Combining Einsteins theory of relativity and Quantum Theory is that like the "theory of everything" or the key to explaining the universe? Because thats the hitch right, trying to unite or find the perfect relationship between the science of the biggest things in the universe with the science of the smallest things. Also what waves is he talking about, I thought particles just vibrated or shook chaotically about. I don't understand this stuff but it sure is dam interesting.
"...the ego...can be manifest in each lived-experience of wakefulness or lived experiential act, as pole, as ego-center, and thus as involved in the peculiar structure of these lived-experiences; it can be manifest in them as their OUTWARD RADIATING or INWARD RADIATING point, and yet not in them as a part of piece."
-Edmund Husserl; 'Analyses Concerning Passive and Active Synthesis: Lectures on Transcendental Logic; part I, sec. 5, 25-30 (in english translation pub 2001, p. 17) or Husserliana IX
Can U tell me, physics1philosophy, the title of the book Dr Wolff mentions at the end? This is something I can finaly show my dad! Do the mainstream accept this explaination of 'dark matter' ? Does Steven Hawkin even know this stuff? Did this genius Dr Wolff discover this long ago? I dont joke with the genius... Einstein was ready to admit he only came across his theories through trial and error... genius is in the sense of the other, the beyond, to connect, to discover.
It is amazing that the most simple sensible obvious way of describing matter interactions in space is ignored. Just a spherical in and out wave structure - and from this you can correctly deduce the laws of nature.
My website:
spaceandmotion com
(add .)
Use site search on page to find Fitjof Capra page.
The probabilities and uncertainties of quantum math never made sense. How could they be a physical manifestation?
THIS makes perfect sense. These are real standing-waves, particle-wave duality is incorrect, and particles are specific-energy results of in-out waves! Then these waves follow relativity and manifest MASS with their wave motion.
How... how unbelievably perfect. I am going to be looking into this as much as I can. I must let my professors know...
How brilliant... special relativity meeting quantum physics. It makes perfect sense.
THIS is a revolution. Revolutions explain all that came before within their structures... Advanced quantum mathematics and current physics are so far removed from eachother. Strings are ludicrous given Dr. Wolff's findings.
I KNEW quantum mechanics were incorrectly modeled. How have I never heard of this man??? I am a graduating chemistry student and my most troubling courses were physical chemistry and quantum chemistry simply because of the math. There was no way the mathematics to find the slightest wave function information should have been so ridiculously complicated. I even threw my books down and exclaimed "There needs to be a NEW math to model this because this shit doesn't make any sense!" in a lecture.
How do consciousness and our senses relate to WSM? For example, during deep sleep there is no consciousness of the "physical world". Or another example would be before you were born / after you die (I'm assuming) that there is no consciousness of these standing waves that create what we know as reality (obviously because our senses are not present during these states). Can these things be explained in more depth with WSM?
As the in waves get near the wave center their wave amplitude increases and the waves become coherent (the in waves are formed from the out waves of other matter in observable universe).
These large amplitude coherent waves tend to form interconnected wave patterns, they get trapped in repeating wave patterns.
Does this help explain things (wave interactions are very complex).
Geoff
PS - You also need to realise that wave velocity is greater with higher wave amplitude.
same goes not just to quantum concepts but even to Plank constants and Bore's constants in chemistry. No one really knew anything. They all assumed that it was so, and both Bore and Plank were smart enough to manage to convince people they are right and people were dumb enough to believe them and keep their mouth shut
there can be no constants in nature. my personal humble opinion lol
Plank's constant h is just telling us that frequency and energy are equivalent, where e = hf.
WSM agrees.
However, the velocity of light is not constant, it changes, but so does wavelength and thus dimension so that we always measure the velocity to be the same. This is the foundation of special relativity.
One constant in nature is that everything is interconnected and changing, as matter is a wave structure of the universe.
WSM requires that space is infinite and eternal, as it is the one and only thing that exists - matter is formed from waves in this space (the stuff all around you!)
However, wherever you are in infinite space you only observe a finite region of this, our universe and you appear at its center.
Why. It is more simple and logical to say that space (which we all experience) is infinite and eternal than that it was created by something else we don't experience (e.g. Big Bang). But it is true that our matter / energy is finite. This is due to the source of our in waves which is finite - see "Equation of the Cosmos" on our website (spaceandmotion)
Quantum fluctuations = ZPE = vibrating space = Wave Structure of Matter in Space (WSM).
if this is actually something, then by the "rules of science" it should be testable. until then itss just pseudoscience. there is no other choice than to have it peer reviewed. those "incorrect beliefs" you mention are the same ones that brought you the technology to broadcast your "correct" beliefs across the planet in seconds. science proceeds on honesty if it works, great. but it HAS to be put up to the test. just because something is simple doesnt make it true.
Of course it must be testable - WSM says that an electron is a spherical standing wave in space - this space you and everybody else experiences existing in.
How do you think this knowledge is broadcast across the planet? By waves! This is well accepted.
And the simplicity really relates to necessary connection that requires only one things to exist which causes and connects the many things we experience.
Being skeptical is important - but an open skeptical mind is best.
i bought Dr. Milo Wolf's book "shoedingers univerise" (I think i spelled it wrong, lol). Do you recommend any other books with similar findings or books Dr Wolff wrote? Very interesting stuff, it boggles my mind that Dr Wolff isnt as well known as he should be. In time he will be up there with einstein and newton.
Yep - the simplest solution. Just space exists, matter is formed from waves in space. It is obvious once you know it - but most people have closed minds to new ideas.
I've always felt the same was true. I just was shocked at how simple it all seemed myself. But its exactly the same processes that have been described by shamans for thousands of years. Just with new age science lingo. Same stuff, just dressed for the new age. Its quite excellent, don't you think?
Yes. It is rather excellent. The philosophers at the time of Newton were horrified by his mechanics, founded on discrete and separate particles, as they knew reality was an interconnected whole. But humanity got used to 'particles' and this has led to the confusion of modern physics.
It is obvious matter is a structure of the universe - we now can understand this with the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter in Space.
this guy is a moron. all this shit has already been done. we derived the debroglie wavelength in my special relativity class. you can derive the debroglie speed using the lorentz transformations. it's all been done. this guy is just a dumbass.
You miss the point. As Milo explains in the video, no one knew the source of the de Broglie wave. Now we finally know that it is caused by Doppler shifts of the spherical in and out waves for two wave center 'particles' in relative motion.
Significantly, it is a phase wave with velocity of c^2 / v which then explains non-locality and the EPR experiment.
Particles are a maths construct - matter is made of waves.
Absurd. This addresses none of the problems inherent to Unified Theory, which the good Doctor claims to have discovered on the back of an envelope (so to speak).
Gravity, for example, UTs principle stumbling block, is not mentioned once. I agree 100% that fresh perspective will always have a valuable position in science, but cmon: stumbling blocks are stumbling blocks. Ignoring them wont make them go away.
Nice try, Dr Wolff. But no book sale for you here.
If you spent 5 minutes reading the site you would see that there is a simple and obvious explanation of gravity. It is simply due to the waves traveling more slowly where there are more matter waves in space (higher energy density of space). This is why light curves past the sun, why the earth orbits the sun.
You just need to think about the spherical in waves (which form the wave center 'particle') to understand matter interactions (light and gravity).
I am very interested in this but am relly new to it. So i ask this question: how does what this means effect this here MACRO world?...what are/will be consequences?
I am convinced this knowledge is critical to our future survival.
We certainly would not destroy nature and pollute our environment, as they are a part of us.
WSM also tells us that evolution and ecology are very important, as they relate directly to the fundamental aspect of reality, it is a dynamic unity, all things are interconnected and changing (due to spherically vibrating space - the spherical in & out waves provide continual 2 way communication between wave center 'particles').
Thanks. I would prefer though if you said the body was BOTH not-real and real. For reasons that--my interest has been mythology, and I find that many of the myths denigrate Nature. Focussing on Eastern Idealism which states reality is 'illusion' Maya, negative consequences have come for that concept
Hey Jukebob, after viewing your page I saw that you're a big fan of this pseudo science bullshit, so you think I'm the one who is retarted ? Well let me ask you something, when was the last time you opened a REAL physics book ? Not some pop science book or metaphysics book, a real mathematical physics book ? Well guess what, this is what I do for a living ! I know what I'm talking about, I know how to recognize bullshit when I see it ... beleive me, this is absolute crap !
As you're the one that posted retard with a 't' and 'believe as 'beleive' - perhaps I was expecting too much in expecting you to appreciate my (surely obvious) ironic comment.
I have no way of knowing from either your channel or your postings what you do; but I can say that I don't see anything here on YouTube that would lead me to believe your claim to be involved in Physics
You are though, clearly, mildly dyslexic - a much more agreeable term than 'retart' don't you think?
It is funny to hear you say that ANYTHING is BS - even Einstein was humble enough to admit that he didn't even know all of the 'basics'... he also raised simplicity to the highest order... and YOUR science, that you hold so dear is so damned complex that most scientists cant grasp it either. I dare you to even claim that you understand it. I dare you to describe REAL physics....
What do you do in life ? Please tell me, I'm sure I can do it better than you !
This is presicely what you are telling me, that you can perhaps understand physics better than I do, but this is my job !
Most scientist I know understand perfectly science, at least it's current state. Does that mean they know everything ? No, but they know enough to tell that Wolff Philosophy is a phony ; he has no credibility at all in the scientific community. Read real scientific journals,not youtube.
what would be the normal procedure ,if you come up with a new theory like this ,do you get it peer reviewed , or just publish in a scientific journal ?
How do you propose to get the WSM peer reviewed and published in physics journals when most physicists believe in the particle wave duality (where the wave is a probability wave to find the particle).
The system is corrupted by incorrect beliefs - and history shows that most people do not change how they think (and have closed minds to new ideas).
Why is it absolute crap? What are your reasons for this claim based upon rules of science. What evidence do you have that space does not exist, that matter is not made from waves in space?
Given it correctly deduces de Broglie wave and relativistic mass increase (you know maths physics) it is strange you ignore this.
He completely missed the problem between special relativity and quantum theory ... not to mention quantum field theory already solve this problem. That guy is completely retarted !
The problem with modern theoretical physics is unifying general relativity with quantum gravity, and beleive me you can't do that with some simple algebra ...
