WSM: Relationship between Waves and Space. GTR & Mach's

[haselhurst]

Hi All,
There has been a discussion in our WSM group of which is primary - waves, space, or both (see discussion which follows my comments below).

I am of the philosophy / metaphysics school that says that only one thing / substance (space) exists to explain how the many things we experience are caused / connected (this is also supported by science / Occam's razor). Thus this one thing, space, is necessarily infinite, eternal, and continuously connected (unbounded, not created from anything else, not made of parts).

Further, from this foundation we can only consider the properties of this substance space (not add more things to it like Newton did, i.e. time, matter particles and forces to connect them - which has led to all the problems of physics).
Newton should have taken Aristotle / metaphysics more seriously! i.e.

The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest. And to seek for this is to seek for the second kind of principle, that from which comes the beginning of the change. ... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity. ... it is impossible that the primary existent, being eternal, should be destroyed. ... that among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things.
...about its coming into being and its doings and about all its alterations we think that we have knowledge when we know the source of its movement.
(Aristotle, Metaphysics)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Aristotle-Philosopher.htm

So we have an uncaused space that is a wave medium, i.e. it has waves propagating in that medium that form matter and explain its interconnected motions.
From this foundation it does not make sense to consider space without waves, nor to think that the waves create space. Both Space and its wave motions are one thing, vibrating space if you like. They cannot be separated. This is a perpetual system - there has always been space with waves in it.

I agree with Milo Wolff that the WAVE DENSITY of space is determined by the waves - but not space itself.

This to me seems necessary. I do not see how waves can create space, given that space must first exist as a wave medium to propagate waves (like putting the cart before the horse). In fact i don't think creation is a useful concept, more an evolved instinct of our feeble finite minds.

Hope this helps clarify my view on this. I am aware that Milo writes this differently, it is one of the few areas where we disagree (and probably relates to a difference between philosophy / metaphysics vs physics).
Cosmos,
Geoff

PS - Jefferson writes;

"everything is made of waves", but my vote would be for something along the lines of
"everything emanates from everything else" / "everything is defined by everything else"

I see these as both being true - they complement one another, though perhaps rather than using the word waves, we should always write / think 'waves in space' or 'wave motion of space'. The two are interconnected (which is ultimately the solution to the problem of the one and the many).

NOTE: This above post relates to the following discussion. Geoff

-------------------------

I think that you are pointing out something new (at least from what I've read about WSM). That if there are no waves, the density of space is ZERO, which is equivalent to no medium. That follows from Milo's principle. That is a valid, but nonetheless mysterious conclusion as you put it. And I like it. I definitely want to hear the comments of Milo and Geoff.
-------------------
JL wrote;

Either

a) Geoff hasn't fully understood Milo's work (unlikely),

b) Milo hasn't fully understood the implications of his own work (extremely unlikely),

c) or I'm not as perceptive as I think I am (almost unimaginable - don't even consider it!)

Geoff says "The WSM is quite clear on this - Space is the substance that exists, it has properties of a wave medium - matter, time and forces / fields are due to wave interactions in space."

Milo says "waves from all particles in the universe combine their intensities to form the total density of 'space'. This density determines the electron's wave frequency. This space corresponds to Einstein's "aether" or quantum theory's "vacuum." ".

and I say

Every wave is the medium for every other wave.
Every wave supplies the medium for every other wave.
The medium for a wave is supplied by every other wave.
Each wave contributes to the medium for all the other waves.
Every other wave creates the medium for each particular wave.

Sorry about the repetition!

Feynman suggested the most important single piece of knowledge is that:

"everything is made of atoms" and WSM might want to replace this with
"everything is made of waves", but my vote would be for something along the lines of

"everything emanates from everything else" / "everything is defined by everything else"

Geoff has been / still is the main promulgator of Milo's work aside from Milo himself...God bless him for it - and I'm sure he would agree that it's important to know if the proponents of WSM are in agreement about it's fundamentals.

I am worried that Mach's principle, and it's possible relevance across all scales, is not understood by enough people - even those who work in relevant areas of scientific research - it reminds me of the
difficulties even some science professionals have in grasping concepts of wave interaction, one of the reasons they sometimes have problems in understanding the WSM.

I first discovered Milo's work through Geoff's website, and spent an almost continuous 48 hours devouring as much as I could understand of Milo's papers on WSM. I had the feeling of 'coming home'.

When it came to the crucial description of the medium, I couldn't discern for sure if Milo had an equivalent to Mach's principle in there or not, and I put this confusion on my part, down to my limited mathematics - but I
believed that it SHOULD be there!

