Waves ~ of Creation and Energy

[rigney]

That would make "energy wave" redundant, would it not?

 

Can a wave having no energy be considered a wave of energy, or an energy wave, ? No! Because such waves do not exist. I believe this whole "Who shot John" thing came about from using the word "creation". Everyone seems so damned hung up on not using it for fear it'll tie them to a god somehow. For christ sake, lighten up, Correct my misunderstanding of physics if you will, but leave my english out of it. Wave of energy, energy wave? What the hell's the difference? If you have a valid scientific reason why the phrase shouldn't be used, just tell me outright and quit dancing around! Otherwise, let's get on with waves.

Then I happen on material like this and wonder why I should give a rats ass to start with.. Hell of it is, all of this has been worked out by Hawkins and his buddy, (supposidly) and makes perfect sense, scientifically. Can I say, "WOW" without some dyslexic thinking I was calling out for my MOM??

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/wavefunction.htm

Edited May 11, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

For christ sake, lighten up, Correct my misunderstanding of physics if you will, but leave my english out of it.

 

That's just it, though. I can't tell what physics you have right and what you have wrong when you use imprecise or nonsensical terminology. I can't read your mind to know what you are thinking. All I have are the words you use. You ask an ambiguous question and I asked for clarification, and worse — you can't clarify because you don't even know what you've asked.

 

The imprecision of language is why math/equations are preferred. I'm quite happy to leave your english out of it, if you were to phrase the question in math. But as long as we're going to be using english, how about not blaming me for the shortcoming?

[Jonathan Collins]

as far as I know science has not yet fully understood the detailed properties of:

 

a. energy

 

b. waves

 

for example does energy consist of any matter and if not what?

 

An electron behaves like a particle or a wave in the 2 slits experiment depending on how you watch it.

 

Electromagnetic waves propagate through a vacuum which raises the question what is doing the waving?

 

The problem is that the properties of a wave can only be observed and measured indirectly based upon assumptions that may not be entirely correct.

 

I don't understand why anyone should get upset about answering the original question. The main difficulty with answering the original question is that nobody knows the answers!

[rigney]

as far as I know science has not yet fully understood the detailed properties of:

 

a. energy

 

b. waves

 

for example does energy consist of any matter and if not what?

 

An electron behaves like a particle or a wave in the 2 slits experiment depending on how you watch it.

 

Electromagnetic waves propagate through a vacuum which raises the question what is doing the waving?

 

The problem is that the properties of a wave can only be observed and measured indirectly based upon assumptions that may not be entirely correct.

 

I don't understand why anyone should get upset about answering the original question. The main difficulty with answering the original question is that nobody knows the answers!

 

Don't be so agreeable! My ignorance of science keeps me in hot water. But my stupid answers doesn't mean there aren't solid and irrefutable answers out there somewhere. Be a physicist if you will. But you also seem to have philosophical reasoning in your conjecture. Don't compromise it. Edited May 11, 2012 by rigney

[md65536]

Energy to me in any form is a real and a viable thing.

 

This puts us right back to the beginning of the thread, only now I understand what everyone else meant. Energy to you is a thing; I thought it was too. It is not. If you're using the word to describe your own special meaning "to you", then you'll have to explain what that is, because others are treating your words by their actual meanings, and they don't make sense.

 

Do you want to ask, "Is everything in the universe a real and viable thing wave?"?

My current guess of what you're asking is "Can everything in the universe be described in terms of a single property 'energy' and a wave-like behavior?"

 

[rigney]

That's just it, though. I can't tell what physics you have right and what you have wrong when you use imprecise or nonsensical terminology. I can't read your mind to know what you are thinking. All I have are the words you use. You ask an ambiguous question and I asked for clarification, and worse — you can't clarify because you don't even know what you've asked.

 

The imprecision of language is why math/equations are preferred. I'm quite happy to leave your english out of it, if you were to phrase the question in math. But as long as we're going to be using english, how about not blaming me for the shortcoming?

 

I've spent eighty years getting into this situation, and you had nothing to do with it. But using "nonsensical" to justify your reasoning for not understanding my conjecture is an insult in itself. In essence, you're looking for subjugation, but you won't find it here. If you think my thoughts and ideas are irrelevent, just advise me to move on. I don't need the banter, but was hoping to find wisdom in some form, here.

 

This puts us right back to the beginning of the thread, only now I understand what everyone else meant. Energy to you is a thing; I thought it was too. It is not. If you're using the word to describe your own special meaning "to you", then you'll have to explain what that is, because others are treating your words by their actual meanings, and they don't make sense.

 

Do you want to ask, "Is everything in the universe a real and viable thing wave?"?

My current guess of what you're asking is "Can everything in the universe be described in terms of a single property 'energy' and a wave-like behavior?"