Wow ... Am I expected to believe that you didn't spot that I borrowed the spellings of those two words in question from the posting immediately above mine (to which I was ironically replying) - what a bunch of shitheads!! from whom I (ironically) borrowed the spellings in question;
I am the same person (look here's another one) - I post to sites the 'prefixes' of which are all 'bob' with the 'suffixes' reflecting the content.
By the way, I love your spelling of 'gouvernment'; - and could you tell us(as you claim to read books on 'real physics') what the 'aether' is that you have referred to.. Could I suggest you try a 'pop science book' on Einstein if you're not sure?
Hi 'bobblues1' - No it wasn't me who mis-spelled the word 'government' - must be someone else. As to the 'aether', I wasn't using that word in terms of the 'hypothetical luminiferous aether' - merely just an aside as to the world of the internet. Have a Good Day Bobblues1 - be 'bobhappygolucky' next time. Chow.
Have you noticed that very few of the postings dealing with this clip are 'scientific'- but in fact appeal to some real; imagined; or virtual 'Authority' ... Aristotle will be turning in his grave.
Magnetosynthesis - Something you didn't know you were doing!
Magnetrition.
Research indicates, magnetic bacteria and the mitochondria have the same properties. The average person dies around age 70 due to insufficient turning during sleep
Astronauts when they leave the Earth's magnetic field, must take with them a copy of the Earth's magnetic field, and insure their periodic movement within that field to prevent osteoporosis.
An organelle living inside your body migrates magnetically
I still don't know what mass is. Some have said that mass is condensed energy, but what exactly is energy apart from mass? If something can't exist unless it is in motion, then surly everthing is of energy. but, If mass cannot exist apart from energy, then truly energy must be a mutually possesive characteristic inherent in all phenomina. If that is true, then how can energy be classified apart from mass?
Quarks and other other unstable particles like mesons and gluons have a short lifetime - very characteristic of a string that has been plucked and then dies out. They are not standing waves - just transient waves. As an example, the higher mass particles like mesons have such a short lifetime, the more massive the shorter the life. This is interpreted as uncertainty principle but it's the same as energy in a wave - Energy*(settling-time) in a transient wave is a fixed quantity.
If you find a little about quarks you discover for your surprise that scientists have really NEVER caught them. They're only theoretical entities, like photons. AFAIK the only "proof" for quarks is the scattering on neutrons which showed three scattering centers, but it could be explained by the shape of the neutron's standing wave, same as for electron's standing wave patterns which usually have many "lobes" but strangely noone suggests that they consists from some quarks ;J
Yes, current quantum theory and other mathematicaly complicated theories are like those epicycles. They're complicated because we see it wrongly and doesn't see the simplicity hidden in it. The Standard Model is like a Mendeleev table - it cries for simplier inner structure. And this structure is the waves.
Um... Yeah. Quantum field theories already do a fine job of uniting Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Been doing it fine for 75 years. (The Standard Model is a quantum field theory.)
The real test will come when such a formulation can predict new stuff, like uniting General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and come up with a solid prediction of what we should see. Only then can we say that it's an "important development."
Um.. Yeah. You missed the discussion several threads back - WSM has united gravity and QM. The discussion about SRT and QM is just one of the many "clean-up" projects that WSM has to do to be "consistent" with modern field theory. In other words, WSM has to predict what's already there. As far as new predctions and how gravity and QM interact, google "cosmological redshift and intersection of hubble spheres", which predicts accelerating redshift without requiring the 25yr dark matter prblem.
what do you all know about the austrian physicist claims to results of their frame drag experiments and how it relates to all of your discussions here?
dark energy, problem here is that you can confirm the existence of vacuum energy thats why dark energy is so widely accepted, the dispute is how to define it and what is its relative value.
There is a video of the electron that has recently been uploaded to YouTube that is proving to be quite a sensation. I just received an email about it - and it clearly shows the wave structure of matter (that the electron is a spherical standing wave - not a discrete 'particle). See;
I remember looking at that video, and being excited and digging up the supporting paper, when it first came out. Maybe I read wrong, but doesn't that video show the activity of a whole bunch of electrons and the wavelike appearance is just a result of how the electrons were scanned? I could be wrong - just my understanding of what the paper said.
The spherical standing wave structure of matter shows why pythagorean theorem it true.
It also shows the cause of the mass increase with motion of Einstein's spacial relativity due to Doppler shifts of the spherical in and out waves (that form the electron at the wave center).
Thanks Fushapan for correcting comments - really appreciated!
This is a good step in the right direction, he is disproving the Pythagorean theorem and relativity which is the first step in coming up with better more accurate and hopefully correct theories on the subject.
I followed a parallel path to Milo. I also worked out that matter standing waves (WSM) would give de Broglie waves and Einstein mass formula. When I posted some stuff on this on the internet, Milo found me and said "welcome to the club".
Wonderful discussion Milo, it comes across so clearly, especially with Geoff asking the right questions to make it perfectly clear.
dqpdx.You know there's this guy over in Berkeley who claims that the pathagorean theorem and special relativity "natural coincidence," and the theory of evolution "natural selection" are all basically the same theory!!! In fact he claims that Godel's incompleteness theorem and the uncertainty principle are all different manifestations of the same phenomenon!!!! In fact he claims to have disproven both relativity and the Pathgorean theorem.
dqpdx. He claims the disproof of those two was the only way to do it because they are the simplest and most sussinct manifestations. Evolution"natural selection" and the other guys are too complicated and diffuse so rendering proofs/disproofs is just doesn't amount to anything- they're not as sophisticated as Pathagorean theorem or relativity. Anyway expert he ever talks to goes crazy and cannot accept what he says- it's like salt on snails. They all are repulsed by his ideas.
dqpdx. Check him out on google. His name is John Ryskamp. He's a historian, lawyer, artist, very wierd poet, novelist, and more. I first met him when I was going to UC Berkeley some 20 years ago and he's still persuing the same things he always did even back then. He maintains his disproofs and that all those different great theories are all just the same theory manifested through different branches of knowledge/sciences!!! By the way, having met him and spoken with him, and all, he's amazing!!!
dqpdx. I must say the guy, John Ryskamp, is absolutely brilliant! Just in conversation I've never met anyone with such a hold and command of everything he's talking about. People say things to him in the cafe's around Berkeley and his response just undermines their logic. Just his general sense of logic is amazing- I've never seen or heard anyone like him. Now I haven't even seen him in over 15 years but I've run accross him on the internet and he's still up to the same stuff. You gotta love it.
dgpdx. Well if he's your kind of guy then you're one of the first besides me. All the professors, physics guys, etc, just get all pissed by him. Then it turns to animosity, bla, bla. I remember 15 years ago and all the arguments at those Berkeley cafes like it was yesterday. All the physics people and mathematician go to all the cafe's there. John Ryskamp gets under all their skins!
dgpdx. The only thing I never could get used to was that eventhough his arguments would "disprove" Pythagorean theorem and Relativity he never had something better to replace them with. In that respect that was teh only downfall. He just seemed to be happy with the fact that he has disproven everything and that is it. He just says he has proven that they're ultimately wrong. I'm like what's the point. I would rather think of those theories as simple models which work 'til a better model comes!!!
Well, after reading one paper, I don't agree with him on much. By "my kinda guy" I mean that he's willing to put it all out there, even if it means he'll be thought nuts by the establishment. Progress only happens when what we think we know is challenged, so challengers are a good thing to have.
Using the correct terms is highly important in physics. Even physicists, who should know better, say things like "the universe is x billion years old." What they mean is "according to our latest model, the universe is x billion old, and this could change tomorrow." Talking about physics in terms of absolute certainty does a grave disservice to the scientific method and makes it even harder to convey science to the lay person.
Nothing can be "proved" to exist by experiment -- a theory or hypothesis can be "verified." As you say, after enough verifications, a theory is accepted as true but that does not constitute "proof." All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a theory that has been previously accepted and that can happen years or decades or even centuries later. There are numerous examples of this in physics today.
Fushapan.I don't consider any idea as "silly." Can't let down our guard like that cause that at which you completely condemn will come back and slap you accross the face one day.One can say that perhaps "it's not the complete picture." "Maybe it's in the spirit of the real thing." Unfortunately that's as close as one can really come. It's kind of like being a product of an "N" dimension yet trying to conceive of an "N + 1" dimension.One can say 4,5,6,...N dimensions btu that isn't being that dim
I have a feeling another Einstein will result in the opposite of what you might be asking. It may result in finding out that "relativity" was an unnecessary excursion. I think the future will hold that relativity was not as considerable a contribution as people think.Personally, I believe we'd be in the exact place as a society as w/o relativity. People like to create figure heads- icons, gods, idols,etc. Einstein happened to be around at the time they were looking for chests to pin a badge on!
No I think that's correct. I believe it may result in the disproof of the big bang!If light was created after space-time-matter and s.t.m. expanded before light came to be, then would we be able to see it,etc. Or if we can see it wouldn't the doppler be off a little? Hmmmmm. ?
To me, the ZPF and the WSM proposed here are equivalent and ZPF theory is certainly no more doubtful than WSM theory. As for "proof," you mean experimental verification, don't you? Proof is a mathematical concept, not a physical one.
I'm sure. I've heard physicists say that the big bang occurred around 15 billion years ago. And they stated that some of the farthest galaxies are 150 billion lt years away. I've never understood that- it's fact,what I heard, no dreaming up stuff here!!!!
Notice I didn't say Quantum Mechanics, I said Quantum Vacuum. Read "The Field" of some other book that covers the topic. Much like WSM, Quantum Vacuum, or Zero-Point-Field, theory says that the appearance of mass is simply concentrated energy caused by fluctuations in the quantum vacuum or zero-point filed.
The real error is to add the 'motion of particles' to space (and time) - it is simpler and works better to just have the wave motion of space that causes matter particles and time / change (i.e. there is just the eternal now of physical space existing - but it is vibrating so always in a state of change which we call time). The various vibrations / wave patterns in space form matter.
Interesting. You're description gives me the picture of matter not unlike a bed spread sheet. When you lift the whole sheet from one side to evenly spread the sheet accross the bed you can suddenly jerk the sheet resulting in a 'snap,' as the material concentrates itself then genlty opens resting on the bed. Maybe that 'snap' of concentrated material represents matter.
Physics1. What did you mean to ignore Big Bang? I don't understand. I'm still confused about the 15 billion year old universe and 150 billion lt-yr far galaxies. How?!! By the way the comment directly below this was directed to you the one below that was to Fushapan.
