Wave Structure of Matter

[WanderingLands]

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.

Well, then what's the point of making sense of the universe when science doesn't deal with ontology or causes? Without explaining what causes which, then we can't separate what's fact from what's fiction, which unfortunately the scientific establishment has ran into as a consequence of ignoring philosophy and metaphysics.

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.

[...]

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.

I take this as a correction since I did confuse medium and energy. It does travel through a medium, so it is the former.

[uwot]

Well, then what's the point of making sense of the universe when science doesn't deal with ontology or causes?

Science isn't about making sense of the world, that's what philosophy does. It doesn't matter to science whether anything makes sense; science is concerned with the more pressing issue of what the world does and what we can do about it. What the world is made of, or how it works is a luxury that only matters to science if it has some bearing on what happens.

Without explaining what causes which, then we can't separate what's fact from what's fiction,

Science deals with facts. The empirical data can be reproduced and verified, or they are of no use to science. You can attribute any cause to a phenomenal fact that pleases you. If your idea gives rise to predictions that are supported by observation, well done you. But anybody can suggest a fiction and unless it is explicitly ruled out by observation, it could be true. By all means believe as you will, but don't expect anyone to follow you, if all you have is a pretty story.

which unfortunately the scientific establishment has ran into as a consequence of ignoring philosophy and metaphysics.

I personally think that some scientists make arses of themselves when they try to do ontology. Spectacularly so in the case of string theorists, but it is possible that they are right and that there really are little 'strings'. The same ontological question arises, though; what are they made of? The causal problem is what keeps them vibrating for 14billion years? But that is very different to saying that science should pay more attention to metaphysics. Enough scientists pay enough attention to philosophy to make use of anything that might prove useful to their enterprise. Scientists are not by definition pathologically anti philosophy.

[Kuznetzova]

Well, then what's the point of making sense of the universe when science doesn't deal with ontology or causes?

The universe may not make sense.

Maybe you meant to ask: What is the point of doing physics, if physics doesn't deal with ontology or causes?

[WanderingLands]

The universe may not make sense.

Or it can be that our theories inside our Standard Model are false and do not reflect the actual universe.

Maybe you meant to ask: What is the point of doing physics, if physics doesn't deal with ontology or causes?

In this case, it mainly is about physics.

[WanderingLands]

Science isn't about making sense of the world, that's what philosophy does. It doesn't matter to science whether anything makes sense; science is concerned with the more pressing issue of what the world does and what we can do about it. What the world is made of, or how it works is a luxury that only matters to science if it has some bearing on what happens.

You can have as many empirical facts and/or theories if you want to, if there is something that doesn't make sense (or if whatever model you propose out of those theories doesn't make sense), then you ought to sort out what's true and what's false by means of philosophical methods such as logic. Separating science and philosophy, and then championing science above philosophy, is a very grave mistake, because if you don't have any tools outside of science (ie. the Scientific method) to see if those theories are true, then whatever cosmological model that you have will not make sense, which is pretty much the case with today's science.

Science deals with facts. The empirical data can be reproduced and verified, or they are of no use to science. You can attribute any cause to a phenomenal fact that pleases you. If your idea gives rise to predictions that are supported by observation, well done you. But anybody can suggest a fiction and unless it is explicitly ruled out by observation, it could be true. By all means believe as you will, but don't expect anyone to follow you, if all you have is a pretty story.

I only do care about the facts and I am not trying to persuade people to believe me, unlike the scientific establishment that pushes sensationalist "discoveries" which are based largely on mathematical constructs that contradict their principle of being empirical with the use of the Scientific method and then censors and ridicules those who question their paradigm. Science no longer deals with facts because it is no longer open to criticism and examination of their Standard Model, let alone its other mishaps that have been brought about by the establishment scientists.

I personally think that some scientists make arses of themselves when they try to do ontology. Spectacularly so in the case of string theorists, but it is possible that they are right and that there really are little 'strings'. The same ontological question arises, though; what are they made of? The causal problem is what keeps them vibrating for 14billion years? But that is very different to saying that science should pay more attention to metaphysics. Enough scientists pay enough attention to philosophy to make use of anything that might prove useful to their enterprise. Scientists are not by definition pathologically anti philosophy.

May or may not be anti-philosophy, their theories are not grounded by philosophy which is why, as you say, they are bad at ontology. This is why we can no longer limit science to plain empiricism, and why we cannot put science above philosophy, because doing so (and overall separating all fields of study) would be to not know how the universe works. The solution would be to have a more holistic thinking, such as that of Natural Philosophy.

