stress energy concept, this is very close to your own conclusion.

(iii) Your quote “There is always the possibility that the scalar wave has its origin in a higher dimension and needs no medium for its propagation also.”

This is my view which I pointed to in my first response to your work.

More can be found here in Einstein’s ideas when we look at (2) here his tensor is related to a volume deformation tensor quality R like your underwater balloon/eddies, and the product of two geometric qualities, the metric and the curvature which will be analogous to your idea of the characteristic of the fluid in which you immerse the balloon.

So it seems you have created an analogy of Einstein’s field equations in your work here. I point this out both to try and get you to see the equivalence in your own thinking to General Relativity, (I am not saying you are a genius like Einstein but I encourage you once again to follow the path of mathematics as I think you have a natural gift for the subject.) and to get you to at least consider the idea that the aether is the 3 dimensional manifold that is emmebeded in the 4 dimensional space.

I have glanced at your essay on Quarks and immediately some beautiful revalations came to me as a result of your thinking(I will share these later once I finish understanding what you have written here). Your work has value

I leave you with this wisdom from your brother

But why should we repine? Why should I murmur at the fate of my people? Tribes are made up of individuals and are no better than they. Men come and go like the waves of the sea. A tear, a tamanawus, a dirge, and they are gone from our longing eyes forever. Even the white man, whose God walked and talked with him, as friend to friend, is not exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all.

[Aireal]

Nigel

It is a long post, I regret that but felt it nessary to explain myself. Still not sure how good a job I did. Sometimes I felt I should have gone into more detail. Like how energy can flow without the friction and inertia that matter has, making it a much better wave medium than particles. Or how that lack of viscosity affects the canceling of wave energy and change of its vector component in interactions between waves in space. But I had to address several topics to lay the foundation for my original topic to make sense. Matter density, energy density, aether, wave propagation are all hotly debated topics, and I wanted to be on fairly soild ground. At this rate it could grow into a book, add the math and you got one.

Your response shows what I already know to be true. I have reached the limits of my ability until I can improve my math skills. My posts, giving my model of the atom, wave propagation, and quarks are just 3-D pictures in my mind that I watch run through time and view the interactions. I have tried to explain these mental pictures with models based on my limited knowledge of physics in wave theory, fluid dynamics, and recent devlopments in physics. I am only now learning about "de Brogile" so I could not relate to it my post, perhapes when I know more. However once in a while I can "see" an equation "forming" from a picture.

In my post, where I start on the electron, I said "If we could see it, it would resemble a small explosion." At that moment I was watching the energy density of the electrons standing wave surging in and out at the speed of light in 3-D. And I could "see" E=MC squared contained within it. So there may be some connection to Einstein's field equations, but is was not intentional, most of his equations are beyond me. Which is why I need to work on my math, it keeps coming back to that.

So I am glad that you think my work has value, but is has reached a point where it needs to be evaluated before I continue much more. One of the math links you gave me has help identify my weak points. I got a trigonometry book and have started in it. there are a few areas of algebra I also need to work on before learning pre-cal. So I have a long ways to go, thanks for the support and encouragement in this effort.

Best Reguards
Charles

[haselhurst]

Nigel - we need to discuss your ideas on space-time as they contradict WSM.
According to WSM;
i) Time is a human construction and does not exist as a thing in itself (space is what exists, with properties of a wave medium).
ii) Space is three dimensional (propagates spherical waves, where a sphere is 3D).
iii) Space-Time is four dimensional, and is caused by spherical waves in space. Sphere is 3D and wave motion is 1D. It is this wave motion / activity / change inherent in matter that gives the illusion of time.
Please read the website on this then discuss further if required.

Charles.
I have an article that lists why space must be nearly rigid (it is not a fluid).

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Vortex.htm
(about half way down page).

Also it is important to distinguish between vector em waves (Maxwell, Einstein) and scalar quantum waves (de Broglie, Schrodinger).

Waves need a wave medium - and a wave medium must be continuously connected - not made of parts / particles which is naive!

Electromagnetic waves do not need a medium simply because they are mathematical 'waves' not real waves (but then mathematics needs a connecting medium, ultimately all things need a continuously connected medium to explain logic and senses). (Aristotle and Hume pages are good to read on this concept of causation and necessary connection).

Sorry to be abrupt. Appreciate you efforts which are clearly in the right direction.
Geoff

[nigel]

Hi Geoff

I think I understand where you are coming from here and as it occurs at a fundemental level I think it is important to discuss.

Firstly I think we are more in agreement than disagreement and the disjoint theory comes from my attempt to marry WSM with two mathematical theorys that is Dirac's formalisim and Ensteins General Relativity.

i) Time is a human construction and does not exist as a thing in itself (space is what exists, with properties of a wave medium).