Physics1. See the contradiction in terms of far off galaxies and big bang time is perplexing to me and I can't find anyone to explain it. On top of that I have problems understanding that if the culprit is "inflation" when time-matter-space was created before light itself that could explain why you could have somehthing 150 billion lt-yrs away but doesn't say something about the doppler. Wouldn't the doppler give the illusion that the 150 lt-yr far galaxy is only somewhere like 15 bil. yearsaway
Einstein's relativity is really neutral about space existing - it is basically ignored as motion is relative to other matter (rather than absolute space). However, Lorentz showed that relativity still works if you take motion relative to absolute Space.
Ignore Big Bang Theory. WSM explains redshift with distance due to decreasing overlap of Hubble Spheres (e.g. our finite observable universe) within infinite space.
My knowledge of quantum vacuum theory is limited. As i understand it they are correct that empty space is not actually empty - it is full of energy (ZPE). But they have this energy manifesting as virtual particles and antiparticles. WSM just says it is all waves in space - and certain wave patterns (spherical standing waves) form 'particles' at their wave center.
Since particles and waves can both describe the same reality, it sounds to me more a semantic distinction than a physical one. Both theories are taking us in a different direction and I see this as a good thing.
I understood during my undergraduate days in the 80's that putting the 'ether' factor in everything screwed up the majority of scientific work before and up to Einstein. Einstein completely ignored 'ether' in the equations and that helped Einstein in his work.
We're living in a time which makes it hard to conceive of this ether/space thing. Relativity came about as a result of Einstein completely leaving out or ignoring "ether." Einstein didn't pay attention to it and he came up with relativity- which takes into account no 'ether.' But now recently I heard that Relativity does 'allow' for ether. I guess that just means you didn't need to consider ether for relativity but relativity does hint at 'ether type existence.'
The solution to a lot of this space-time ether, universe thing,in my opinion is not only in physics, but ligustics(Wittgensteinian)and biological- human anatomy. It's wierd but I believe we're witnessing the birth of a new body of science- some kind of physics-lingological embryo of sorts. It may even grow up and replace our current scientific paradigm.
Yeah you're on to an understanding of the universe! Except that Relativity does account for "the ether!" From what I understand relativity does account for ether. Then what we're left with is get around the comfortable notion that the universe has always existed. In a way understanding the universe(the "objective") is interrupted by man understanding his own mind. Our minds get in the way, literally, of our understanding the universe!
1. Nothing set the waves in motion - they have always been in motion as part of an infinite eternal system of waves in space (things starting is a human psychological trait!)
2. Entropy (second law of thermodynamics) only applies to closed systems - thus it does not apply for WSM / waves in infinite space.
I can buy into the "human psychological trait" thing- that we physiologically(even)constructed to conclude the notion of beginning/end etc. We find it next to impossible to imagine that there could ever have been possible that space/time did not exist!I can concieve the possibility that space or time itself simply do not exist. I have gotten around that phychological frame of mind.
So what's the deal.The universe is approx 15 billion years old give or take. Yet we have galaxies which are out there at around 150 billion light years away. This doesn't make sense to me. I found nobody to explain who really knows what's going on. Do you know why we have such a descrepancy? Is it because light came into the game way after the matter/space was created? If so, I don't understand why the red-shift would register as it does and not be showing us the 'delay-'
Seems the red-shift should be showing us that the 150 billion light year away galaxy is only 15 billion years away or something. I don't understand...
Gee Mr. Particle - you seem to have some bizzare irregularities - like where the heck are your boundaries? What's that you say Mr. Wave - how about you take a jump in the lake, I am a Copenhagenist and I am "Not Even Wrong"!! Well, Mr. P, you sure show an embarrasing singularity at r = 0 where your potentienal energy blows up, why don't you take a break from this madness and RIDE THE WAVE!! That's enough Mr. W, now you will feel the sting of my mass!! &%@$#!!
Wait a second Mr.P - please don't interact with me, I don't want to be affected by your paradigm - at least as a wave my energy is bounded and doesn't invoke the infinite!!Hey Mr. W - it's not so bad, don't you know how to normalize?! Just subtract two infinite numbers and your back in the realm of reality - what's the problem? That Dirac fellow did it OK!!
Now Mr. P - everybody knows that Fourier fellow who showed how anything can be created with a combination of waves - don't you know that me and one one of my friends acting as a 3-D wave can create all the observed features of you, Mr. P, without the singularity? That's why so many people want to use me and my wave bretheren in string theory - the one that is in trouble because they have to account for you, Mr.P, by adding 8 extra dimensions to the 3 I use!!
Thanks for providing me with some good entertainment today! Ha, ha,ha! But seriously I have a question. Please explaing to me why it is our universe is say 15-20 billion years old yet we know of galaxies which are 150 billion light years away??!!
You hit the nail right on the head. I don't know how old it is but I will tell you this, when astronomers found that the universe is accelerating it's expansion instead of slowing down it's expansion (as Isaac Newton would predict - you know the thing about gravity being an attractive force?!!), I decided that astronomers at the Keck telescope in Hawaii were spending too much time smoking some native grass!!
Hey I don't understand anything you said??!! What did I hit on the head, what about the accelerating universe, Newton, and the Keck telescope?? Sorry I don't know what you're taking about. Could you be a little more pacific?
Sorry - limited on space in these responses. You are right - there are objects (galaxies, globular clusters, galactic clusters) all greater than 20 billion years old. There's no way the universe is only 20 billion years old.
Well they say the big bang was somewhere around that old or whatever 20, 30, 35 billion it's all the same thing. We still have galaxies 150 billion light years away which just doesn't make any sense to me unless it's because of what I've already aforementioned. I appologize for saying but if you don't know what I'm talking about then just let me know that you don't know what I'm talking about otherwise I end up restating everything over and over and over again, etc.
You are making sense. Let me restate what I said - you are right, there are things that are 150 billion years old and the age of the universe is determined from the expansion rate - which in turn is determined from the redshift, is most likely incorrect. If the universe is not expanding and the redshift is due to something else besides an expansion, then the age of the universe could be a lot older.
Oh well. I still don't understand how it can be that the universe started with the big bang, it was approximately 15 billion years ago, but we have galaxies which are 150 billion light years away. How can something which just started 15 billion years ago already be 150 billion light years away from us???!!! That is my whole original question. I don't know how we got into all this other stuff.
Ok, let's forget the other stuff - it's all just evidence that the big bang didn't happen. Let's stick to what you said - 150 billion years old for some objects, the universe has to be older than that. Yes - absolutely correct. I am just telling you it is older than 150 billion years old and the other stuff shows that there probably wasn't even a big bang - the universe could be older than anybody can imagine.
The standard "big banger" answer is that the universe went through a period of "inflation" during which it expanded a zillion times faster than the speed of light. When protecting a sacred theory, anything goes.
Ahh,ha,ha!That's funny.That's exactly what I thought.Tell if I'm wrong but the prevailing idea is that the expansion/"inflation" occurred before nature split into the four forces we're currently know. So before electromagnetism/light came into existence space had already been created and had expanded to a point which makes up this discrepancy I mention?.Is that correct? What is your field?What do you do-physics?
I don't know their exact time-line, but that is probably the best explanation, that the universe was already huge before "Let there be Light" happened.
I'm a retired computer programmer. Almost 40 years of scientific and technical work. My degree is in math but I've always had a big interest in physics, particularly quantum physics.
What I meant about astronomers is this - they decided many years ago that the universe is expanding partly because of the redshift - the farther away the galaxy is the faster it is moving and this is an indication that the universe is expanding -space is being created and things are moving away from each other. But gravity still works - it pulls things closer together - not pushes them farther apart. They know believe a new kind of gravity is pushing things apart.
Yeah, I think they call that dark energy or something like that. And I know about the red shirt thingy. But I don't know why we can't have an expanding universe and gravity at the same time?? What's wrong with that? I don't know what's wrong with the old idea that in an explosion(big bang) things go outward and that's what could be happening now. It doesn't mean that the particles going outward can't have their own local gravities,etc.
Gravity exists and it's attractive. But the astronomers have found that the redshift is not linear but increasing, which means the expansion is accelerating as you go farther out. If you believe it is expanding, you are forced to conclude that something is "pushing" things apart in the early stages of the universe. Gravity doesn't do this. Dark energy is supposed to be a repulsive force instead of attractive.
Ok, so the thing about Keck is this - they discovered this increasing, non-linear redshift at Keck telescope but is was confirmed in many other places. I was just making the joke that because somebody found it there and proposed it was repulsive (pushing) gravity force, that they were high on something. Bad joke, sorry!
Learning material - go and google "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" and "Cosmological Redshift explained by intersection of Hubble spheres". The first one is an open statement by many scientists who find many holes in the big bang (surprising many Nobels in this list), and the second look up item is an alternate explanation for the redshift that does not require the universe to be expanding.
Does it have something to do with the first instants of the big bang? Perhaps space and "energy" or whatever expanded before the formation of the 4 forces of nature? Is that it? I'm thinking that what turned into matter had expanded outwards and only later did light come into existence or something like that?? That might explain that gap I'm feeling.
Is there a scientific definition of "particle?" Seems nature consists of what I call the "Onion effect-" just layer after layer, after layer,etc. until things just unfold into linearity. Seems we're yet to come up with an instrument to measure the material which consists of space. It must be such a fine radiation of some sort that nothing we have has been able to detect it- this ether stuff of legend.
Who knows maybe the next big discovery would be something like we find out that space is actually a material and not "empty" as we think of it! Wouldn't that be cool?!!
Hi there Mr. Particle. Well hi there Mr. Wave! What are you doing today. Oh, I'm just obeying the laws of Quantum Mechanics how 'bout you? Oh you know I'm spending all my time(no pun intended) with general relativity these days. I don't really understand what you're saying you vibrate too much when you speak. Well your always everywhere at once. Oh yeah! Yeah! Well take this...#$%^@&^*()(*& Ugh! Take that...*&^%$%^()(*#@$ and #$%^&#@$ and that...$%^&$%*(#$ and...
The only 'substance' space is, is vacuum, consisting of spacial dimensions. There is no particle of empty space. This was known as Ether, until it was ruled out.
So your argument is that empty space itself is a substance? Then why must light be a particle and a wave? This is to compensate for it's ability to travel through space, which has no medium. There is no sound in space, because space has no air, and sound is pressure waves in air, light is not a wave in anything, it is both a wave and a particle.