[uwot]

You can have as many empirical facts and/or theories if you want to, if there is something that doesn't make sense (or if whatever model you propose out of those theories doesn't make sense), then you ought to sort out what's true and what's false by means of philosophical methods such as logic. Separating science and philosophy, and then championing science above philosophy, is a very grave mistake, because if you don't have any tools outside of science (ie. the Scientific method) to see if those theories are true, then whatever cosmological model that you have will not make sense, which is pretty much the case with today's science.

I don't champion science above philosophy. I've said a few times that my philosophical position is empiricism, it happens to be the case that science itself is empirical and for very good reasons. Biggest one being that there have been thousands of logically coherent theories throughout history, most religions are consistent with the observable facts, or can be hammered into some semblence of reality. Aristotle's physics is compatible with all the facts available to him, the Ptolemaic universe it inspired is perfectly consistent with what can be seen with the naked eye. The transmutation of elements wasn't proved wrong until Lavoissier in the 18th century. It wasn't until Pasteur in the 19th century that the theory of spontaneous generation was debunked. Phlogiston is a plausible hypothesis, so too luminiferous aether, phrenology, psychoanalysis even astrology, the list goes on and on. The human mind is a marvelous generator of explanations for the things it sees happening, always has been, always will. Some of the stories are brilliant and beautiful, others are heroic lunacy, some just utter bollocks. The only things we know for certain is what is wrong, another quote I should attribute to Richard Feynman. We do not know the truth, we never will, because it will always be possible for some bright spark to suggest an alternative. The worst thing that people can do is insist that they are right, on a harmless forum it's quite funny watching people who have no idea what they are talking about ranting about some fruitloopery of theirs, but when popes and ayatollahs start telling people how to behave on the basis of some yarn, it can get serious.

May or may not be anti-philosophy, their theories are not grounded by philosophy which is why, as you say, they are bad at ontology.

Scientists as a breed are no better at metaphysics than anyone else, but they do have access to the best information about how the world actually behaves. They will argue amongst themselves, put out any number of hypotheses about was is causing the phenomena, but you can be quite sure that if scientists say such and such happens when you do x,y or z, other scientists will check that. Their explanation may be different, but the phenomenon is real, or it will eventually be disproved.

This is why we can no longer limit science to plain empiricism, and why we cannot put science above philosophy, because doing so (and overall separating all fields of study) would be to not know how the universe works. The solution would be to have a more holistic thinking, such as that of Natural Philosophy.

It is poor philosophy to nail your colours to any particular mast, it is the root of conservatism and to my mind, a sign of mental weakness. Our understanding of the world develops, takes some wrong turns occasionally, but overall science is doing a pretty good job. To stifle it with absolutes is a dangerous idea.

[WanderingLands]

I don't champion science above philosophy. I've said a few times that my philosophical position is empiricism, it happens to be the case that science itself is empirical and for very good reasons. Biggest one being that there have been thousands of logically coherent theories throughout history, most religions are consistent with the observable facts, or can be hammered into some semblence of reality. Aristotle's physics is compatible with all the facts available to him, the Ptolemaic universe it inspired is perfectly consistent with what can be seen with the naked eye. The transmutation of elements wasn't proved wrong until Lavoissier in the 18th century. It wasn't until Pasteur in the 19th century that the theory of spontaneous generation was debunked. Phlogiston is a plausible hypothesis, so too luminiferous aether, phrenology, psychoanalysis even astrology, the list goes on and on. The human mind is a marvelous generator of explanations for the things it sees happening, always has been, always will. Some of the stories are brilliant and beautiful, others are heroic lunacy, some just utter bollocks. The only things we know for certain is what is wrong, another quote I should attribute to Richard Feynman. We do not know the truth, we never will, because it will always be possible for some bright spark to suggest an alternative. The worst thing that people can do is insist that they are right, on a harmless forum it's quite funny watching people who have no idea what they are talking about ranting about some fruitloopery of theirs, but when popes and ayatollahs start telling people how to behave on the basis of some yarn, it can get serious.

Of course many facts and many theories and sides of the stories have been brought up in the many centuries since knowledge and humanity has been around; however, despite the diversifying and variations that have spawned in science and philosophy (as well as politics, history, economic, and so on), these seemingly divergent philosophies all describe and still seek or propound on the subject of Truth, as in the true nature of reality. Despite the alternatives, Truth will always be there, at least covertly, even though they may be welded with opinion and/or falsehood.

It is self-constricting and erroneous to say that no one will ever know the Truth. I believe that the reason why humanity has never known the entire truth is because they never have thought to actually think and contemplate on what Truth is, for it is much simpler than what people have thought, no matter the diversification and divergences of inquiries to knowledge about things. I'm not here to impose on others what I think of Truth; I'm just bringing an alternative to the postmodernist view that there can never be Truth, which that itself can be used in a dogmatic way, and has been used in a dogmatic way by academia.