In the Dirac formalisim and Relativity time plays essentialy the same role as space (differing only in the metric)

ii) Space is three dimensional (propagates spherical waves, where a sphere is 3D).

Also my posts are suggesting that waves propogate in a 3 dimensional simply connected manifold.

iii) Space-Time is four dimensional, and is caused by spherical waves in space. Sphere is 3D and wave motion is 1D. It is this wave motion / activity / change inherent in matter that gives the illusion of time.

This possibly is the conceptul set that is the most disjoint from what I have been saying

We are in agreement on the dimensions of space time, it is in the ontological staus of time where we perhaps diverge.

My conception of time as an object is that it is another dimension of space as in Relativity and Diracs operator.

WSM relates it to a wavemotion which is a beatiful and original idea idea.

So let me finish by stating where I am coming from and why I am posting on this forum

Firstly I am discussing the concepts of WSM from the mathematical formalisim of Physics as developed by two important thinkers Einstein and Dirac.

I am trying to discover the intersection of the two theories as I believe it has the potential to develop a conceptual framework that has the potential to unify Relativity and Quantum physics.

I am open to the idea of time as a wave or caused by spherical waves in space.

I am trying to see how these ideas infuence/evolve the before mentioned mathematical schools of thought.

I have read Dr Wolfs paper on the electron which is perhaps the most mathematical description of WSM.

Now I have constantly tried to emphasise the importance of ontology, so I don’t underestimate the importance of the ontological status of the objects we are discussing here. I will refrain from posting here until we clear this up as I don’t want to confuse what is already a difficult issue.

Thankyou both for your original work and the important developement of the ideas of physicits and philosophers on this site.

Kindest Regards Nigel

[haselhurst]

Hi Nigel,
Thanks for your detailed reply. I agree that it is important to apply WSM to existing physics (and Dirac and Einstein where both very important obviously).
But it is also important to realise that physics evolved from Newton's Mechanics where both Space and Time where seen as absolute things - and matter 'particles'. (So physics is founded on a Metaphysics of space and time).

However, as soon as you do this you have different (many) things existing without knowing how they are connected.

The WSM is founded only on a metaphysics of space (where space has properties of a continuous wave medium).
Then we find that matter, time and forces / fields are a necessary consequence (effects) of these waves in space (cause).

Think about it for a while (our human minds are primitive programmed machines - they take a while to adjust!)

I have a few of your earlier posts that i want to add some comments too - hopefully today.
Appreciate your enthusiasm and commitment - good on you!
Cosmos,
Geoff

[Gil]

Aireal, you have raised a very important idea about the electron, that interests me greatly. I also have been looking at the electron, from the perspective of an initial singularity creation, or star production. My vision inside the initial singularity tells me it was extremely high pressure, as we know, but as the pressures were building velocities, they would have reached the thermal entropy point[near relativity speed of light] where they would have had to emit massive amounts of radiation[mass reduction] to continue to true light speed. This in turn would have caused massive collapse of the interior of the initial singularity, setting up massive gravity forces at the center, and at the same time creating a vacuum cavity between the center of highest pressure and velocities, and the outer shell, which would have all had to collapse inward in massive compression. My point is, I think all singularities are identical quanti of this original mechanics, even the electron has the same interior mechanics. This would be a three body, three manifold, three matrice eigen-state affair, if I have my information of such math correct.

Nigel, please straighten this out... And, btw, since you are also following the Poincare conjecture of such three body math proofs___what is the state of progress of its proofs approval or not? Have you seen the actual math? Do you understand the math? I think this would greatly help us understand the dynamics of all sub-atomic structures. What do you think? My ideas are rough, but I've already worked them out within the laws of physics, all the way from thermo-hydro-dynamic imploding classical infinite space/matter/motion of 0K, on down to the singularity's formation into quantum productions of wave/matter/motions into relative speeds and space, first radiating, then exploding into our present space-time reality, thus creating our initial vacuum. Radiating away of this entire universe, back to the initial matter specks and infinite space energy, is the rest of the story.

Dave, what is your response, also. Have you seen the three body math?

Sincerely,
Lloyd

p.s.
Aireal, I liked this post very much. Keep up the great theorizing. I like someone who stays within the bounds of real physics laws and its science.