"Why must light be a particle and a wave?" Because scientists see energy loss in one place and increase in other place, so they need a "carrier" for this energy. Einstein called it a photon. Scientists need a point particle to carry physical properties like mass, charge etc., and because they see point-like interactions.
But the point-particle concept isn't needet at all. Waves can do the same. They can appear as if they interacted point-wise, because resonances occurs along straight lines.
The old ether was a substance that filled empty space - it came right up the edge of planets and objects, etc. This was easily ruled out - a good physicist can show that the boundary conditions between this ether and matter doesn't match experiment. The new and real ether is everything that exists. All matter exists inside of this ether - like a fish in water we have a hard time detecting it (hence M&M's experimental results). All matter is a result of waves in this ether.
Yes. And I know why M&M's experiment has failed: because they didn't know about wave structure of matter and didn't apply the Doppler effects for the light and the interferometer itself [which is also made of waves and "shortens" according to Doppler and in agreement with Lorentz]. When you study Doppler effects and apply it to M&M interferometer you would see that it's impossible to see own Doppler effects, even if it's real, as it is for an Ether. Sagnac interferometer prooves that.
What I meant was, the only particles that exist in what we call "Empty" space, can be photons, or gravitons. Cosmic rays, are light rays, just very high frequency forms of light, like x-rays, or gamma rays.
Personally, I don't think humans will be able to understand the complexity of a Unified Theory of Everything because this would allow us to predict the future, and since future is indeterminate, as quantum mechanics clearly shows, how can there really be a T.O.E?
By describing reality from only one thing existing, Space, we are then forced to conclude that space is infinite and eternal. However, when we calculate the sphere of interaction of one spherical standing wave it is finite (the Hubble sphere / observable universe). So wherever you are in infinite space you think you are at the center of a finite universe of other matter in space.
Eighty years ago Davisson and Germer found that electrons traveling through slits in Nickel Crystal created an interference pattern. The year was 1927. Today we still cling mostly to Euclidian ideas regarding space as a vacuum, a mere measuring of location with no intrinsic effect on experiment.
The question whether space is real apart from space filling objects, that is, whether it is a receptacle for things or an attribute of them dates from early times (Websters 1942).
Space is not matter, rather it is stuff of which all matter is made of. Wave theories are the only answer.
Wave theories can be the only answer depending on the scale of the waves, and the dimensions you refer to. Space, is not a real thing in the way you would normally define "thing". For matter to exist, atoms, and the quarks they consist of must be of a certain size, and spin. The only 'particle" that exists in the vacuum, is light, and gravity, which again, can be calculated either as a particle, or a wave.
Space is a substance. It has to be. It is a wave medium. They will look back on the notion of space as a vacuum - "the void" - like we look back on ideas of a flat earth. The ether is real.
Well said. Space / ether is the one and only thing that we all commonly experience existing in (mind and matter are many things). From this most simple foundation there is only one solution for explaining matter, it is formed from waves in space. When we do this we deduce correctly the fundamentals of quantum physics, relativity, and cosmology (and also explain and solve numerous problems of metaphysics and philosophy). What more do people want from science!
Where is your proof that space is a substance? They thought about this since Neutons time. It was called Ether. The only thing that exists in space, is, at least one other dimentions, which acts as a wave (Time), and vacuum fluctuations.
What more do people want from science? Unification.
1) I looked at the website page 'Simplifying the Metaphysics of Einstein's Special and General Relativity' for the so-called one equation that "united quantum theory with special relativity" mentioned in the video but the only equation on the page is F=ma ?? where can i find this one equation mentioned
2) its pronounced more like "d'brooy" not debroylee or however he butchered it.
3) 'GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS' is hardly a reputable journal.
I know Milo Wolff very well (I filmed the interview).
He is quite wealthy - and he does not write a book on the wave structure of matter to sell books / make money.
It is there to help you (all of humanity) to realise that there is a simple explanation to the problems of physics if we just get rid of the 'particle' conception of matter and replace it with a wave structure of matter (WSM).
what they teach u in textbooks is mostly lies when concerning power. u limit yourself by learning fiction as fact.this guy is aperfect example of free will.physics is all lies when concerning nuclear power easier and safer way using isotopes. just ask tesla if what they teach us is wrong ? oh wait he has been writin out of modren day text books.wonder why?
turn on a gas generator.use that power to power another generator then the next one and so on.text books says you use more power then u create. all lies! what do u think a power inverter is or a transformer on tele pole? try it it works great.now lets take the gas motor out and replace with a magnetic motor.free unlimited power.FACT i bet his theory is not published and old text will not be corrected.
wait, correct me if im wrong - which i probably am - but i thought hawking was still working on a Grand Unification theory? this man just said hes unified it. Explain.
Combining Einsteins theory of relativity and Quantum Theory is that like the "theory of everything" or the key to explaining the universe? Because thats the hitch right, trying to unite or find the perfect relationship between the science of the biggest things in the universe with the science of the smallest things. Also what waves is he talking about, I thought particles just vibrated or shook chaotically about. I don't understand this stuff but it sure is dam interesting.
brazil004 1 year ago
This is unbelievable i've read some of his papers on his website he has actually combined general relativity and quantum mechanics!
Scottnice 2 years ago 9
"...the ego...can be manifest in each lived-experience of wakefulness or lived experiential act, as pole, as ego-center, and thus as involved in the peculiar structure of these lived-experiences; it can be manifest in them as their OUTWARD RADIATING or INWARD RADIATING point, and yet not in them as a part of piece."
-Edmund Husserl; 'Analyses Concerning Passive and Active Synthesis: Lectures on Transcendental Logic; part I, sec. 5, 25-30 (in english translation pub 2001, p. 17) or Husserliana IX
emblemOFbeing 2 years ago
where can I find the full interview or maybe different ones from the same Dr. Wolff?
SquareDates 2 years ago
HI SD,
Just use site search at spaceandmotion com
(It is annoying that you cant post links in youtube)
Cheers,
Geoff
physics1philosophy 2 years ago
Can U tell me, physics1philosophy, the title of the book Dr Wolff mentions at the end? This is something I can finaly show my dad! Do the mainstream accept this explaination of 'dark matter' ? Does Steven Hawkin even know this stuff? Did this genius Dr Wolff discover this long ago? I dont joke with the genius... Einstein was ready to admit he only came across his theories through trial and error... genius is in the sense of the other, the beyond, to connect, to discover.
Tomorer 2 years ago
Milo Wolff's two books are;
Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe
Schroedinger's Universe - The Origon of the Natural Laws
They are at Amazon
physics1philosophy 2 years ago
Geoff this information is just amazing. Do you have a web address? Also wondering if you know (of) Fritjof Kapra's work. Thanks! Gary
garyz777 2 years ago
Hi Gary,
It is amazing that the most simple sensible obvious way of describing matter interactions in space is ignored. Just a spherical in and out wave structure - and from this you can correctly deduce the laws of nature.
My website:
spaceandmotion com
(add .)
Use site search on page to find Fitjof Capra page.
Cheers,
Geoff
physics1philosophy 2 years ago
Back to my first comment:
The probabilities and uncertainties of quantum math never made sense. How could they be a physical manifestation?
THIS makes perfect sense. These are real standing-waves, particle-wave duality is incorrect, and particles are specific-energy results of in-out waves! Then these waves follow relativity and manifest MASS with their wave motion.
How... how unbelievably perfect. I am going to be looking into this as much as I can. I must let my professors know...
anavelg0083 2 years ago
Hi Anavelg,
Great comments. This is exactly how i see it too - very bloody obvious!
However, one consequence of WSM is that it means we humans are programmed machines in a sense, our minds limited to the language / knowledge we have.
Thus most people are incapable of appreciating the significance of the wave structure of matter.
From the comments i get each day I figure about 1 in a thousand people is like you - they get it!
I hope your professor is one of them.
Thanks for the comments!
Geoff
physics1philosophy 2 years ago
How brilliant... special relativity meeting quantum physics. It makes perfect sense.
THIS is a revolution. Revolutions explain all that came before within their structures... Advanced quantum mathematics and current physics are so far removed from eachother. Strings are ludicrous given Dr. Wolff's findings.
I am very excited to have seen this.
anavelg0083 2 years ago
I KNEW quantum mechanics were incorrectly modeled. How have I never heard of this man??? I am a graduating chemistry student and my most troubling courses were physical chemistry and quantum chemistry simply because of the math. There was no way the mathematics to find the slightest wave function information should have been so ridiculously complicated. I even threw my books down and exclaimed "There needs to be a NEW math to model this because this shit doesn't make any sense!" in a lecture.
anavelg0083 2 years ago 3
How do consciousness and our senses relate to WSM? For example, during deep sleep there is no consciousness of the "physical world". Or another example would be before you were born / after you die (I'm assuming) that there is no consciousness of these standing waves that create what we know as reality (obviously because our senses are not present during these states). Can these things be explained in more depth with WSM?
Shreas 2 years ago
Hi Shreas,
That is a tough question.
I got a similar question on the mind on my facebook page, so you can have a read of that to start.
spaceandmotion com/#facebookconnect
(add . before com )
I think consciousness comes from processing a large amount of information. And we get information from the rest of the universe in our in waves.
For now I prefer mainly dealing with matter interactions in space - the WSM explains these perfectly. Mind is complex!
Geoff
physics1philosophy 2 years ago
let's assume he is just trying to sell his book. then what?
2 questions for the author before im going to buy it
1. how standing waves can organize themselves into structures? (such as chemical organic\non organic molecules)
2. what the medium for those 3dimentional standing waves is? If those are waves there must be some form of medium
ActiveStorage 2 years ago
As the in waves get near the wave center their wave amplitude increases and the waves become coherent (the in waves are formed from the out waves of other matter in observable universe).
These large amplitude coherent waves tend to form interconnected wave patterns, they get trapped in repeating wave patterns.
Does this help explain things (wave interactions are very complex).
Geoff
PS - You also need to realise that wave velocity is greater with higher wave amplitude.
physics1philosophy 2 years ago
same goes not just to quantum concepts but even to Plank constants and Bore's constants in chemistry. No one really knew anything. They all assumed that it was so, and both Bore and Plank were smart enough to manage to convince people they are right and people were dumb enough to believe them and keep their mouth shut
there can be no constants in nature. my personal humble opinion lol
ActiveStorage 2 years ago
Plank's constant h is just telling us that frequency and energy are equivalent, where e = hf.