Scientists as a breed are no better at metaphysics than anyone else, but they do have access to the best information about how the world actually behaves. They will argue amongst themselves, put out any number of hypotheses about was is causing the phenomena, but you can be quite sure that if scientists say such and such happens when you do x,y or z, other scientists will check that. Their explanation may be different, but the phenomenon is real, or it will eventually be disproved.

They may have the title as scientists, but that does not mean that they are the "end all be all" authorities on what Science is. Even the laypeople can figure out what goes on in the universe; they can buy books, they can experiment using whatever equipment that they can get, and they can think for themselves as well.

It is poor philosophy to nail your colours to any particular mast, it is the root of conservatism and to my mind, a sign of mental weakness. Our understanding of the world develops, takes some wrong turns occasionally, but overall science is doing a pretty good job. To stifle it with absolutes is a dangerous idea.

How is it mental weakness to put modern science under scrutiny, and to suggest that we bring a more holistic view of things? If anything, it can solve the problems and misconceptions of what science is and is supposed to be, as well as quite possibly articulate what Truth is.

[Greylorn Ell]

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.

Wandering...
I believe that you are kind of on the right track, since my own metaphysical theory requires that matter is the digitization of the amorphous form of energy once hypothesized as the aether and recently rediscovered in the form of "dark energy."

Checked out Haselhurst's ideas about four years ago, rechecked them again in the context of your OP, and found these significant problems, among other minor difficulties:

• He begins with a quote from Leibnitz, proposing the ancient monotheistic (one cause) notion invented many millennia ago (5000-2000 B.C.) by Hermes Trismigestus and promoted by the quickly eliminated pharaoh who bought into that silly notion, but nonetheless exported by the Jews. This is the principle that one thing somehow became the cause of all things.
  
  As a hypothetical "explanation" for a cause-effect universe, within which no event can occur without the interaction of two things and the forces contributed by each, this basic idea stinks.
  
  (No surprise then, that it is also the core of Big Bang theory.)
• G.H. declares that space is an "active substance." Unless he proceeds to define the properties of space, including the time-dependent properties implied by his simpleminded declaration of "active," plus the force behind its alleged "activity," this declaration is irrelevant, hand-waving bullshit. (Frankly it looks like something lifted from Ernest Holmes' "Science of Mind.")
• Have you ever studied the propagation of electromagnetic radiation? If not, consider doing so, for it is a prerequisite to the conversation you've proposed.
  
  If you have studied EMR you must know the properties of "standing waves," the kind of things that used to rattle around in living rooms in the days of analog TV signals, requiring TV viewers to fiddle with their rabbit-ear antennas and even request that 300 lb. Aunt Priscilla (with her highly reflective load of blubber and water) sit in the off-corner chair, just to receive a decent TV picture from an antenna 20 miles away. Specifically, you would know that standing waves require a source, something like a TV antenna that generates and transmits energy.
  
  G.H. neglects to even wave his hands over whatever might be the source of his alleged "standing waves," or to describe their energy-form.
  
  This is important, because he is proposing that waveforms create matter. Big Al's equation makes it pretty obvious that the creation of matter requires a lot of energy focused upon a single tiny sphere of space. From whence did the coincident interfering waveforms come? What is their source of that tremendous quantity of energy?

I must conclude that while Haselhurst's ideas are a kind of start (but a start well shy of DeBroglie's early 20th century work), they are not headed in the right direction, thus are not worth pursuing. I wish otherwise, because the problem of how matter is derived from dark energy needs a solution if the matter-wave theory is ever to get out of diapers.

Greylorn

[WanderingLands]

Thank you for the critique, Greylorn. I am not really a scientist; just somewhat of a "metaphysician" and overall just a seeker of truth who wants to spread out to various subjects. I've posted that website "Space & Motion" and the other websites on the Wave Structure of Matter some time ago when I started to look into more science. I think it's informative in my opinion, but does have some flaws and can seem a bit repetitive with the content on the Wave Structure of Matter.

[Blaggard]

Wow you can get that sanctimonious p**** to speak to you, what's your secret?

Do you just agree with everything he says, so that in the time between when he posts he can wank off to his preachy bs some more? Seriously would be keen to know?

