Wave structure of matter

[screwstrip]

I made a thread on another forum, here, and am mostly getting responses from people who want to argue for the sake of arguing. I think it really is a topic for philosophy but I want to see what the people of science have to say.

 

I am trying to understand the mechanics of the universe through the use of a hypothetical medium, mostly working off of this. I do not mean for this to be a debate about who said what, whether a medium actually exists, and the like. Please stay on topic. This thread should only by about the possible properties of said medium and how those produce the phenomena we observe in nature.

 

The properties so far are: the medium should be continuous, infinite, and compressible; electrons are spherically standing waves, while light is a longitudinal wave that undulates transversely.

 

The site I was working off didn't seem to explain the photoelectric effect so I did so on the other forum, stating:

Those in support of photons assert in the equation E=hf E is the energy of the absorbed photon.
What I am asserting is that in E=hf E is the energy absorbed by the atom/electron/(not entirely sure) from the wave of light.

According to the model, light is longitudinal waves that undulate transversely. You can view some animations here www.mysearch.org.uk/website.../html/22%20The%20Light.htm. Now the reason why only frequency is affecting the energy absorbed by the atom is because it's absorbing the longitudinal component.

How it absorbs the energy I'm still unsure of but take this as one possibility:

A single electron (spherical standing wave, though I should really start calling them "wave-particles") is approached by the longitudinal wavefront of light. This wavefront has an increase in density making the side of the electron closest to the wavefront oscillate faster, then as the wave passes through the electron and out the other side, that side begins to oscillate faster.

 

 

That's about it as of now. Let the discussion commence!

[studiot]

 

Please stay on topic.

 

You are more likely to engage responders here if you read and conformed to the rules for posting here.

 

Can you rephrase your question so that I don't have to go off pitch to find out what it is please?

[Strange]

I am trying to understand the mechanics of the universe through the use of a hypothetical medium, mostly working off of this. I do not mean for this to be a debate about who said what, whether a medium actually exists, and the like.

 

Can you summarise the evidence for this medium please.

Looking at your first post on the other forum, it sounds like you are describing the concept of fields, which is a standard part of quantum theory. The only significant difference is, perhaps, your description of a single "thing" that fills space, while modern quantum field theory has multiple fields.

 

(The other difference is that quantum field theory is a rigorous and well-tested scientific theory, while you just seem to have a vague idea which you find appealing. But I guess that is "off topic", even if it is a fundamental and very important difference.)

Edited April 15, 2016 by Strange

[screwstrip]

I guess I wasn't clear enough. Thread's still open if anyone understood me but my hopes are dwindling.

[Strange]

You are investigating theory about space being filled with a hypothetical medium that causes all physical effects and want to know what the properties of this medium would have to be.

 

Is that not the question? If not, then I guess you are right that you haven't been clear.

 

So, my two main questions would be:

 

1. How does this medium differ from fields used in current scientific theories? Other than you seem to be talking about a single medium rather than multiple fields.

 

2. What is the evidence for this medium?

 

Are those unreasonable questions?

 

As for the properties of such a medium, from what I have read of such theories it seems the properties would have to be physically implausible (e.g. infinitely incompressible) and contradictory (e.g. both moving and not moving) in order to explain observational evidence.

A single electron (spherical standing wave, though I should really start calling them "wave-particles") is approached by the longitudinal wavefront of light. This wavefront has an increase in density making the side of the electron closest to the wavefront oscillate faster, then as the wave passes through the electron and out the other side, that side begins to oscillate faster.

 

In order for this to be part of a scientific hypothesis, it needs to be made far more exact. Is there a mathematical model describing this interaction which is able to predict the measurements we make?

[screwstrip]

 

1. How does this medium differ from fields used in current scientific theories? Other than you seem to be talking about a single medium rather than multiple fields.

I'm still trying to describe the medium. So far I've determined it would have to be infinite, compressible, and continuous. If you have objections then give your reasons and we'll discuss.

 

 

 

2. What is the evidence for this medium?

It's the main assumption. Like I said before, this isn't a debate about whether it actually exists.

 

 

In order for this to be part of a scientific hypothesis, it needs to be made far more exact. Is there a mathematical model describing this interaction which is able to predict the measurements we make?

 

All things have to start somewhere. I think it's required for it to fit the standard mathematical models already in place unless those can be shown to be wrong. Really it's all about the interpretation and the explanation of how the mechanics work.

[ajb]

So this medium sound a bit like the aether. You want to model this as a fluid that can under go compressible flow: the aether was assumed to be incomprssiable. Fluid dynamics seems the place you want to start.

 

Anyway, you may have to invent more and more unreasonable properties for this medium before long. For instance you may have problems with Lorentz invariance and the exclusion principle for electrons if you think of some mechanical medium.

[screwstrip]

 

 

Can you rephrase your question so that I don't have to go off pitch to find out what it is please?

 

Alright, sorry. If one were to assume that space was filled with a medium and that medium could explain all natural phenomena what would the properties be of that medium and how would it operate?

 

 

 

So this medium sound a bit like the aether.

 

Yep.

 

 

 

You want to model this as a fluid that can under go compressible flow: the aether was assumed to be incomprssiable.

I assumed it was compressible because of the longitudinal component in the hypothesis of how light works and the supposed spherical standing wave structure of the electron.

 

 

Anyway, you may have to invent more and more unreasonable properties for this medium before long. For instance you may have problems with Lorentz invariance and the exclusion principle for electrons if you think of some mechanical medium.