 

I don't particularilly acquiesce to your terminonoloy of "viable thing wave", since I didn't try relating it in that fashion. To answer the question, yes I believe everything that exists in the universe is matte,r and energy in its basic form. To me, waves are what propogate energy from one point to another, nothing more or less. Edited May 11, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

I've spent eighty years getting into this situation, and you had nothing to do with it. But using "nonsensical" to justify your reasoning for not understanding my conjecture is an insult in itself. In essence, you're looking for subjugation, but you won't find it here. If you think my thoughts and ideas are irrelevent, just advise me to move on. I don't need the banter, but was hoping to find wisdom in some form, here.

 

I give up. That I can't understand you is entirely my fault. You have no responsibility whatsoever to meet anyone halfway, or in knowing the meaning of the subject of your questions.

[rigney]

I give up. That I can't understand you is entirely my fault. You have no responsibility whatsoever to meet anyone halfway, or in knowing the meaning of the subject of your questions.

 

No! It isn't your fault but an inadequacy on my part. For some reason I had supposed this segment of the program was called: Speculations because of the differing opinions and ideas of others. Believe me, there's much I would like to learn; or at least be aware of; but evidently I'm on the wrong forum. Edited May 11, 2012 by rigney

[md65536]

No! It isn't your fault but an inadequacy on my part. For some reason I had supposed this segment of the program was called: Speculations because of the differing opinions and ideas of others. Believe me, there's much I would like to learn; or at least be aware of; but evidently I'm on the wrong forum.

I think so. You're looking for the "I have a differing opinion and idea. Now someone explain it to me!" forum. There is one for that, but it appears to be locked.

 

I'm only asking questions because I don't know, and I thought you might have an answer to share with me.

 

I think that one can only answer your question if one imagines similar misconceptions about energy to those that you have. I think a satisfying answer would be fantasy and come from someone's imagination, not knowledge. As mentioned, one would have to imagine what an energy wave might be, before explaining anything about it.

 

 

[rigney]

I think so. You're looking for the "I have a differing opinion and idea. Now someone explain it to me!" forum. There is one for that, but it appears to be locked.

 

No, the opinions and ideas are not dreamed up, other than in your interpretation. The types of energy with which I am most familiar come from the use of wood, coal and water. And while nucllear energy is my weakest link, I know it's quite powerful and used to produc other energies such as steam and bombs. I'd go into how these energies might be stored, but it's really boring and such low tech stuff.

 

I think that one can only answer your question if one imagines similar misconceptions about energy to those that you have. I think a satisfying answer would be fantasy and come from someone's imagination, not knowledge. As mentioned, one would have to imagine what an energy wave might be, before explaining anything about it.

 

I really don't believe you could answer one of my questions even if you had hypothesized the answers yourself. I've been told that as long as I mind my Ps & Qs, there is no reason for me to conform. So tell me in a million words or less, or in a library full of calculations, other than as an idea and well thought out formula, how did this universe of ours begin? Was it a single wave of energy sprouting from nothingness to create a full blown universe in a matter of seconds, or perhaps a one time burst of energy from another universe, a worm hole or black hole? Maybe at that time, there were no waves at all? Pipe dreams? Yes they are out there and doing fine.

You have trouble understanding me? Try this fantasy on for size!

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1351-early-universe-1-d-line-vanishing-dimensions-theory.html

Edited May 12, 2012 by rigney

[md65536]

So tell me in a million words or less

 

Well alright I'll give it a shot.

 

Yes, everything exists as pieces of pure energy, immersed in a field of time flux. This time flux is flowing, moving from one location to another, and locations are made out of energy carried along by the flux. The time flux is a quantized with supersymmetry, so it forms evenly spaced blobules, making the field lumpy. Blobs of energy have to flow over the bumpy time flux like over little hills, thus existing as energy waves.

 

Is that what you were looking for?

 

 

[rigney]

Well alright I'll give it a shot.

 

Yes, everything exists as pieces of pure energy, immersed in a field of time flux. This time flux is flowing, moving from one location to another, and locations are made out of energy carried along by the flux. The time flux is a quantized with supersymmetry, so it forms evenly spaced blobules, making the field lumpy. Blobs of energy have to flow over the bumpy time flux like over little hills, thus existing as energy waves.

 

Is that what you were looking for?

 

Not really. First, can I say that flux was my first introduction to what was known as "a runny bowel movement". UGH. It later was referred to as dysentary and diarrhea. Then I learned that flux was a salammoniac solution used in soldering two different metals together. Then it was on into electrical functions which meant winding coils of copper wire around iron cores to produce DC magnets. Then it was a matter of calculating how strong or weak the magnets needed to be by increasing or decreasing the voltage or/and amperage. When we got into relays, variacs, speakers, potentiometers and transformers, I was beginning to lose it. So, I thought, what the hell, this is far enough. Then I spent my ensueing fifty years doing the same damned thing. While I'm not into physics as you seem to be, I'm neither an idiot or a pipe dreamer. Edited May 12, 2012 by rigney

[ukgazzer]

(I admit that I didn`t understand all of the jargon.)