What this guy knows about actual quantum physics I think you could write on the back of a postage stamp, he dropped out of his physics degree course because he didn't like quantum mechanics and became an engineer, which is fine, I am sure he has some insight into phsyics, as to insight into quantum mechanics or any other interpretation, I havent' seen one iota of information you couldn't of googled for yourself. And I don't claim to be an expert, but then I don't think you will get much out of what he says about a subject he disagreed with so fundamentally, that he never even completed his course. Just saying, and if that offends Greyhorn El which of course everything does so be it. Oh no wait he has me on ignore for destroying his biological shit at length. Never mind. he's an expert at everything or nothing, I'd chose the latter, but it's your look out. That said, to offer some good advice if you really want to know about the subject don't talk to college dropouts go here:

http://www.physicsforums.com/

Ignore me and ignore him, I am only in my first year of a degree, he never even got far past his first year so we presume. But those people will reliably inform you.

There's nothing wrong with De Broigle or anyone who produced a coherent interpretation of course, in fact I recommend his work, in fact you shouldn't just google it you should study it at length, it will give you a nice perspective on interpretations that are real and non local. What I don't however think is wise is talking to someone who despises everything that quantum physics stands for, you are not going to get a fair minded insight into anything from people who are invested to such an extent that they are unable to accept that interpretations are not science but philosophy, and whose opinion hence is science, and not just science but true.

[WanderingLands]

Wow you can get that sanctimonious p**** to speak to you, what's your secret?

No secret here. Just a mere coincidental fact that he and I have the same interests, though a bit different his path is.

Do you just agree with everything he says, so that in the time between when he posts he can wank off to his preachy bs some more? Seriously would be keen to know?

I haven't really heard of the guy until I came on this forum, and even now I'm still not too familiar with his work, even though I have read his take on the "beon" theory which is quite interesting.

What this guy knows about actual quantum physics I think you could write on the back of a postage stamp, he dropped out of his physics degree course because he didn't like quantum mechanics and became an engineer, which is fine, I am sure he has some insight into phsyics, as to insight into quantum mechanics or any other interpretation, I havent' seen one iota of information you couldn't of googled for yourself. And I don't claim to be an expert, but then I don't think you will get much out of what he says about a subject he disagreed with so fundamentally, that he never even completed his course. Just saying, and if that offends Greyhorn El which of course everything does so be it. Oh no wait he has me on ignore for destroying his biological shit at length. Never mind. he's an expert at everything or nothing, I'd chose the latter, but it's your look out. That said, to offer some good advice if you really want to know about the subject don't talk to college dropouts go here:

http://www.physicsforums.com/

Ignore me and ignore him, I am only in my first year of a degree, he never even got far past his first year so we presume. But those people will reliably inform you.

So just because he dropped out of physics, that makes him unreliable to talk about it albeit may have some interesting points? I'll look at that forum, but I don't think that listening to those people at that PhysicsForum would answer any more questions of mine than simply just listening to those on this forum. I rely solely on my critical thinking skills, and my ability to be open with many different perspectives.

There's nothing wrong with De Broigle or anyone who produced a coherent interpretation of course, in fact I recommend his work, in fact you shouldn't just google it you should study it at length, it will give you a nice perspective on interpretations that are real and non local. What I don't however think is wise is talking to someone who despises everything that quantum physics stands for, you are not going to get a fair minded insight into anything from people who are invested to such an extent that they are unable to accept that interpretations are not science but philosophy, and whose opinion hence is science, and not just science but true.

Well, maybe you should consider the fact that I do google for my own facts (as well as use my own logic and reasoning), and I am just only listening to Greylorn's opinion since he does indeed have something to say when it comes to physics. I'm not just going to reject somebody just because he dropped out of physics class and started to critique quantum physics (which I do agree with his critique of QP).

[Blaggard]

I never said he was unreliable or wrong or full of shit, all I said is I wouldn't trust anyone's point of view that was completely and utterly against all the science in modern day quantum mechanics. You're free to talk to him and of course you can I assume take the wheat from the chaff, like anyone who isn't a moron, but as I said, talking to numb nuts like me and El who haven't really studied the subject in depth is fine of course, if you want a bad answer, if you don't want a good answer, that link, though, follow it and you will get a good answer. It might not be the answer you want, but these people have PhD's and have spent a lifetime doing research, it couldn't hurt to try it. Is all I meant, I am not sure why that was a sticking point but meh.

"Do not take me for some cheap conjuror of tricks Bilbo Baggins! I am not trying to rob you... I am tring to help you."



