Wave Structure of Matter

[WanderingLands]

For some time now, I've been exploring a theory known as WSM (Wave Structure of Matter), where what we call "particles" are really in fact spherical waves, in which the IN and OUT waves interact with each other (internally and externally with other spherical waves). I encountered this information by reading the website Space and Motion by Geoff Haselhurst, as well as people like Milo Wolff and Ray Tomes.

Space and Motion: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
Ray Tomes: http://www.youtube.com/user/artynz/about
Milo Wolff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekp1OKi6e4o

This will go with my future posts.

[Blaggard]

It's an interesting idea but there are some problems with this interpretation, if each wave has a supersymetrical twin that simultaneously exists side by side, this aught to mean we cannot get particle like effects in the famous two slit experiment, even accounting for De Broigle means basically saying you are talking about a non local real wave that has a certain frequency, but this leads to the problem that it is completely indistinguishable from the other interpretations and in fact De Broigles interpretation is not well received because it is indistinct from the more mainstream Copenhagen, it just has hidden variables, and you might argue they are just an added complication that is unnecessary.

If you pass 1 electron through a slit where one slit is closed you get a bullet effect around a density which is basically dictated by the direction it moves through the slit. If you like wise close the other slit you get the same particle like effect on the other side of the detector and the two sides are roughly a bell curve distribution, imaging if you will firing a machine gun through the slit while one is closed and the other it it makes it easier to visualise. Now you would expect with both slits open when you fire your electron gun you would just get the same scattershot effect as the bullets passed through either slit and the sum of them would basically be the same as with one slit closed. Ie the probability of electron a hitting position x is a combination of the probabilities when both slits are open. However this is not what happens which is why particle/wave duality is favoured.

Now as I said if you open both slits you would expect the two patterns to emerge again but they do not a different pattern emerges which is called an interference pattern which indicates a wave has interfered with itself, because as previously mentioned there is only one electron.

So if his theory was true and there was only waves and symmetrical waves at that it would mean that if you ran the same experiment with one slit closed you would get an interference pattern both when the slit was closed and when the slit was open, this is not what we observe however so his theory although interesting is not going to model what happens if there is only a wave component there must be something about electrons and photons that behaves like a warticle or particle/wave duality.

It's also worth noting when you leave both slits open and place a detector to determine which slit the electron moved through then the original bell curve or scatter gun re-emerges and you get a particle like distribution, the particle travels with a 50/50 probability through either slit. Which is what is so mysterious. How can something both be a wave and a particle? And what should really bake your noodle is how when we measure the what path the electron took information does that destroy the interference pattern, Copenhagen says this is the famous collapse of probabilities other theories say there are infinite worlds still more say there are infinite minds, and many others use relational mechanics to place the measurement issues in perspectives so that they can formulate a correct probability distribution.

The problem is of course no matter which interpretation you chose they are all indistinguishable from Copenhagen, and all local real hidden variable theories are inconsistent with experiment. Einstein was very much against probability in physics saying it had to be classical and we were missing something he is famous for saying things like "is the moon still there when we don't look at it" to analogise Copenhagen's non real interpretation and superposition, but as it turns out God does it seem play dice with the universe. Schrodinger also pivotal in quantum mechanics also disliked the Copenhagen camp intensely famously producing his cat in a box to lambast wryly superposition or the cat being dead and alive at the same time. I mentioned before the Solvey conference, this is where Dirac, Pauli and Heisenburg and many others faced off against the old school of Lorentz, Einstein and Schrodinger and many others and famously won the debate.



Schrodinger middle top looks pretty pissed of in this picture taken just after the debate took place.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralI ... eSlit.html

This page gives a simple explanation of wave particle duality.



This is the actual pattern you get when running the experiment with electrons and two slits open or photons for that matter.

The light areas are where a wave constructively interferes producing a more energetic effect, and the dark areas are when it deconstructively interferes with itself cancelling itself out.

See also my post here for the specifics of deconstructive and constructive interference.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=11982&start=135

[WanderingLands]

It's an interesting idea but there are some problems with this interpretation, if each wave has a supersymetrical twin that simultaneously exists side by side, this aught to mean we cannot get particle like effects in the famous two slit experiment, even accounting for De Broigle means basically saying you are talking about a non local real wave that has a certain frequency, but this leads to the problem that it is completely indistinguishable from the other interpretations and in fact De Broigles interpretation is not well received because it is indistinct from the more mainstream Copenhagen, it just has hidden variables, and you might argue they are just an added complication that is unnecessary.