[Aireal]

Geoff

I must not have been clear enough in my post, I did not mean to suggest that space itself was fluid, rather that energy behaves in some respects like a perfect fluid. This approach is the exact opposite of the vortex theory you mentioned. They speak about limiting flow and rotation due to viscosity of space itself. I mentioned that energy seemed to place no limits on flow and rotation and had zero viscosity. The flow I mentioned was the energy of the wave front of the in and out waves, not space which is rigid. That was why I tried to address the ZPE subject and dispel some of the confusion and not count the energy of motion twice, which is a flaw of vortex theory and other theories as well. Too many differant terms are used to address the same event by differant theories, when trying to convert those theories to W.S.M. its becomes more complacated. Space is rigid, but waves flow through space and provide the means by which everything is connected, and energy as a medium for wave propagation maintains this connection at all times as it is not seperate like a particle is in standard wave propagation model of physics. In short I was trying to explain how waves can propagate without any particles as in the classic approach. By using this approach I thought I had found how a scalar wave can produce the real wave that the EM model represents, and by chance, found an explaination for one of the "problems" mentioned on other sites in reguards to Milo's theory.

But your comments are exactly what I wanted. I have suspected that space was rigid, and was going to address that subject at a later date, as I needed to back it up with some math for the sake of distractors. When I rewrite this paper, I will try to be clearer and adhere to the termology used by W.S.M.

Gil
Thanks for the support, but Nigel is the one to address the deep math questions too. He thinks in math the way I do in pictures. I am trying to improve my math skills, long way to go though. Currently I am using the Ockham's Razor approach by sticking to basic and proven physics while continually compairing my model with the results observed in experiment.

[haselhurst]

Thanks for the clarification Aireal. I agree with your further comments.

Gil,
You write;
"I like someone who stays within the bounds of real physics laws and its science."
Yet you write in your posts as if the Big Bang is a fact when it contradicts WSM, it contradicts observation (Arp, Lerner), and it is without empirical foundation (we do not observe expanding space, have never observed Doppler shift for expanding space).
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

I don't want to argue with big bang theorists. But this forum is a science forum founded on simplicity / unity of reality. The big bang plays no part! Please do not post on it here.
Thanks,
Geoff

[Aireal]

Gil

I am glad to hear that my humble paper holds interest for you, and may even shed light on you work.

This forum can be thought of as a group of like minded researchers from many fields who have come together to work on a common problem. Therefore we try to stay focused on W.S.M. and not be distracted by other theories. This is what Geoff was refering to when he said we don't want to argue with big bang theorists, or any other theories not related to our work here. While it is vital to compair and contrast theories, this often devolves into arguements which we try to avoid.

Many of us are active on other forums where any thing is debated openly. If you would like to join in on those forums, or you have one in mind that you are already on, I would be more than happy to discuss the implacations of our work there.

That way this forum can remain devoted to its goal, and we could explore a wide range of implacations elsewhere.

Do you have a forum you favor?

[John Martin]

Although I am totally incapable of doing the maths, there is much in Aireal’s explanation that would blend in with my proposal for particle structure. On compaction the particle vacuum field is oval in shape with a long and short axis. Given that the wave force is the same for all radii then there are at least two different wave densities equivalent to Aireal’s transverse and longitudinal waves.
The waves would reflect from the boundary between particles for the same reasons as I give for the cessation of compaction, giving two waves moving in opposite directions.
The next point is a little more dubious; note how many QFHE experiments have a half wave at one end. If this happens in particles then we have part of the cause of particle bonding. Imagine the gravity fields in a star cluster, as there are no gaps between gravity fields, the fields must not only be crystalline in shape but they must also have paired or matching faces. The same must be true of particles; if the face determines the orbit of the surface half-wave, then we have a complete explanation of particle bonding and an understanding of why the wave pattern appears to be continuous (i.e. stretching away to infinity).
Finally why is there a wave at all? Here I must express a long held view that I have not presented to this forum, it is that space consists of two frames, for simplicity sake I will refer to them as ‘something’ and ‘nothing’. The vacuum (nothing) frame has force and shapes the matter (something) frame into fields that appear to be the anti-force to the vacuum force. These two frames can move independently of each other (which determines the speed of light, but that is another story). At the center of each particle vacuum field there is a Vacuum Zero Point (VCP) the most important thing to note about the VCP is that it has no dimensions, it is not part of the three or four dimension universe. The three or four dimension universe does not know where the VCP is; but has to react to its movement because it determines the position of the vacuum field and therefore, the position of the material field. Just as the planets chase their center of gravity, so also do the particles chase the center of their vacuum fields. It is this dimensional difference and the resulting 'chase' that is proposed as the cause of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the Zitterbewegung effect.
Perhaps we have the path to a complete theory, although its production is beyond my abilities, I hope to be able to follow any developments, and even make an occasional suggestion.
John

[haselhurst]

Hi John,
I did not understand most of what you wrote above.
It seems to be full of words / names for things - but I do not understand what those things are, how they are related to the wave structure of matter.

