All Physical Phenomenon Should Be Explainable in Terms of Infinitesimally-Thin Wave Fronts: True or False?

[infinitesimals]

All Physical Phenomenon, when graphed to scale, should be explainable in terms of infinitesimally-thin wave fronts that can only deflect off one another, and that preserve their angle of contact (but with negative slope if the trajectory of the contacting wave's ray is used as a new coordinate axis).

After just one deflection instance between wave-fronts which have a circular curvature, a 'spiral' pattern in trajectory results in each deflecting wave; and in the case of wave fronts with near-perfect circular curvature, the resulting pattern in each deflecting wave-front will result in sections of each wave front deflecting off another section of the same wave-front, in time.

If we assume linear wave fronts lacking curvature, curvature results anyways after just two deflection instances between these wave fronts.

Wave fronts would ultimately have to consist of variables & factors originating from source waves with spheroid or pseudo-spheroid surfaces, as wave expansion in a quadratic form would produce exponential growth in the wave front's length given linearly (the wave front's length would be increasing thousands, millions, billions, etc., of times for little or no reason, seemingly violating conservation of energy laws), whereas spheroid and pseudo-spheroid functions for curvature would demonstrate a more wave-like and realistic growth in length over time. Furthermore, inherent circular curvature as a property merely shows that waves can express angular degree in curvature.

To begin observing physical phenomenon with this model such as particle formation, spin, flavour, and charge, we simply need a graph that's big enough which we can show change over time with.

If this is true, it suggests that phenomenon such as 'wave duplication' should exist, and wave creation should emanate from particles even while at their stable state while lacking external waves of influence. 

Alternative models using 'waves with volume' have various inconsistencies with physical laws and logic in general; although I can't decide what is more illogical: infinitesimally thin waves growing in length for no reason, or waves with volume not immediately dispersing from interacting with themselves after every interaction. However, with an infinitesimally thin wave model, since all wave fronts would be 'growing', they would not necessarily be growing at all, only changing.

There is no simpler mathematical way of viewing it that doesn't require instantaneity lacking an explanation. 

This should also imply that there would be two categories of quantified mass: number of recurring wave patterns per volume of space (which molar mass could be considered to be a measurement of), and total surface area and/or length of wave fronts in a given volume of space (which 'relativistic mass' and mass-energy equivalence would pertain to). Among these two types would be different ways of quantifying mass, such as: quantifying the eccentricity of wave fronts' curvature in a given volume and time-frame; wave front density (an infinite number of wave fronts can be present in a given volume, and thus a region of space could contain an infinite amount of energy as well); and number of wave front segments being the total number of discrete unconnected wave fronts. Infinitesimal 'point' wave front sections would also result whenever a wave front's maxima or minima (if it has either) deflects off another wave front.

Edited February 22, 2018 by infinitesimals

[Strange]

1 hour ago, infinitesimals said:

All Physical Phenomenon, when graphed to scale, should be explainable in terms of infinitesimally-thin wave fronts

Why? Can you demonstrate, mathematically, that this is the case?

1 hour ago, infinitesimals said:

After just one deflection instance between wave-fronts which have a circular curvature, a 'spiral' pattern in trajectory results in each deflecting wave

... 

If we assume linear wave fronts lacking curvature, curvature results anyways after just two deflection instances between these wave fronts.

Really? Can you demonstrate, mathematically, that this is the case?

1 hour ago, infinitesimals said:

There is no simpler mathematical way of viewing it

Can you show this simple mathematics? Your description doesn't make much sense, maybe the maths will make it clearer.

[swansont]

Wave fronts made of what? Why would they reflect off of each other?

[infinitesimals]

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why? Can you demonstrate, mathematically, that this is the case?

Really? Can you demonstrate, mathematically, that this is the case?

Can you show this simple mathematics? Your description doesn't make much sense, maybe the maths will make it clearer.

Actually, it can be shown that all variant models would be demonstrably mathematically invalid over time. The physical constituents of any force can not have a non-zero volume without requiring instantaneity. 

The geometrical progression of any vectors for force or momentum, in any scenario you can give, will overlap across neighboring vectors, "passing through them" at exactly the same shared point in space -- so long as you are assigning that force a volume of presence.

Infinitesimally-thin wave fronts is the only variant with no immediately apparent contradictions, and being the simplest geometrical model without contradictions, anything more complex could be said to be adding something even more unfounded, and likely requiring some form of instaneity, simultaneity, or action at a distance.

 

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Wave fronts made of what? Why would they reflect off of each other?

They would *deflect off one another because a point in space can not be occupied by more than one thing at a time. There's a principle named after this, let me try to remember it.

The wave fronts are made of 'something', which we only know to exist already a posteriori. We know there can be 'something', as we are already observing it. 

Anything occupying volume, if explained as the result of vacuum pressures, could only begin to fill a vacuum if its constituent mass was already expanding. Otherwise this would imply something is travelling faster than the speed of light.

Waves always deflect off one another at points of contact.

Edited February 22, 2018 by infinitesimals

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, infinitesimals said:

 They would *deflect off one another because a point in space can not be occupied by more than one thing at a time. There's a principle named after this, let me try to remember it.

We know that bosons can actually do this, while identical fermions can't (the Pauli exclusion principle)

12 minutes ago, infinitesimals said:

The wave fronts are made of 'something', which we only know to exist already a posteriori. We know there can be 'something', as we are already observing it. 

Then you should be able to list some of it properties. You seem to be confirming that you think it's a physical substance. Does it have mass?

12 minutes ago, infinitesimals said:

Anything occupying volume, if explained as the result of vacuum pressures, could only begin to fill a vacuum if its constituent mass was already expanding. Otherwise this would imply something is travelling faster than the speed of light.

Waves always deflect off one another at points of contact.

Waves of matter might. But it's not true of light, for example.  

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, infinitesimals said:

Actually, it can be shown that all variant models would be demonstrably mathematically invalid over time.

Go on then. Show it, don't claim it.

[infinitesimals]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

We know that bosons can actually do this, while identical fermions can't (the Pauli exclusion principle)

Then you should be able to list some of it properties. You seem to be confirming that you think it's a physical substance. Does it have mass?

Waves of matter might. But it's not true of light, for example.  

Light does, in fact, deflect off itself -- particularily when it shares the same wavelength; watch the video around 4:40:

 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Go on then. Show it, don't claim it.

Post literally any proposed physical scenario with vector or tensor geometry and I will tell you at what value for time it starts breaking laws of physics.

Edited February 22, 2018 by infinitesimals

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, infinitesimals said:

Light does, in fact, deflect off itself -- particularily when it shares the same wavelength; watch the video around 4:40:

I watched from 4:20 to 6:20 and there is nothing about light deflecting off itself. (Because it doesn't.)

Edited February 22, 2018 by Strange

[swansont]

Light interferes, which is a result of superposition. It is not reflecting.