I got in touch with Geoff and Milo to see if I could get some clarification and they did corresponded with me, but I ended up concluding that they were not in full agreement and that they perhaps didn't realise it themselves, or that as they were in agreement about everything else, this last part was categorised as only a philosophical difference of interpretation. I've included this correspondence below, just in case it's useful.

Email to Geoff and Milo in which I first put the question to them
about the quantum wave medium, Geoff replied as follows.

Hi JL,

"Could the quantum wave medium for a particular source be created by the quantum waves from every other source ?"

This is how Milo Wolff describes the Wave Structure of Matter / Mach's
Principle. I have always felt that this language is not quite correct,
that Space is the One Substance that exists (thus infinite, eternal,
continuous) and that the waves of all other matter DO NOT create the
Space itself, but they do create / determine the Wave Density of Space
(which is a bit different, and also i think more logically correct).
Interesting to see what Milo says here.

Milo - Yes. We have mixed two things. Geoff is speaking here of the density of space from Principle II. Correct. Just like the GTR.

Geoff continues - So my answer is;
"Could the quantum wave medium for a particular source be created by the quantum waves from every other source ?"
No. But if you remove 'medium' from above, i.e.
"Could the quantum wave for a particular source be created by the quantum waves from every other source ?"
Then i would answer yes.

Milo - Here Geoff is speaking of the formation of the in-waves of each
wave-center (particle). Also correct.

Geoff then wrote to Milo

Hi Milo,
I still don't quite understand your reply below.
Are you saying;
i)That other matter's out waves cause space itself (I don't agree)
or
ii) That other matter's out waves cause WAVE DENSITY of space (I do
agree, this to me is foundation of Mach's Principle / General
Relativity and your Equation of the Cosmos)
That Space itself is the One Substance that has always existed, with
its waves that form matter.
Your thoughts,
Geoff

* We await Milo's further reply!

[Aireal]

Geoff

This is the most important topic yet raised in regards to W.S.M. theory. As such it requires a careful study and reply.

By sheer luck, this has been the subject of my recent research. I think I can reconcile yours and Milo's views, at least I hope I can.

Due to the complex nature of this matter, it may take me a few days to formulate a proper response. I will not be sleeping much the next few days I think.

[Rob Peritz]

My head's exploding.

[Aireal]

Where to start? I think the difference between Milo and Geoff position on waves would be a good place to start.

Milo says "waves from all particles in the universe combine their intensities to form the total density of 'space'. This density determines the electron's wave frequency. This space corresponds to Einstein's "aether" or quantum theory's "vacuum." ".

The vacuum energy of quantum theory, or zero point energy as some call it is hotly debated and calculated by several means which give vastly different values. I lightly touched on this in my post on wave propagation. Milo has accomplished what many thought impossible by showing that the wave density of space is not the same everywhere. This alone should place him among the greatest physicists of today. It also opens the way to reconcile many theories. The formula we call the Equation of the Cosmos is a great advance.

Geoff says "Every wave is the medium for every other wave.
Every wave supplies the medium for every other wave.
The medium for a wave is supplied by every other wave.
Each wave contributes to the medium for all the other waves.
Every other wave creates the medium for each particular wave."

This is a very intuitive approach to the problem which also has a sound base in physics. The best way to explain Geoff's approach is to use music as an example. When we listen to music, many waveforms combine to arrive at our ear at the same moment in time. Yet none of the individual sounds are lost in this process. The instruments are the source, and the density of sound waves reaching our ears the effect. Thus all the sound waves propagate through the air together, and in a sense they combine, while not losing any of their individual qualities, at least as far as our hearing is concerned. If too many sound waves reach our ears, it is perceived as noise. Thus is partly due to the limits of our hearing, and partly due to the fact that air is not a perfect medium for waves. The particles that make up air exhibit inertia, friction, and are not uniformly connected, so information carried by the waves can become distorted and lost.

Actually both Milo and Geoff are saying the same thing, let me explain. Milo is describing the result, wave density, and its root source, matter. But Milo does so from a purely scientific viewpoint of physics. Geoff is describing the process by which this happens from a viewpoint of meta-physics. Between the both of them, they have arrived at a more complete view of this complex process.

This approach suggests a way by which all the values for the vacuum energy can be reconciled. I had suspected as much, but now we can explore this in detail. The observed value for the energy density of space is close to zero. The current accepted value is 9 x 10 to the -10th power in joules per cubic meter. A very small amount.

As I pointed out in my paper on wave propagation, wave energy is energy of motion and as such it does not contribute to the latent energy density of space. The wave energy must interact with matter for its effect to be measured. Current observations by which the energy density of space is calculated can not measure this wave energy, so it is only the latent energy density of space which they can calculate.