You seem to agree with simplicity, error of imagining too many things. Yet your post seems to do exactly that.
So I will wait to hear more. But I will ask you to explain the meaning of your words where you say they relate to reality - and your answer must be in terms of things that exist (waving space) rather than using more words.
Geoff

PS - To everyone - forum does not seem to work properly. Only links with names work, links with numbers (that should re-direct do not).
Do others have this problem?

[John Martin]

haselhurst

I did not understand most of what you wrote above.
It seems to be full of words / names for things - but I do not understand what those things are, how they are related to the wave structure of matter.

This confusion arises from the need to use Standard model term in order to change the interpretation into the simple Constant Linear Force (CLF) model terms.

There is also the problem as to when to say 'particle' and when to say 'wave'. Aireal works in waves but has to use particle names on occasions; I work in particles but have to use fractional waves to explain those particles.

This confusion is only removed if we are prepared to acknowledge that both wave and particle arise from the same source, that source is the creation of 'something' out of 'nothing'. My approach is to propose that the force of 'nothing' (vacuum force) causes infinity to divide into particle size vacuum fields (gravitons in the Standard model, vacuum waves in the Wave model). It is the withdrawal of some of the vacuum (quantity of 'nothing') into Vacuum Zero Points that creates 'matter, the 'something' that replaces the missing 'nothing'.
This matter is the substance that is formed into waves. Vacuum force, being the force of 'nothing' is not subject to inertia; but waves of 'matter' are, of course, subject to inertia. So the rotation of the vacuum wave has a torque effect of the 'matter' wave winding that winds up the matter wave like a cork screw; causing each particle to contain several matter waves (hence the fractional waves of FQHE experiments). Now we see that charged particles have two waves (spin rates); the single vacuum wave and the several (3 or 5) matter waves (electromagnetic waves in the Standard model). Because of the torque action, at any given time, the matter waves appear to lie at right angle to each other (another point of agreement with experimental observations).
The Standard model takes the same two entities (force and matter) and builds a complicated predictive theory by introducing many new entities. Each entity stands for something that cannot be explained. The CLF model shows that these new entities re not required, there is only one force and one fundamental particle (consisting of a double wave system). Movement and collisions causes changes that can be explained without introducing new forces or new particles because the changes are changes of particle state rather than the creation of something new.
Aireal explains how the system works using waves, I hope I have explained how the system works using particles; each of the two approaches (wave and particle) are necessary to describe the whole system.
Now it is vital that you understand this approach because if we cannot convince someone of your standing, that we have something to say then we (not you) have failed in our mission. So I would ask for your patience and request that if I have failed to make a convincing case, you would try and give a detailed explanation of those points that still cause confusion. The reality is that further progress hinges on our ability to take others with us; otherwise we are talking to ourselves in our own personal madhouse!
regards
John

[John Martin]

haselhurst

On a separate point I note that the same subscribers are discussing the same issue on at least five different forums. I wonder if it would be possible to transfer edited versions of each to a single forum so that we all get together without having to jump from forum to forum. Perhaps you could approach each subscriber and get their opinion on this. If you are overloaded with work I could handle the initial approach for you, and send you a report for your consideration.

John

[haselhurst]

Hi John,
Thanks for detailed reply - appreciated.

I do not think your work really belongs on this forum.
Here we are bound by simplicity, rules of science founded on a good understanding of physics philosophy and metaphysics.

Your explanation above does not satisfy these rules.
You use words loosely- I do not think the following has any real meaning.

"This confusion is only removed if we are prepared to acknowledge that both wave and particle arise from the same source, that source is the creation of 'something' out of 'nothing'. My approach is to propose that the force of 'nothing' (vacuum force) causes infinity to divide into particle size vacuum fields (gravitons in the Standard model, vacuum waves in the Wave model). It is the withdrawal of some of the vacuum (quantity of 'nothing') into Vacuum Zero Points that creates 'matter, the 'something' that replaces the missing 'nothing'.
This matter is the substance that is formed into waves. Vacuum force, being the force of 'nothing' is not subject to inertia; but waves of 'matter' are, of course, subject to inertia. So the rotation of the vacuum wave has a torque effect of the 'matter' wave winding that winds up the matter wave like a cork screw; causing each particle to contain several matter waves (hence the fractional waves of FQHE experiments)."

I am busy and overwhelmed by work to do. And I do not want to argue with you about things that according to WSM are merely human imaginations (which are endless).

Here we are limited to discussing the wave motion of space as the cause of matter 'particles, time and interconnection (forces / fields - light and gravity).

Sorry to be so absolute, it may seem rude - but I do not mean it that way.
I wish you all the best with your exploring - but it does not belong here.

Geoff