WSM agrees.
However, the velocity of light is not constant, it changes, but so does wavelength and thus dimension so that we always measure the velocity to be the same. This is the foundation of special relativity.
One constant in nature is that everything is interconnected and changing, as matter is a wave structure of the universe.
So are humans.
Cheers,
Geoff
physics1philosophy 2 years ago
What does this theory says about the origin of our universe? are there other universes?
gearsofhalo2 2 years ago
Well it depends how you define universe!
WSM requires that space is infinite and eternal, as it is the one and only thing that exists - matter is formed from waves in this space (the stuff all around you!)
However, wherever you are in infinite space you only observe a finite region of this, our universe and you appear at its center.
Seach wsm cosmology
physics1philosophy 2 years ago
Isnt a theory of everything supposed to eliminate the word infinite and eternal.
and what happens to quantum fluctations?
gearsofhalo2 2 years ago
Why. It is more simple and logical to say that space (which we all experience) is infinite and eternal than that it was created by something else we don't experience (e.g. Big Bang). But it is true that our matter / energy is finite. This is due to the source of our in waves which is finite - see "Equation of the Cosmos" on our website (spaceandmotion)
Quantum fluctuations = ZPE = vibrating space = Wave Structure of Matter in Space (WSM).
Does this help?
Geoff
physics1philosophy 2 years ago
There also theories about multiple bubble like universes that are born from quantum fluctuations.
gearsofhalo2 2 years ago
if this is actually something, then by the "rules of science" it should be testable. until then itss just pseudoscience. there is no other choice than to have it peer reviewed. those "incorrect beliefs" you mention are the same ones that brought you the technology to broadcast your "correct" beliefs across the planet in seconds. science proceeds on honesty if it works, great. but it HAS to be put up to the test. just because something is simple doesnt make it true.
yamaha893 3 years ago
Of course it must be testable - WSM says that an electron is a spherical standing wave in space - this space you and everybody else experiences existing in.
How do you think this knowledge is broadcast across the planet? By waves! This is well accepted.
And the simplicity really relates to necessary connection that requires only one things to exist which causes and connects the many things we experience.
Being skeptical is important - but an open skeptical mind is best.
Cheers,
Geoff
physics1philosophy 2 years ago
i bought Dr. Milo Wolf's book "shoedingers univerise" (I think i spelled it wrong, lol). Do you recommend any other books with similar findings or books Dr Wolff wrote? Very interesting stuff, it boggles my mind that Dr Wolff isnt as well known as he should be. In time he will be up there with einstein and newton.
supajive 3 years ago
Yep - the simplest solution. Just space exists, matter is formed from waves in space. It is obvious once you know it - but most people have closed minds to new ideas.
Geoff
spaceandmotion(dot)com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality(dot)htm
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
I've always felt the same was true. I just was shocked at how simple it all seemed myself. But its exactly the same processes that have been described by shamans for thousands of years. Just with new age science lingo. Same stuff, just dressed for the new age. Its quite excellent, don't you think?
maddcatone 3 years ago
Yes. It is rather excellent. The philosophers at the time of Newton were horrified by his mechanics, founded on discrete and separate particles, as they knew reality was an interconnected whole. But humanity got used to 'particles' and this has led to the confusion of modern physics.
It is obvious matter is a structure of the universe - we now can understand this with the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter in Space.
Thanks for posting.
Geoff
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
thank you for verifying my beliefs 8)
maddcatone 3 years ago
this guy is a moron. all this shit has already been done. we derived the debroglie wavelength in my special relativity class. you can derive the debroglie speed using the lorentz transformations. it's all been done. this guy is just a dumbass.
yogafireyogaflame23 3 years ago
You miss the point. As Milo explains in the video, no one knew the source of the de Broglie wave. Now we finally know that it is caused by Doppler shifts of the spherical in and out waves for two wave center 'particles' in relative motion.
Significantly, it is a phase wave with velocity of c^2 / v which then explains non-locality and the EPR experiment.
Particles are a maths construct - matter is made of waves.
Think about it.
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
Absurd. This addresses none of the problems inherent to Unified Theory, which the good Doctor claims to have discovered on the back of an envelope (so to speak).
Gravity, for example, UTs principle stumbling block, is not mentioned once. I agree 100% that fresh perspective will always have a valuable position in science, but cmon: stumbling blocks are stumbling blocks. Ignoring them wont make them go away.
Nice try, Dr Wolff. But no book sale for you here.
nofs2003 3 years ago
If you spent 5 minutes reading the site you would see that there is a simple and obvious explanation of gravity. It is simply due to the waves traveling more slowly where there are more matter waves in space (higher energy density of space). This is why light curves past the sun, why the earth orbits the sun.
You just need to think about the spherical in waves (which form the wave center 'particle') to understand matter interactions (light and gravity).
Geoff
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
Well said!
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
Please watch this 'Jeremy Narby -Biospheric TV' where he is trying to explore what consciousness is /watch?v=gEKjAmEHDa0
Do you gell with this? Can you add something from your perspective to what he is exploring here?
zezt 3 years ago
I am very interested in this but am relly new to it. So i ask this question: how does what this means effect this here MACRO world?...what are/will be consequences?
zezt 3 years ago
Hi Z,
Very good question - what it is really all about. What we are as humans existing in the universe, how does this affect our life.
The short answer.
1. WSM provides a foundation for deducing the truth about things, to allow us to act wisely (the opposite of current humanity).
2. It tells us that matter and space are one thing (there are no discrete particles as Einstein realised).
We humans are extended in space, the body is an illusion.
This will change how we treat our world.
Cont....
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
I am convinced this knowledge is critical to our future survival.
We certainly would not destroy nature and pollute our environment, as they are a part of us.
WSM also tells us that evolution and ecology are very important, as they relate directly to the fundamental aspect of reality, it is a dynamic unity, all things are interconnected and changing (due to spherically vibrating space - the spherical in & out waves provide continual 2 way communication between wave center 'particles').
more...
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
Thanks. I would prefer though if you said the body was BOTH not-real and real. For reasons that--my interest has been mythology, and I find that many of the myths denigrate Nature. Focussing on Eastern Idealism which states reality is 'illusion' Maya, negative consequences have come for that concept
zezt 3 years ago
Yes buddy I'm sure, the gouvernment is responsible for most of my paycheck, we call that reasearch grant ;)
sicjd 3 years ago
Hey Jukebob, after viewing your page I saw that you're a big fan of this pseudo science bullshit, so you think I'm the one who is retarted ? Well let me ask you something, when was the last time you opened a REAL physics book ? Not some pop science book or metaphysics book, a real mathematical physics book ? Well guess what, this is what I do for a living ! I know what I'm talking about, I know how to recognize bullshit when I see it ... beleive me, this is absolute crap !
sicjd 3 years ago
You mean they actually pay you?!! Are you sure it's not just to check for spelling errors?
hollowquark 3 years ago
As you're the one that posted retard with a 't' and 'believe as 'beleive' - perhaps I was expecting too much in expecting you to appreciate my (surely obvious) ironic comment.
I have no way of knowing from either your channel or your postings what you do; but I can say that I don't see anything here on YouTube that would lead me to believe your claim to be involved in Physics
You are though, clearly, mildly dyslexic - a much more agreeable term than 'retart' don't you think?
bobjazz11 3 years ago
It is funny to hear you say that ANYTHING is BS - even Einstein was humble enough to admit that he didn't even know all of the 'basics'... he also raised simplicity to the highest order... and YOUR science, that you hold so dear is so damned complex that most scientists cant grasp it either. I dare you to even claim that you understand it. I dare you to describe REAL physics....
sassafrassquach 3 years ago
What do you want to know?
Saskachewan 3 years ago
What do you do in life ? Please tell me, I'm sure I can do it better than you !
This is presicely what you are telling me, that you can perhaps understand physics better than I do, but this is my job !
Most scientist I know understand perfectly science, at least it's current state. Does that mean they know everything ? No, but they know enough to tell that Wolff Philosophy is a phony ; he has no credibility at all in the scientific community. Read real scientific journals,not youtube.
sicjd 3 years ago
hi sicjd
what would be the normal procedure ,if you come up with a new theory like this ,do you get it peer reviewed , or just publish in a scientific journal ?
also skeptical
sausage4mash 3 years ago
How do you propose to get the WSM peer reviewed and published in physics journals when most physicists believe in the particle wave duality (where the wave is a probability wave to find the particle).
The system is corrupted by incorrect beliefs - and history shows that most people do not change how they think (and have closed minds to new ideas).
Thoughts?
Geoff
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
agreed
maddcatone 3 years ago
Why is it absolute crap? What are your reasons for this claim based upon rules of science. What evidence do you have that space does not exist, that matter is not made from waves in space?
Given it correctly deduces de Broglie wave and relativistic mass increase (you know maths physics) it is strange you ignore this.
Geoff
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
Ho my god ... I've never seen that much crap !
He completely missed the problem between special relativity and quantum theory ... not to mention quantum field theory already solve this problem. That guy is completely retarted !
The problem with modern theoretical physics is unifying general relativity with quantum gravity, and beleive me you can't do that with some simple algebra ...
sicjd 3 years ago
I beleive someone here may possibly be a retart
jukebob 3 years ago
Well Jukebob - be careful. It might be you! Because in the space of 9 words you have made 2 spelling mistakes!
BRAIDERMAN 3 years ago 3
Wow ... Am I expected to believe that you didn't spot that I borrowed the spellings of those two words in question from the posting immediately above mine (to which I was ironically replying) - what a bunch of shitheads!! from whom I (ironically) borrowed the spellings in question;
bobjazz11 3 years ago
I was replying to 'Jukebob' not to you 'bobjazz11', unless you are co-habitating the aether with aliases.
BRAIDERMAN 3 years ago
I am the same person (look here's another one) - I post to sites the 'prefixes' of which are all 'bob' with the 'suffixes' reflecting the content.
By the way, I love your spelling of 'gouvernment'; - and could you tell us(as you claim to read books on 'real physics') what the 'aether' is that you have referred to.. Could I suggest you try a 'pop science book' on Einstein if you're not sure?
bobblues1 3 years ago
Hi 'bobblues1' - No it wasn't me who mis-spelled the word 'government' - must be someone else. As to the 'aether', I wasn't using that word in terms of the 'hypothetical luminiferous aether' - merely just an aside as to the world of the internet. Have a Good Day Bobblues1 - be 'bobhappygolucky' next time. Chow.