The ability to reconcile all the values has been a goal of physics for some time. It is considered one of the key discoveries needed for a unified theory. This advance also lets us explore deeper into the heart of W.S.M. theory. We can now show why the latent energy density of space is near zero. At the same time it will explain why the Equation of the Cosmos predicts that only a certain amount of matter can exist within a given region of space.

First let us picture our universe with all of the matter converted to energy. It would have a much higher latent energy density. When some of this energy is used to create an electron, the overall latent energy density decreases. As more and more matter is formed, the latent energy density keeps decreasing. This process continues until the latent energy density is near zero. It can not fall below zero by this model, so negative energy density is impossible. It can not reach zero because some latent energy is needed for wave propagation. Unless scalar waves have their start in a higher plane that is, but a medium would still be needed to transfer energy in our dimensions. Without waves, matter as we know it could not exist, so we arrive at a value near zero.

This near zero amount of energy is all that is needed for wave propagation. Energy is the near perfect medium for this. It is continuously connected, so no information carried by a wave is lost due to separation like in air. Because it has almost no mass it has no inertia to speak of, so the wave energy is not used up in traveling through it. Because it does not have a defined structure, it exhibits no friction or effects from friction. In other words it has zero viscosity.

As I pointed out in my paper on scalar wave propagation, the effects of waves organize this energy into small balls, or eddies if you prefer, that have a spin. So picture a ball of energy spinning due to a series of passing waves. Now when a new wave arrives from a different direction, the wave energy will change the direction of spin slightly to compensate. This is the process of which Geoff intuitively deduced. All the waves in effect help carry every waves information, combining them, and sending the results on as a wave front which has all the information from the waves which make it up.

This brings us to our next topic. Relativity and the structure of space itself.

Geoff stated "Thus this one thing, space, is necessarily infinite, eternal, and continuously connected"

Milo stated "the WAVE DENSITY of space is determined by the waves - but not space itself. "

In my paper on scalar wave propagation, Nigel noticed some similarities between my model and Einsteins field equations. this along with Geoff's comments and link stating that space was ridged and not curved, confirmed what I had already suspected. Space is infinite, eternal, connected, and not curved. We should be able to deduce all the effects that Einstein predicted from the curvature of scalar waves. Einstein was not wrong, he correctly deduced many things, but it was the curvature of scalar waves and not the curvature of space which was the cause. Of course at the time he lived, he could not have surmised this, so he used the only term he knew that fit the bill, space.

Space is not curved, it exists solidly in 3 dimensions. This should help simplify the ponicare conjecture. if our 3-D space was warped, it would drastically affect any projections from a higher dimension. So if scalar waves start in a higher dimension, it would warp their shape and they would no longer be spherical from our perspective. I also feel this ties into the gamma factor which is used to adjust for speeds approaching the speed of light. Our "ruler" which is light gets bent, and the gamma factor tells us how much it is bent. Of course if it is bent, that implies that distance in space is not bent or we would not need a correction.

So it seems space is ridged in 3 dimensions and we have a static, non expanding universe with no boundary, infinite, eternal, and continuously connected.

All of this has lead me to the only problem with W.S.M. that I can find. Space can not be the medium for wave propagation itself. It is the energy which makes matter and exists within the solid 3-D framework of space which is the means of wave propagation. Any medium for wave propagation must be able to move, being displaced from its starting location and returning to it. The more fluid the medium, the better it is for wave propagation. Space can not be both solid in 3-D and be fluid enough for efficient wave propagation. At this time I see no way to resolve this issue, and it may be a "flaw" that others will point out. Personally I see no problem with space itself not being the medium for wave propagation. Space is still infinite, eternal, and continuously connected.

So at last I come to Mach's principle.

From a purely mathematical perspective, it matters little if you use Mach's method or the standard method, but that does not mean there are no implications of note.

Let me use a girl doing a routine on the balance beam as an example. She has her own internal frame of reference as she does flips on the beam. At the same time she is constantly making adjustment to her internal frame of reference from the external frame of reference, the beam itself. To a lesser degree she also uses the entire gym she is in as an external frame of reference in adjusting her internal frame of reference.

Matter does much the same thing. The electron has its own internal frame of reference which it constantly adjusts from external sources by using their out waves which become its in waves. So adjustments are constantly being made at the speed of light. Thus both methods are valid and used from a W.S.M. perspective. This outlook may be of help in deducing Einstein's predictions from the spherical scalar waves.

I said I would need several days to make this reply. It has not been that long, but I have not sleep either. So if you will excuse me, I am going to crawl to bed and pass out. I hope this reply helped.

[Aireal]

Mach's principle, added thoughts.