I like the tone of this piece and some of the conclusions (for what it`s worth), and I like people to bring up the water wave analogy as often as possible so I can bring up a point YET AGAIN.(Please indulge me!)

 

"Any bang can and does create a local density fluctuation wave front, a place of constant change. This wave is seen in any ripple on the water caused by the ‘bang’ of a tossed in rock."

 

Water waves are caused by collections of water molecules so comparing any behavior of individual particles to a water surface is incorrect. It is not correct to compare the behavior of individual fundamental particles and the wave patterns caused by particulate interactions of large numbers of water molecules in a body of water since the former is a property inherent to a single particle and the latter is an effect, and that is caused by the collective particulate behaviors of many particles. I wish there were clear everyday examples of individual particles acting as waves but there aren`t. But you`re wrong with this analogy because you`re trying to describe one thing in terms of another that is completely different!

(If you got rid of the idea of the 'wavelike' nature of particles,I might begin to understand the concept!!:blink:When scientists talk about the 'wavelike' nature of particles,I can only see in my mind water waves,and every particle interacting in a particulate way but limited,unlike in the everyday world,by the speed of light- so APPEARING as wave sources to each other....As I said can somebody provide a real world example of a particle **CLEARLY** acting like a wave?Then somebody could correctly use that analogy instead!(And I would FINALLY accept this wavelike notion!))

[rigney]

(I admit that I didn`t understand all of the jargon.)

I like the tone of this piece and some of the conclusions (for what it`s worth), and I like people to bring up the water wave analogy as often as possible so I can bring up a point YET AGAIN.(Please indulge me!)

 

"Any bang can and does create a local density fluctuation wave front, a place of constant change. This wave is seen in any ripple on the water caused by the ‘bang’ of a tossed in rock."

 

Water waves are caused by collections of water molecules so comparing any behavior of individual particles to a water surface is incorrect. It is not correct to compare the behavior of individual fundamental particles and the wave patterns caused by particulate interactions of large numbers of water molecules in a body of water since the former is a property inherent to a single particle and the latter is an effect, and that is caused by the collective particulate behaviors of many particles. I wish there were clear everyday examples of individual particles acting as waves but there aren`t. But you`re wrong with this analogy because you`re trying to describe one thing in terms of another that is completely different!

(If you got rid of the idea of the 'wavelike' nature of particles,I might begin to understand the concept!!:blink:When scientists talk about the 'wavelike' nature of particles,I can only see in my mind water waves,and every particle interacting in a particulate way but limited,unlike in the everyday world,by the speed of light- so APPEARING as wave sources to each other....As I said can somebody provide a real world example of a particle **CLEARLY** acting like a wave?Then somebody could correctly use that analogy instead!(And I would FINALLY accept this wavelike notion!))

 

The question is not easy to answer with absolute certainty, especially coming from someone like me. But if you are familiar with strings or the Higgs boson, either of the theories pretty much sums up wave action. Both suggest that all matter in the universe is connected much like water in a pond. But unlike waves on the pond that primarily effect only the surface area, electro magnetic waves move in all directions throughout the universe like radio waves from a dipole transmitter with a ripple effect. Now, we only have to wait and see if either strings or the Higgs boson actually exist.

 

Strings

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=445

 

The Higgs boson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Edited May 13, 2012 by rigney

[ukgazzer]

Thanks for the reply and the modesty and the links.People are like old records and I hope that in saying that I wasn`t hijacking your topic with an old complaint of mine.

[rigney]

Thanks for the reply and the modesty and the links. People are like old records and I hope that in saying that I wasn`t hijacking your topic with an old complaint of mine.

 

In no way did you highjack anything! Without consternation and conjecture we would still be living in caves, (hopefully)?

[ukgazzer]

"Although expansion of space-time seems more reasonable than contraction of mass/energy, the dynamic relationships inherent in these two perspectives of change are equivalent."

As an everyday person with a tape measure and a watch,who relies on the assumption of an immutability of the dimensions in everyday life,it would be nice if this interpretation is correct (It doesn`t mean it is though).

I wholeheartedly agree with Jonathan Collins-It`s a pity that somebody else hasn't said anything about this statement-Maybe he`s wrong and somebody can answer the questions and clear up all the confusion?

 

I`ve got books on String Theory- Reading these texts feels like I`m being force fed beliefs and convictions without any corroborating data to back them up (although they`re dumbed down and don`t include the math.)

(I`m not happy with physicists !!)

The Higgs Boson is something that I`ll just have to take somebody elses word for!

[md65536]

(although they`re dumbed down and don`t include the math.)

(I`m not happy with physicists !!)

Yeah! Why can't they explain the maths without using maths? It's almost like they don't even understand the physics themselves, without the maths...

 

 

 

[rigney]

Yeah! Why can't they explain the maths without using maths? It's almost like they don't even understand the physics themselves, without the maths...

 

I agree only in the sense that my understanding of physics is nil. But I believe most physicists understand mechanics,

which likely brought them into the field to begin with.

Edited May 14, 2012 by rigney