The Wave Structure of Matter actually in fact solves the problems of Quantum Theory concerning the "wave-particle duality", as it goes in line with Max Planck's idea of discrete "quanta" using E = hf, where the energy of light is determined by frequency. De Brogile's and Schrodinger's concept of Standing Waves actually explains Planck's E = hf equation, and thus it confirms the Wave Structure of Matter. The Wave Strcuture of Matter solves the "wave-particle duality" paradox, as the so-called "particles" are represented as IN and OUT standing spherical waves, interfering with each other as caused by other standing spherical waves. It just gives off a "particle" from the center of the spherical wave.

This theory is not indistinguishable from Copenhagen's interpretation, because Copenhagen's interpretation does not solve the reason why a "particle" would act also like a wave. There has been no absolute conclusion that proves Copenhagen's interpretation of Quantum Theory, and it is because of this, along with Niels Bohr, that there have been many more problems and complications that has caused detriment to the field of Science and Physics.

The observable proof in this would be if you were to throw a rock into the water. If you were to do that, you would see resonance in a spherical way.

http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/141/349/141349435_640.jpg

Now let's look at the picture of the WSM.



Ray Tomes, under the YT account "artynz", made a video called, "WSM = Wave Structure of Matter", where he offers visual proof of the spherical standing waves, replacing the individual and discrete particle theory.

If you pass 1 electron through a slit where one slit is closed you get a bullet effect around a density which is basically dictated by the direction it moves through the slit. If you like wise close the other slit you get the same particle like effect on the other side of the detector and the two sides are roughly a bell curve distribution, imaging if you will firing a machine gun through the slit while one is closed and the other it it makes it easier to visualise. Now you would expect with both slits open when you fire your electron gun you would just get the same scattershot effect as the bullets passed through either slit and the sum of them would basically be the same as with one slit closed. Ie the probability of electron a hitting position x is a combination of the probabilities when both slits are open. However this is not what happens which is why particle/wave duality is favoured.

Now as I said if you open both slits you would expect the two patterns to emerge again but they do not a different pattern emerges which is called an interference pattern which indicates a wave has interfered with itself, because as previously mentioned there is only one electron.

The Double Slit experiment contradicts the idea of an actual particle theory, especially when you look at the picture of Thomas Young's Double Slit Experiment.



Source: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-E ... Experiment

If you were to look at the picture, you would see the interaction of multiple spherical waves resonating with one another. If you were to go back to the home page of the Space and Motion website, you would see a picture of a diagram of the Wave Structure of Matter, and so comparing it to the picture of Young's Slit Experiment shows that the so-called "particles" are really spherical waves (the Wave Structure of Matter).

So if his theory was true and there was only waves and symmetrical waves at that it would mean that if you ran the same experiment with one slit closed you would get an interference pattern both when the slit was closed and when the slit was open, this is not what we observe however so his theory although interesting is not going to model what happens if there is only a wave component there must be something about electrons and photons that behaves like a warticle or particle/wave duality.

The Wave Structure of Matter theory does not contradict the observed Double Slit Experiment. As I have said, looking at the pictures of the Double Slit Experiment, we actually see that the "particles" never behave in a "wave-particle duality", but instead behaves as a spherical wave. The reason why it is perceived as a particle is because of the center of the spherical wave.

[WanderingLands]

I would like to also add too that the reason why the "wave-particle duality" is accepted is not because it is true, as by explaining the WSM thus disproving it, but because of the simple fact that they want to keep supporting the idea of atoms, which originated from the atheistic philosophy of Atomism, in which the Scientific Establishment is influenced mainly by Atheism and materialism. It is because of this that there have been contradictions over defending the particle theory, along with defending the Big Bang theory, or the Darwinian model of Evolution (note that I'm only mentioning the other two theories to explain the failure of the Scientific Establishment, so let's save that for other topics).

This is in answering that debate that you, Blaggard, have mentioned.

[Blaggard]

OK you have my attention wandering lands but I still don't see how a standing 3 dimensional spherical wave explains the observable experiments.

For example if you take an experiment in 3 dimensions you end up with a particle behaviour and a wave behaviour that you cannot explain by just using waves, and yes I am well aware of how waves can explain the two slit, but not so aware of how you would go about distinguishing such systems in any way that was not just the same old same old. Waves exist as De Broigle maintained, they are in 3 dimensions, but the idea that you need a complementary wave is hardly new, the theory works without one, and even if you include one you are mangling actual experiment in sophistry.

It's hence only possible to describe a wave in 4 dimensions, as a complimentary: if things don't do what they are supposed to in experiment it does not mean you are wrong per se, it just means that you are attacking the problem from the wrong angle.

And whilst I do appreciate quantum mechanics is hardly the final solution any more than general relativity was, to tie both together you need more than waves.

Not that wasn't intrigued by his ideas, what person wouldn't be if they were honestly examining the field, they were quite enlightening, but I don't and forgive me for this think he is quite on the money, although no one else is so meh.

Yeah atomism is a whole 'nother ball game, the reason why physics seeks to keep that: a matter for somewhere else as you said. I do like punning though. Puntastic.