BRAIDERMAN 3 years ago
Sorry that was sicjd ...
Have you noticed that very few of the postings dealing with this clip are 'scientific'- but in fact appeal to some real; imagined; or virtual 'Authority' ... Aristotle will be turning in his grave.
Have a Good Day yourself Braiderman
BobWhatever
bobblues1 3 years ago
I love listening to this guy talk. He's quite intelligent and charismatic.
TheGreatOne544 3 years ago
Magnetosynthesis - Something you didn't know you were doing!
Magnetrition.
Research indicates, magnetic bacteria and the mitochondria have the same properties. The average person dies around age 70 due to insufficient turning during sleep
Astronauts when they leave the Earth's magnetic field, must take with them a copy of the Earth's magnetic field, and insure their periodic movement within that field to prevent osteoporosis.
An organelle living inside your body migrates magnetically
alanejackson 3 years ago
So what did you find?
from David @ laser physics
airc123 3 years ago
I still don't know what mass is. Some have said that mass is condensed energy, but what exactly is energy apart from mass? If something can't exist unless it is in motion, then surly everthing is of energy. but, If mass cannot exist apart from energy, then truly energy must be a mutually possesive characteristic inherent in all phenomina. If that is true, then how can energy be classified apart from mass?
malinson1 3 years ago
Matter and energy don't exist
renegaderhombus1 3 years ago
wait if particles are just waves, then what are quarks? smaller waves?
dilute666 3 years ago
Quarks and other other unstable particles like mesons and gluons have a short lifetime - very characteristic of a string that has been plucked and then dies out. They are not standing waves - just transient waves. As an example, the higher mass particles like mesons have such a short lifetime, the more massive the shorter the life. This is interpreted as uncertainty principle but it's the same as energy in a wave - Energy*(settling-time) in a transient wave is a fixed quantity.
hollowquark 3 years ago
If you find a little about quarks you discover for your surprise that scientists have really NEVER caught them. They're only theoretical entities, like photons. AFAIK the only "proof" for quarks is the scattering on neutrons which showed three scattering centers, but it could be explained by the shape of the neutron's standing wave, same as for electron's standing wave patterns which usually have many "lobes" but strangely noone suggests that they consists from some quarks ;J
Saskachewan 3 years ago
Hi All,
Thanks for the comments below - they are great!
Just a short note that Milo Wolff's new book has been published at Amazon. See;
"Schroedinger's Universe and the Origin of the Natural Laws"
amazondotcom/Schroedingers-Universe-Origin-Natural-Laws/dp/1432719793/
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
that must be a hell of a feeling to discover something like that
jimmyshitbags 3 years ago 7
Yes, current quantum theory and other mathematicaly complicated theories are like those epicycles. They're complicated because we see it wrongly and doesn't see the simplicity hidden in it. The Standard Model is like a Mendeleev table - it cries for simplier inner structure. And this structure is the waves.
Saskachewan 3 years ago
I just got a shiver. when he said ii
4take4give 3 years ago
Um... Yeah. Quantum field theories already do a fine job of uniting Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Been doing it fine for 75 years. (The Standard Model is a quantum field theory.)
The real test will come when such a formulation can predict new stuff, like uniting General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and come up with a solid prediction of what we should see. Only then can we say that it's an "important development."
wyrmofvt 3 years ago 2
Um.. Yeah. You missed the discussion several threads back - WSM has united gravity and QM. The discussion about SRT and QM is just one of the many "clean-up" projects that WSM has to do to be "consistent" with modern field theory. In other words, WSM has to predict what's already there. As far as new predctions and how gravity and QM interact, google "cosmological redshift and intersection of hubble spheres", which predicts accelerating redshift without requiring the 25yr dark matter prblem.
hollowquark 3 years ago
what do you all know about the austrian physicist claims to results of their frame drag experiments and how it relates to all of your discussions here?
ewq1ipo0 3 years ago
dark energy, problem here is that you can confirm the existence of vacuum energy thats why dark energy is so widely accepted, the dispute is how to define it and what is its relative value.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Hi All,
There is a video of the electron that has recently been uploaded to YouTube that is proving to be quite a sensation. I just received an email about it - and it clearly shows the wave structure of matter (that the electron is a spherical standing wave - not a discrete 'particle). See;
watch?v=32uEvwxNJvE
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
When I put that video up on the electron in motion I never thought it would go as viral as it has.
freedomlost2007 3 years ago
I remember looking at that video, and being excited and digging up the supporting paper, when it first came out. Maybe I read wrong, but doesn't that video show the activity of a whole bunch of electrons and the wavelike appearance is just a result of how the electrons were scanned? I could be wrong - just my understanding of what the paper said.
stevendpe 3 years ago
The spherical standing wave structure of matter shows why pythagorean theorem it true.
It also shows the cause of the mass increase with motion of Einstein's spacial relativity due to Doppler shifts of the spherical in and out waves (that form the electron at the wave center).
Thanks Fushapan for correcting comments - really appreciated!
Geoff
physics1philosophy 3 years ago
This is a good step in the right direction, he is disproving the Pythagorean theorem and relativity which is the first step in coming up with better more accurate and hopefully correct theories on the subject.
lninez9 3 years ago
I followed a parallel path to Milo. I also worked out that matter standing waves (WSM) would give de Broglie waves and Einstein mass formula. When I posted some stuff on this on the internet, Milo found me and said "welcome to the club".
Wonderful discussion Milo, it comes across so clearly, especially with Geoff asking the right questions to make it perfectly clear.
artynz 4 years ago
Hi Ray,
Good to see you at YouTube. Thanks for the nice comments.
I watched your video on the wave diagrams. Very good!
watch?v=8BTcmuGdLCU
Will watch the rest of your playlist this week (and try and add some intelligent comments!)
Geoff
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
Agreed. As I said earlier, a mathematical statement may be proved true or false (although not all of them).
dgpdx 4 years ago
dqpdx.You know there's this guy over in Berkeley who claims that the pathagorean theorem and special relativity "natural coincidence," and the theory of evolution "natural selection" are all basically the same theory!!! In fact he claims that Godel's incompleteness theorem and the uncertainty principle are all different manifestations of the same phenomenon!!!! In fact he claims to have disproven both relativity and the Pathgorean theorem.
pishdad 4 years ago
dqpdx. He claims the disproof of those two was the only way to do it because they are the simplest and most sussinct manifestations. Evolution"natural selection" and the other guys are too complicated and diffuse so rendering proofs/disproofs is just doesn't amount to anything- they're not as sophisticated as Pathagorean theorem or relativity. Anyway expert he ever talks to goes crazy and cannot accept what he says- it's like salt on snails. They all are repulsed by his ideas.
pishdad 4 years ago
dqpdx. Check him out on google. His name is John Ryskamp. He's a historian, lawyer, artist, very wierd poet, novelist, and more. I first met him when I was going to UC Berkeley some 20 years ago and he's still persuing the same things he always did even back then. He maintains his disproofs and that all those different great theories are all just the same theory manifested through different branches of knowledge/sciences!!! By the way, having met him and spoken with him, and all, he's amazing!!!
pishdad 4 years ago
dqpdx. I must say the guy, John Ryskamp, is absolutely brilliant! Just in conversation I've never met anyone with such a hold and command of everything he's talking about. People say things to him in the cafe's around Berkeley and his response just undermines their logic. Just his general sense of logic is amazing- I've never seen or heard anyone like him. Now I haven't even seen him in over 15 years but I've run accross him on the internet and he's still up to the same stuff. You gotta love it.
pishdad 4 years ago
Thanks, I'll google him right away -- he sounds like my kinda guy ;-)
dgpdx 4 years ago
dgpdx. Well if he's your kind of guy then you're one of the first besides me. All the professors, physics guys, etc, just get all pissed by him. Then it turns to animosity, bla, bla. I remember 15 years ago and all the arguments at those Berkeley cafes like it was yesterday. All the physics people and mathematician go to all the cafe's there. John Ryskamp gets under all their skins!
pishdad 4 years ago
dgpdx. The only thing I never could get used to was that eventhough his arguments would "disprove" Pythagorean theorem and Relativity he never had something better to replace them with. In that respect that was teh only downfall. He just seemed to be happy with the fact that he has disproven everything and that is it. He just says he has proven that they're ultimately wrong. I'm like what's the point. I would rather think of those theories as simple models which work 'til a better model comes!!!
pishdad 4 years ago
Well, after reading one paper, I don't agree with him on much. By "my kinda guy" I mean that he's willing to put it all out there, even if it means he'll be thought nuts by the establishment. Progress only happens when what we think we know is challenged, so challengers are a good thing to have.
dgpdx 4 years ago
which paper was that?
pishdad 4 years ago
Using the correct terms is highly important in physics. Even physicists, who should know better, say things like "the universe is x billion years old." What they mean is "according to our latest model, the universe is x billion old, and this could change tomorrow." Talking about physics in terms of absolute certainty does a grave disservice to the scientific method and makes it even harder to convey science to the lay person.
dgpdx 4 years ago
Nothing can be "proved" to exist by experiment -- a theory or hypothesis can be "verified." As you say, after enough verifications, a theory is accepted as true but that does not constitute "proof." All it takes is one counter-example to disprove a theory that has been previously accepted and that can happen years or decades or even centuries later. There are numerous examples of this in physics today.
dgpdx 4 years ago
Fushapan.I don't consider any idea as "silly." Can't let down our guard like that cause that at which you completely condemn will come back and slap you accross the face one day.One can say that perhaps "it's not the complete picture." "Maybe it's in the spirit of the real thing." Unfortunately that's as close as one can really come. It's kind of like being a product of an "N" dimension yet trying to conceive of an "N + 1" dimension.One can say 4,5,6,...N dimensions btu that isn't being that dim
pishdad 4 years ago
I have a feeling another Einstein will result in the opposite of what you might be asking. It may result in finding out that "relativity" was an unnecessary excursion. I think the future will hold that relativity was not as considerable a contribution as people think.Personally, I believe we'd be in the exact place as a society as w/o relativity. People like to create figure heads- icons, gods, idols,etc. Einstein happened to be around at the time they were looking for chests to pin a badge on!
pishdad 4 years ago
No I think that's correct. I believe it may result in the disproof of the big bang!If light was created after space-time-matter and s.t.m. expanded before light came to be, then would we be able to see it,etc. Or if we can see it wouldn't the doppler be off a little? Hmmmmm. ?
pishdad 4 years ago
To me, the ZPF and the WSM proposed here are equivalent and ZPF theory is certainly no more doubtful than WSM theory. As for "proof," you mean experimental verification, don't you? Proof is a mathematical concept, not a physical one.
dgpdx 4 years ago
I'm sure. I've heard physicists say that the big bang occurred around 15 billion years ago. And they stated that some of the farthest galaxies are 150 billion lt years away. I've never understood that- it's fact,what I heard, no dreaming up stuff here!!!!
pishdad 4 years ago
Notice I didn't say Quantum Mechanics, I said Quantum Vacuum. Read "The Field" of some other book that covers the topic. Much like WSM, Quantum Vacuum, or Zero-Point-Field, theory says that the appearance of mass is simply concentrated energy caused by fluctuations in the quantum vacuum or zero-point filed.
dgpdx 4 years ago
The real error is to add the 'motion of particles' to space (and time) - it is simpler and works better to just have the wave motion of space that causes matter particles and time / change (i.e. there is just the eternal now of physical space existing - but it is vibrating so always in a state of change which we call time). The various vibrations / wave patterns in space form matter.