Look I don't get on with Greyhorn and it's no secret, he put me on ignore when I utterly demolished without trace his biological theory; I have a degree in biology by the way. And since then I've never liked the guy because when he is just plain wrong he just puts you on ignore. Now that is nothing to do with anything, but I will say this, people who only listen to themselves are unreliable in science, people who have studied the subject and put the time in, not so much. Hence common sense dictates you go to the reliable. That's not me, and it certainly isn't Lord El almighty either but it is someone. And that is all I meant, take that how you will. Let me say this though unlike philosophy in science it's not just required it's good practice to resort to authority, to resort to popularity, to resort to anything that is usually considered a discredit to philosophy. Some loner in a dark room like I and El are, well it's not good practice to resort to us. Citation, accreditation, notation, and reputation all things in philosophy that would leave your authority in doubt if you were to use them in argument to support a point, all things in science that are not just appostie, but more to the point, correct protocol, and if not true or right, practically at least de rigueur.

[Greylorn Ell]

So just because he dropped out of physics, that makes him unreliable to talk about it albeit may have some interesting points? I'll look at that forum, but I don't think that listening to those people at that PhysicsForum would answer any more questions of mine than simply just listening to those on this forum. I rely solely on my critical thinking skills, and my ability to be open with many different perspectives.

WL,
I appreciate your ability to make your own evaluations of content. That alone will pretty much ensure that any conversations we share will be both civilized and constructive.

For the record, I completed a B.S. in Math, Physics, and EE back in 1965, missing an A-average because I was not good at Russian. My degree included a B in Q.M., which came with the revelation that the Shroedinger wave equation was derived from (the Nazi) Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty-- exotic math but poor physics, in my opinion-- an opinion shared by smarter people than me with Ph.D's.

I have no problem with pre-Copenhagen Q.M., and have generated some ideas about its metaphysical implications and the applicability of calculus as a suitable mathematical tool. This is not a good forum for such notions, but now you know that they exist.

Given your appreciation of critical and independent thinking, there is an excellent chance that you will appreciate Rupert Sheldrake-- if you've not already discovered him. In this Youtube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg, he efficiently describes the core ideas in his book, The Science Delusion. The title is a nose-thumbing at Richard Dawkins, and is typical of Sheldrake's sense of humor.

Almost everyone who finds your thread interesting is likely to appreciate Sheldrake. Not necessary to have a science background-- just interest.

Greylorn

[WanderingLands]

So just because he dropped out of physics, that makes him unreliable to talk about it albeit may have some interesting points? I'll look at that forum, but I don't think that listening to those people at that PhysicsForum would answer any more questions of mine than simply just listening to those on this forum. I rely solely on my critical thinking skills, and my ability to be open with many different perspectives.

WL,
I appreciate your ability to make your own evaluations of content. That alone will pretty much ensure that any conversations we share will be both civilized and constructive.

For the record, I completed a B.S. in Math, Physics, and EE back in 1965, missing an A-average because I was not good at Russian. My degree included a B in Q.M., which came with the revelation that the Shroedinger wave equation was derived from (the Nazi) Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty-- exotic math but poor physics, in my opinion-- an opinion shared by smarter people than me with Ph.D's.

I have no problem with pre-Copenhagen Q.M., and have generated some ideas about its metaphysical implications and the applicability of calculus as a suitable mathematical tool. This is not a good forum for such notions, but now you know that they exist.

Given your appreciation of critical and independent thinking, there is an excellent chance that you will appreciate Rupert Sheldrake-- if you've not already discovered him. In this Youtube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg, he efficiently describes the core ideas in his book, The Science Delusion. The title is a nose-thumbing at Richard Dawkins, and is typical of Sheldrake's sense of humor.

Almost everyone who finds your thread interesting is likely to appreciate Sheldrake. Not necessary to have a science background-- just interest.

Greylorn

Sorry for the misconception; it was Blaggard who mentioned that, about dropping out of Physics. I will also look at that video you've shown me, and I will hope to explore more of your information. Thank you.

[Blaggard]

He said to me when he saw the quantum mechanics course, he dropped out of his course, if he meant something else fine, but it's clear that he used misleading language at the time which is fine. Point taken but when you say I left my course because of quantum mechanics, you might want to say but I still finisehd my degree in physics, otherwise it is really obtuse.

I have a degree in Biology you don't see me putting you on ignore every time your bad information is easily debunked Grey, as well, but that's by the by.

I am hoping to obtain a second degree in physics.

WL I still recommend you learn from people who are in the field of science, not people who think the field of science is shit and full of time wasting morons, but meh you get the point.

You should probably read this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10221

Don't worry you can probably skip the first 15 pages. You probably wont read it, but you probably should.

You should also ask experts, and I don't think I or Greyhorn El qualifies as one. Which seems to me like common sense. You have access to experts now who are experimental and theoretical phsycists, I will say though the rigour on science forums is much greater you will need to be careful about expounding philosophy on a science forum, if you choose to do so, or you might find your first several posts are your last.