Oh and by the way wave-particle duality is not a paradox, it's just a conundrum we haven't figure out yet.

[WanderingLands]

OK you have my attention wandering lands but I still don't see how a standing 3 dimensional spherical wave explains the observable experiments.

For example if you take an experiment in 3 dimensions you end up with a particle behaviour and a wave behaviour that you cannot explain by just using waves, and yes I am well aware of how waves can explain the two slit, but not so aware of how you would go about distinguishing such systems in any way that was not just the same old same old. Waves exist as De Broigle maintained, they are in 3 dimensions, but the idea that you need a complementary wave is hardly new, the theory works without one, and even if you include one you are mangling actual experiment in sophistry.

It's hence only possible to describe a wave in 4 dimensions, as a complimentary: if things don't do what they are supposed to in experiment it does not mean you are wrong per se, it just means that you are attacking the problem from the wrong angle.

The Wave Structure of Matter, as I have said, propounds that the center of the spherical wave creates the "particle" effect, but is never the less a spherical wave. The many pictures of the Double Slit Experiment is indeed consistent with the Wave Structure of Matter.

Some noteworthy pictures on Google Images.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sit ... ii768nme7I

Compare it with this picture.



Mentioning again, the video done by artynz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BTcmuGdLCU

[Blaggard]

Oh I know what you are saying wanderinglands fear not. I am well aware of single wave with hidden variables such as De Broigle, and am now well aware of dual wave theories that count on the frequency of dual waves, and I am certainly not denying they might be right. If you got that impression it was a miscommunication. My only contention is and always has been of course that experimentally none of these interpretations can or will distinguish themselves from any other.

I have nothing against a purely wave structure of matter at all WL, but it's much of a muchness as theory currently stands.

The guys not wrong, but neither is anyone else right it's a conundrum.

[Kuznetzova]

I think the material in this thread is consistent with some early formulations of quantum mechanics, particularly de Broglie's 1924 thesis.

If you are interested in viewing matter like this, there is also the Transactional Interpretation. In this scenario, two spherical waves interact, where one moves forwards in time, and the other one moves backwards in time. They are called 'advanced waves' and 'retarded waves', respectfully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactio ... rpretation

[uwot]

I can't see anything about what you, or anyone else advocating waves, thinks particles are waves in, WanderingLands.

[WanderingLands]

I can't see anything about what you, or anyone else advocating waves, thinks particles are waves in, WanderingLands.

Expand more on this, please.

[uwot]

I can't see anything about what you, or anyone else advocating waves, thinks particles are waves in, WanderingLands.

[WanderingLands]

I can't see anything about what you, or anyone else advocating waves, thinks particles are waves in, WanderingLands.

They are waves in that they are interconnected with each other and that they vibrate in rhythm. Does that answer your question?

[uwot]

No. What I mean is, waves are associated with media: waves on the beach are waves in water; the sound waves you hear are waves in gases; seismic waves are waves in rock. All the waves that are definitely waves are waves in something. Are particle waves different? Are they waves in nothing? Or do wave theorists think there is some medium?

[WanderingLands]

No. What I mean is, waves are associated with media: waves on the beach are waves in water; the sound waves you hear are waves in gases; seismic waves are waves in rock. All the waves that are definitely waves are waves in something. Are particle waves different? Are they waves in nothing? Or do wave theorists think there is some medium?

That's what I meant by expanding upon it.

Surely, it would have to travel through a medium in order for it to exist. A type of medium would probably be some form of energy or force ~ quite possibly drawing upon Max Plank's equations on quanta. Without a medium, then waves wouldn't travel, which is quite contradictory when using waves as a representative of energy.

[uwot]

That's what I meant by expanding upon it.

I thought it might be.

Surely, it would have to travel through a medium in order for it to exist.

In the most general sense, I think that is probably true. Without jumping the gun, regardless of what the configuration of fundamental particles is, I think the easiest idea to get your head round is that matter, at the fundamental level is 'made of' something. Whether it is or not doesn't matter to mathematics, or even physics. In a nutshell, physics describes the empirical data, maths describes the patterns. It doesn't matter to either what is causing it all, there is no ontological crisis, because that's not what they are about.

A type of medium would probably be some form of energy or force

I think you have got this arse about tit. Energy is not a thing in itself, it is basically how big and how fast something is moving, or in terms of waves, how high and how often. Even Kuznetzova knows that, but then he is intellectually superior, with fine cheek bones.

~ quite possibly drawing upon Max Plank's equations on quanta.

Now that really would bollocks causality, but who knows?

Without a medium, then waves wouldn't travel, which is quite contradictory when using waves as a representative of energy.

So which is it? Do waves transfer energy in a medium, or is the medium made of 'energy'? If it's the latter, I will eat any hat you care to present me with.