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
Interesting. You're description gives me the picture of matter not unlike a bed spread sheet. When you lift the whole sheet from one side to evenly spread the sheet accross the bed you can suddenly jerk the sheet resulting in a 'snap,' as the material concentrates itself then genlty opens resting on the bed. Maybe that 'snap' of concentrated material represents matter.
pishdad 4 years ago
Physics1. What did you mean to ignore Big Bang? I don't understand. I'm still confused about the 15 billion year old universe and 150 billion lt-yr far galaxies. How?!! By the way the comment directly below this was directed to you the one below that was to Fushapan.
pishdad 4 years ago
Physics1. See the contradiction in terms of far off galaxies and big bang time is perplexing to me and I can't find anyone to explain it. On top of that I have problems understanding that if the culprit is "inflation" when time-matter-space was created before light itself that could explain why you could have somehthing 150 billion lt-yrs away but doesn't say something about the doppler. Wouldn't the doppler give the illusion that the 150 lt-yr far galaxy is only somewhere like 15 bil. yearsaway
pishdad 4 years ago
Einstein's relativity is really neutral about space existing - it is basically ignored as motion is relative to other matter (rather than absolute space). However, Lorentz showed that relativity still works if you take motion relative to absolute Space.
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
Hi Pishdad,
Ignore Big Bang Theory. WSM explains redshift with distance due to decreasing overlap of Hubble Spheres (e.g. our finite observable universe) within infinite space.
See:
spaceandmotion(dot)com/Cosmology.htm
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
Hi Don,
My knowledge of quantum vacuum theory is limited. As i understand it they are correct that empty space is not actually empty - it is full of energy (ZPE). But they have this energy manifesting as virtual particles and antiparticles. WSM just says it is all waves in space - and certain wave patterns (spherical standing waves) form 'particles' at their wave center.
Hope this helps.
Geoff
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
Hi Geoff,
Since particles and waves can both describe the same reality, it sounds to me more a semantic distinction than a physical one. Both theories are taking us in a different direction and I see this as a good thing.
Thanks,
don
dgpdx 4 years ago
Hi, Geoff --
Highly interesting stuff! How does WSM differ from Quantum Vacuum theory? They both imply that mass is an illusion.
--
don
dgpdx 4 years ago
I understood during my undergraduate days in the 80's that putting the 'ether' factor in everything screwed up the majority of scientific work before and up to Einstein. Einstein completely ignored 'ether' in the equations and that helped Einstein in his work.
pishdad 4 years ago
We're living in a time which makes it hard to conceive of this ether/space thing. Relativity came about as a result of Einstein completely leaving out or ignoring "ether." Einstein didn't pay attention to it and he came up with relativity- which takes into account no 'ether.' But now recently I heard that Relativity does 'allow' for ether. I guess that just means you didn't need to consider ether for relativity but relativity does hint at 'ether type existence.'
pishdad 4 years ago
The solution to a lot of this space-time ether, universe thing,in my opinion is not only in physics, but ligustics(Wittgensteinian)and biological- human anatomy. It's wierd but I believe we're witnessing the birth of a new body of science- some kind of physics-lingological embryo of sorts. It may even grow up and replace our current scientific paradigm.
pishdad 4 years ago
Yeah you're on to an understanding of the universe! Except that Relativity does account for "the ether!" From what I understand relativity does account for ether. Then what we're left with is get around the comfortable notion that the universe has always existed. In a way understanding the universe(the "objective") is interrupted by man understanding his own mind. Our minds get in the way, literally, of our understanding the universe!
pishdad 4 years ago
Hi Fushapan,
Short answer (meant kindly!)
1. Nothing set the waves in motion - they have always been in motion as part of an infinite eternal system of waves in space (things starting is a human psychological trait!)
2. Entropy (second law of thermodynamics) only applies to closed systems - thus it does not apply for WSM / waves in infinite space.
Hope this helps - good comments all! Thanks.
Geoff Haselhurst
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
I can buy into the "human psychological trait" thing- that we physiologically(even)constructed to conclude the notion of beginning/end etc. We find it next to impossible to imagine that there could ever have been possible that space/time did not exist!I can concieve the possibility that space or time itself simply do not exist. I have gotten around that phychological frame of mind.
pishdad 4 years ago
So what's the deal.The universe is approx 15 billion years old give or take. Yet we have galaxies which are out there at around 150 billion light years away. This doesn't make sense to me. I found nobody to explain who really knows what's going on. Do you know why we have such a descrepancy? Is it because light came into the game way after the matter/space was created? If so, I don't understand why the red-shift would register as it does and not be showing us the 'delay-'
pishdad 4 years ago
Seems the red-shift should be showing us that the 150 billion light year away galaxy is only 15 billion years away or something. I don't understand...
pishdad 4 years ago
Ugh! ooo! Ahh, shesh! uhmmmm, okay, whew! boy! That was smartz! See you later Mr. Particle. You got it see you later Mr. Wave!!
pishdad 4 years ago
Gee Mr. Particle - you seem to have some bizzare irregularities - like where the heck are your boundaries? What's that you say Mr. Wave - how about you take a jump in the lake, I am a Copenhagenist and I am "Not Even Wrong"!! Well, Mr. P, you sure show an embarrasing singularity at r = 0 where your potentienal energy blows up, why don't you take a break from this madness and RIDE THE WAVE!! That's enough Mr. W, now you will feel the sting of my mass!! &%@$#!!
hollowquark 4 years ago
Wait a second Mr.P - please don't interact with me, I don't want to be affected by your paradigm - at least as a wave my energy is bounded and doesn't invoke the infinite!!Hey Mr. W - it's not so bad, don't you know how to normalize?! Just subtract two infinite numbers and your back in the realm of reality - what's the problem? That Dirac fellow did it OK!!
hollowquark 4 years ago
Now Mr. P - everybody knows that Fourier fellow who showed how anything can be created with a combination of waves - don't you know that me and one one of my friends acting as a 3-D wave can create all the observed features of you, Mr. P, without the singularity? That's why so many people want to use me and my wave bretheren in string theory - the one that is in trouble because they have to account for you, Mr.P, by adding 8 extra dimensions to the 3 I use!!
hollowquark 4 years ago
Thanks for providing me with some good entertainment today! Ha, ha,ha! But seriously I have a question. Please explaing to me why it is our universe is say 15-20 billion years old yet we know of galaxies which are 150 billion light years away??!!
pishdad 4 years ago
You hit the nail right on the head. I don't know how old it is but I will tell you this, when astronomers found that the universe is accelerating it's expansion instead of slowing down it's expansion (as Isaac Newton would predict - you know the thing about gravity being an attractive force?!!), I decided that astronomers at the Keck telescope in Hawaii were spending too much time smoking some native grass!!
hollowquark 4 years ago
Hey I don't understand anything you said??!! What did I hit on the head, what about the accelerating universe, Newton, and the Keck telescope?? Sorry I don't know what you're taking about. Could you be a little more pacific?
pishdad 4 years ago
Sorry - limited on space in these responses. You are right - there are objects (galaxies, globular clusters, galactic clusters) all greater than 20 billion years old. There's no way the universe is only 20 billion years old.
hollowquark 4 years ago
Well they say the big bang was somewhere around that old or whatever 20, 30, 35 billion it's all the same thing. We still have galaxies 150 billion light years away which just doesn't make any sense to me unless it's because of what I've already aforementioned. I appologize for saying but if you don't know what I'm talking about then just let me know that you don't know what I'm talking about otherwise I end up restating everything over and over and over again, etc.
pishdad 4 years ago
You are making sense. Let me restate what I said - you are right, there are things that are 150 billion years old and the age of the universe is determined from the expansion rate - which in turn is determined from the redshift, is most likely incorrect. If the universe is not expanding and the redshift is due to something else besides an expansion, then the age of the universe could be a lot older.
hollowquark 4 years ago
Oh well. I still don't understand how it can be that the universe started with the big bang, it was approximately 15 billion years ago, but we have galaxies which are 150 billion light years away. How can something which just started 15 billion years ago already be 150 billion light years away from us???!!! That is my whole original question. I don't know how we got into all this other stuff.
pishdad 4 years ago
Ok, let's forget the other stuff - it's all just evidence that the big bang didn't happen. Let's stick to what you said - 150 billion years old for some objects, the universe has to be older than that. Yes - absolutely correct. I am just telling you it is older than 150 billion years old and the other stuff shows that there probably wasn't even a big bang - the universe could be older than anybody can imagine.
hollowquark 4 years ago
The standard "big banger" answer is that the universe went through a period of "inflation" during which it expanded a zillion times faster than the speed of light. When protecting a sacred theory, anything goes.
dgpdx 4 years ago
Ahh,ha,ha!That's funny.That's exactly what I thought.Tell if I'm wrong but the prevailing idea is that the expansion/"inflation" occurred before nature split into the four forces we're currently know. So before electromagnetism/light came into existence space had already been created and had expanded to a point which makes up this discrepancy I mention?.Is that correct? What is your field?What do you do-physics?
pishdad 4 years ago
I don't know their exact time-line, but that is probably the best explanation, that the universe was already huge before "Let there be Light" happened.