The electron's orbit in Bohr's theory is defined as a result of the angular momentum of the electron. This is the internal frame of reference for the electron.

But it can also be defined by Mach's principle to the electron's position in relation to the nucleus. This is its external frame of reference. This can be extended to define it's position any where in space.

These two frames of reference work together, Bohr's method is the Out Wave, Mach's method is the In Wave.

[Aireal]

I have looked for the equation Mach used to determine angular momentum from a fixed point and can not find it, only Newton's. If any knows where it is, let me know.

I need to use it to calculate the stable orbit of the electron using the nucleus as a fixed point of reference.

That equation and Bohr's equation would be equal for a fixed orbit. From that a number of basic physics equations could be derived.

That would open the path to the math behind wave interactions with the electron.

[haselhurst]

Hi Aireal,
I received an email recently from some guy about the interaction between the proton and the electron - he seemed sympathetic to the WSM view of things. Anyway, here is his site - it may be useful.

http://www.atomic-phenomena.com/

I think there is a de Broglie phase wave formed between electron and proton waves, and this phase wave has nearly infinite velocity c^2 / v (where v is relative velocity). I also think this relates to light / resonant coupling and the EPR experiment (apparent non-local actions).
The wave would be planar, and rotating with electron 'orbit' (we need diagrams of this!).

This post has diverged from the main subject a bit i think.

Mach's principle is deduced by WSM / Milo Wolff - it comes from our spherical In Waves being formed from all other matter's out waves in a finite sphere of space (our finite spherical universe) within infinite space.
Thus the energy density (wave density) of our matter is determined by all the other matter in the universe (Mach's Principle).

And there is only one conclusion from WSM principles as to the relationship between waves and space. Reality is one interconnected thing, infinite space and its wave motions.
Neither waves cause space, nor space causes waves - rather space has always existed with waves propagating in it.

Below is Milo's reply.

-------------------------------

Geoff says "The WSM is quite clear on this - Space is the substance that exists, it has properties of a wave medium - matter, time and forces / fields are due to wave interactions in space."

Milo - 100% correct. It is Principle I.

Milo says "waves from all particles in the universe combine their intensities to form the total density of 'space'. This density determines the electron's wave frequency. This space corresponds to Einstein's "aether" or quantum theory's "vacuum." ".

Milo - 100% correct. It is Principle II.

Feynman suggested the most important single piece of knowledge is that:

"everything is made of atoms" and WSM might want to replace this with
"everything is made of waves",

Milo - Correct.


JL - but my vote would be for something along the lines of
"everything emanates from everything else" / "everything is defined by everything else"
Mach's principle, stated in terms of mass (later, in GTR, specifically in terms of inertia), means that it's not enough to say that the mass of one thing is caused by the mass of another thing - the reverse is also true - a mutual causation - a concept that leaves the original meaning of 'cause and effect' behind...

Milo - Yes! You have seen the remarkable inverse that is also true of General Relativity: "Space is the cause of matter and matter produces space."

Geoff Adds - Prefer " Waves in Space cause Matter, and Matter is affected by Waves in Space" (which change propagation properties of space - this relates to forces / fields / action-at-a-distance)

JL - Are there physical examples of a wave medium formed from
other waves of the same kind?

Milo - There is only one "space". it is the ONE true medium.
All others in science are approximations or math media.

JL - "Could the quantum wave medium for a particular source be
created by the quantum waves from every other source ?"

Geoff - This is how Milo Wolff describes the Wave Structure of Matter / Mach's Principle. I have always felt that this language is not quite correct,
that Space is the One Substance that exists (thus infinite, eternal,
continuous) and that the waves of all other matter DO NOT create the
Space itself, but they do create / determine the Wave Density of Space
(which is a bit different, and also i think more logically correct).
Interesting to see what Milo says here.

Milo - I agree with Geoff. He is a careful thinker.

Geoff - Milo is very kind to me. I am also a human, and we humans are notoriously stupid when it comes to thinking about truth and reality - our minds can imagine almost anything. Simplicity, abiding by rules of Science with a careful understanding of physics philosophy and metaphysics is the best chance we have for making progress.

[Aireal]

Here is an excellent link on Mach.
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/mach/mach.html

here for some interesting math.
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/nord.htm

on Mach and GTR
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-theories/

http://www.wbabin.net/wahlin/wahlin.htm A very relevant one, with profound implications. It shows how the version of Mach's equation we have on the main site was derived from his original equation. Shows how it can be applied to find the electron's orbit as well, and more.

Nigel, you should check this one out.

[Aireal]

Here is an interesting pdf on the importance of philosophy in science
http://www.stephanhartmann.org/Hartmann_ModPhilSci.pdf