I'm a retired computer programmer. Almost 40 years of scientific and technical work. My degree is in math but I've always had a big interest in physics, particularly quantum physics.
dgpdx 4 years ago
I still don't have a clue to the last email you sent to me about Newton, Keck,etc.!!!
pishdad 4 years ago
What I meant about astronomers is this - they decided many years ago that the universe is expanding partly because of the redshift - the farther away the galaxy is the faster it is moving and this is an indication that the universe is expanding -space is being created and things are moving away from each other. But gravity still works - it pulls things closer together - not pushes them farther apart. They know believe a new kind of gravity is pushing things apart.
hollowquark 4 years ago
Yeah, I think they call that dark energy or something like that. And I know about the red shirt thingy. But I don't know why we can't have an expanding universe and gravity at the same time?? What's wrong with that? I don't know what's wrong with the old idea that in an explosion(big bang) things go outward and that's what could be happening now. It doesn't mean that the particles going outward can't have their own local gravities,etc.
pishdad 4 years ago
Gravity exists and it's attractive. But the astronomers have found that the redshift is not linear but increasing, which means the expansion is accelerating as you go farther out. If you believe it is expanding, you are forced to conclude that something is "pushing" things apart in the early stages of the universe. Gravity doesn't do this. Dark energy is supposed to be a repulsive force instead of attractive.
hollowquark 4 years ago
Ok, so the thing about Keck is this - they discovered this increasing, non-linear redshift at Keck telescope but is was confirmed in many other places. I was just making the joke that because somebody found it there and proposed it was repulsive (pushing) gravity force, that they were high on something. Bad joke, sorry!
hollowquark 4 years ago
Learning material - go and google "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" and "Cosmological Redshift explained by intersection of Hubble spheres". The first one is an open statement by many scientists who find many holes in the big bang (surprising many Nobels in this list), and the second look up item is an alternate explanation for the redshift that does not require the universe to be expanding.
hollowquark 4 years ago
It may suggest that they [and all the others] deduce the speed of galaxies from wrong assumptions.
Saskachewan 3 years ago
Does it have something to do with the first instants of the big bang? Perhaps space and "energy" or whatever expanded before the formation of the 4 forces of nature? Is that it? I'm thinking that what turned into matter had expanded outwards and only later did light come into existence or something like that?? That might explain that gap I'm feeling.
pishdad 4 years ago
Is there a scientific definition of "particle?" Seems nature consists of what I call the "Onion effect-" just layer after layer, after layer,etc. until things just unfold into linearity. Seems we're yet to come up with an instrument to measure the material which consists of space. It must be such a fine radiation of some sort that nothing we have has been able to detect it- this ether stuff of legend.
pishdad 4 years ago
Who knows maybe the next big discovery would be something like we find out that space is actually a material and not "empty" as we think of it! Wouldn't that be cool?!!
pishdad 4 years ago
Hi there Mr. Particle. Well hi there Mr. Wave! What are you doing today. Oh, I'm just obeying the laws of Quantum Mechanics how 'bout you? Oh you know I'm spending all my time(no pun intended) with general relativity these days. I don't really understand what you're saying you vibrate too much when you speak. Well your always everywhere at once. Oh yeah! Yeah! Well take this...#$%^@&^*()(*& Ugh! Take that...*&^%$%^()(*#@$ and #$%^&#@$ and that...$%^&$%*(#$ and...
pishdad 4 years ago
Well said.
Basically Einstein realised that the discrete particle did not make sense - matter was spatially extended.
His error was to try and represent matter as continuous fields in space-time. It does not work because it does not explain discrete things.
Cont....
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
The solution, use the more simple foundation of spherical standing waves in space (where time comes from wave motion of space).
SO we are now working with a standing wave field rather than a continuous field.
Simple. It works by explaining both quantum theory and Einstein's relativity (and cosmology).
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
Well said - spot on!
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
The only 'substance' space is, is vacuum, consisting of spacial dimensions. There is no particle of empty space. This was known as Ether, until it was ruled out.
jians5 4 years ago
So your argument is that empty space itself is a substance? Then why must light be a particle and a wave? This is to compensate for it's ability to travel through space, which has no medium. There is no sound in space, because space has no air, and sound is pressure waves in air, light is not a wave in anything, it is both a wave and a particle.
jians5 4 years ago
"Why must light be a particle and a wave?" Because scientists see energy loss in one place and increase in other place, so they need a "carrier" for this energy. Einstein called it a photon. Scientists need a point particle to carry physical properties like mass, charge etc., and because they see point-like interactions.
But the point-particle concept isn't needet at all. Waves can do the same. They can appear as if they interacted point-wise, because resonances occurs along straight lines.
Saskachewan 3 years ago
Hi jjans5,
The old ether was a substance that filled empty space - it came right up the edge of planets and objects, etc. This was easily ruled out - a good physicist can show that the boundary conditions between this ether and matter doesn't match experiment. The new and real ether is everything that exists. All matter exists inside of this ether - like a fish in water we have a hard time detecting it (hence M&M's experimental results). All matter is a result of waves in this ether.
hollowquark 4 years ago
Yes. And I know why M&M's experiment has failed: because they didn't know about wave structure of matter and didn't apply the Doppler effects for the light and the interferometer itself [which is also made of waves and "shortens" according to Doppler and in agreement with Lorentz]. When you study Doppler effects and apply it to M&M interferometer you would see that it's impossible to see own Doppler effects, even if it's real, as it is for an Ether. Sagnac interferometer prooves that.
Saskachewan 3 years ago
What I meant was, the only particles that exist in what we call "Empty" space, can be photons, or gravitons. Cosmic rays, are light rays, just very high frequency forms of light, like x-rays, or gamma rays.
jians5 4 years ago
There are no particles.
All matter particles are formed from the wave center of spherical standing waves.
All light 'particles' are really just discrete energy interactions due to discrete standing wave interactions (resonance / resonant coupling)
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
Personally, I don't think humans will be able to understand the complexity of a Unified Theory of Everything because this would allow us to predict the future, and since future is indeterminate, as quantum mechanics clearly shows, how can there really be a T.O.E?
jians5 4 years ago
Hi Jians5,
By describing reality from only one thing existing, Space, we are then forced to conclude that space is infinite and eternal. However, when we calculate the sphere of interaction of one spherical standing wave it is finite (the Hubble sphere / observable universe). So wherever you are in infinite space you think you are at the center of a finite universe of other matter in space.
interactions.
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
Continued from above....
This interconnection of matter in space extends to infinity - so the system is indeterminate, but it is necessarily connected / logical.
Geoff
(It is frustrating with YouTube because replies are limited in length - thus very abrupt! Sorry.)
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
.
Eighty years ago Davisson and Germer found that electrons traveling through slits in Nickel Crystal created an interference pattern. The year was 1927. Today we still cling mostly to Euclidian ideas regarding space as a vacuum, a mere measuring of location with no intrinsic effect on experiment.
2012Quetzalcoatl 4 years ago 2
.
The question whether space is real apart from space filling objects, that is, whether it is a receptacle for things or an attribute of them dates from early times (Websters 1942).
Space is not matter, rather it is stuff of which all matter is made of. Wave theories are the only answer.
2012Quetzalcoatl 4 years ago 5
Wave theories can be the only answer depending on the scale of the waves, and the dimensions you refer to. Space, is not a real thing in the way you would normally define "thing". For matter to exist, atoms, and the quarks they consist of must be of a certain size, and spin. The only 'particle" that exists in the vacuum, is light, and gravity, which again, can be calculated either as a particle, or a wave.
jians5 4 years ago
Space is a substance. It has to be. It is a wave medium. They will look back on the notion of space as a vacuum - "the void" - like we look back on ideas of a flat earth. The ether is real.
2012Quetzalcoatl 4 years ago
Well said. Space / ether is the one and only thing that we all commonly experience existing in (mind and matter are many things). From this most simple foundation there is only one solution for explaining matter, it is formed from waves in space. When we do this we deduce correctly the fundamentals of quantum physics, relativity, and cosmology (and also explain and solve numerous problems of metaphysics and philosophy). What more do people want from science!
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
Where is your proof that space is a substance? They thought about this since Neutons time. It was called Ether. The only thing that exists in space, is, at least one other dimentions, which acts as a wave (Time), and vacuum fluctuations.
What more do people want from science? Unification.
jians5 4 years ago
1) I looked at the website page 'Simplifying the Metaphysics of Einstein's Special and General Relativity' for the so-called one equation that "united quantum theory with special relativity" mentioned in the video but the only equation on the page is F=ma ?? where can i find this one equation mentioned
2) its pronounced more like "d'brooy" not debroylee or however he butchered it.
3) 'GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS' is hardly a reputable journal.
gresszilla 4 years ago
spaceandmotion(dot)com/Wolff-Wave-Structure-Matter.htm
The wave equation which deduces de Broglie wavelength and relativistic mass increase is in Part VI. Mathematical Appendix.
WRT reputable journals. Given the nonsense now published in the name of 'physics' I am not sure this has any meaning. See;
spaceandmotion(dot)com/physics-censorship-nobel-prize-laureate.htm
Written by Nobel laureate Brian Josephson (reprinted with his permission).
Geoff Haselhurst
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
What a silly comment.
I know Milo Wolff very well (I filmed the interview).
He is quite wealthy - and he does not write a book on the wave structure of matter to sell books / make money.
It is there to help you (all of humanity) to realise that there is a simple explanation to the problems of physics if we just get rid of the 'particle' conception of matter and replace it with a wave structure of matter (WSM).
physics1philosophy 4 years ago
LOL.....true colors shine through at the end of the interview......"THIS BOOK"
bombaclaat 4 years ago
what they teach u in textbooks is mostly lies when concerning power. u limit yourself by learning fiction as fact.this guy is aperfect example of free will.physics is all lies when concerning nuclear power easier and safer way using isotopes. just ask tesla if what they teach us is wrong ? oh wait he has been writin out of modren day text books.wonder why?
1giveup 4 years ago
turn on a gas generator.use that power to power another generator then the next one and so on.text books says you use more power then u create. all lies! what do u think a power inverter is or a transformer on tele pole? try it it works great.now lets take the gas motor out and replace with a magnetic motor.free unlimited power.FACT i bet his theory is not published and old text will not be corrected.
1giveup 4 years ago
wait, correct me if im wrong - which i probably am - but i thought hawking was still working on a Grand Unification theory? this man just said hes unified it. Explain.
rakowski12 4 years ago