 

We'll see what happens. But before things get more complicated I would like to make a couple of proposals. First is that the amount of compression might represent mass. Second is a little more convoluted but to explain why the medium is moving rather than static maybe the finite speed of light has something to do with it, meaning for it to be static it would have to be consistent or "smooth" throughout, never achieving absolute consistency.

Edited April 15, 2016 by screwstrip

[ajb]

What you have to do now is construct a mathematical model here. Otherwise it is impossible to really say much more. It looks to me like you could try to take some elements of fluid dynamics, including wave propagation in fluids, vortices and so on and write some equations down. You can then see if it is at all possible to capture some phenomena in this way without trashing existing models. Good luck, but as I said, I doubt a mechanical model will get very far.

 

You will be better off learning some field theory in my opinion.

[screwstrip]

 

 

What you have to do now is construct a mathematical model here. Otherwise it is impossible to really say much more.

 

I've been using logic and I think that works fine too.

[Strange]

Second is a little more convoluted but to explain why the medium is moving rather than static maybe the finite speed of light has something to do with it, meaning for it to be static it would have to be consistent or "smooth" throughout, never achieving absolute consistency.

 

I think one of the challenges you will have here is the invariant speed of light. For example, why isn't the measured speed of light dependent on our speed through this medium? (There are measurements that are inconsistent with the Earth moving through the aether and other measurements that are inconsistent with the aether being stationary with respect to the Earth.)

I've been using logic and I think that works fine too.

 

Not really. How do you develop a testable hypothesis that way?

[studiot]

 

 

 

Studiot

Can you rephrase your question so that I don't have to go off pitch to find out what it is please?

screwstrip

Alright, sorry. If one were to assume that space was filled with a medium and that medium could explain all natural phenomena what would the properties be of that medium and how would it operate?

 

Well this certainly belongs in speculations.

However that is not bad and indeed, properly handled, it could become an exemplary speculations thread.

 

Sounds to me like to are describing Frank Wilczek's hypothesis.

 

Have you heard of him, he was the 2004 Nobel winner in Physics?

 

I recommend his book,

 

The Lightness of Being

 

to you for comparison

Edited April 15, 2016 by studiot

[screwstrip]

 

 

I think one of the challenges you will have here is the invariant speed of light.

 

The site I was using mentions Lorentz transformations but I haven't investigated that in depth yet.

 

 

 

Not really. How do you develop a testable hypothesis that way?

 

It's mostly about the interpretations. For example take the view of two particles floating in "empty" space. Well if space is empty of everything what really separates the particles? Technically youre saying space is nothing, therefore nothing separates the particles.

 

 

 

Sounds to me like to are describing Frank Wilczek's theory.

 

If it is the same thing could you explain the properties of the medium for me. I've heard about the book and might have even read it, I'll take a look. I don't care whose theory it is, or even what theory you want to call it, I just want to understand it!

Edited April 15, 2016 by screwstrip

[Strange]

It's mostly about the interpretations. For example take the view of two particles floating in "empty" space. Well if space is empty of everything what really separates the particles? Technically youre saying space is nothing, therefore nothing separates the particles.

 

Space is just the distance between things. I don't see the logic that says you can't have a distance between things if space is empty.

 

But space is not empty. It is full of fields and virtual particles (and therefore has non-zero energy). So I'm not sure what the requirement is for this medium.

 

Unless you can produce some testable predictions that show that the medium is present (i.e. a theory that produces different predictions than existing theory) then the assumption is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

[screwstrip]

 

 

Unless you can produce some testable predictions that show that the medium is present (i.e. a theory that produces different predictions than existing theory) then the assumption is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

 

How about if it explains things that are already testable? i.e. photoelectric effect as above.

 

 

 

Space is just the distance between things. I don't see the logic that says you can't have a distance between things if space is empty.

 

What fills that distance? Or maybe since you all like math so much try adding 0 to itself.

 

 

 

But space is not empty. It is full of fields and virtual particles

 

What differentiates fields from other fields and virtual particles from each other?

Edited April 15, 2016 by screwstrip

[Strange]

How about if it explains things that are already testable? i.e. photoelectric effect as above.

 

We already have explanations. So your idea needs to improve on those in some way: make them more accurate, explain things that can't be explained, etc.

 

What fills that distance? Or maybe since you all like math so much try adding 0 to itself.

 

Why does anything need to fill it?

 

What differentiates fields from other fields and virtual particles from each other?

 

They have different properties. (Which can be measured.)

[screwstrip]

 

 

Why does anything need to fill it?

 

Let me rephrase: It has to be something.

 

 

We already have explanations. So your idea needs to improve on those in some way: make them more accurate, explain things that can't be explained, etc.

 

And yet I hear all the time that physics is incomplete. If your explanations can explain the medium (which this whole thread is supposed to be about) then list its properties so I can be on my way. And I don't know about you but a wave nature of light makes a whole lot more sense than particles.

 

 

 

They have different properties. (Which can be measured.)

 

How do they have those properties, or better put how can those properties be explained?

Edited April 15, 2016 by screwstrip

[ajb]

 

I've been using logic and I think that works fine too.

 

What you have done so far is not enough. You should apply logic to the mathematical model you need. Otherwise you cannot be sure you are doing anything meaningful.

 

 

The site I was using mentions Lorentz transformations but I haven't investigated that in depth yet.

Before trying to contribute to physics you should first understand what is already well established. This I think is vital and needed if you want to develop your ideas.

[screwstrip]

 

 

What you have done so far is not enough. You should apply logic to the mathematical model you need. Otherwise you cannot be sure you are doing anything meaningful.

 

Long way off before a mathematical model. Can you please comment on what I've proposed so far??

 

 

 

Before trying to contribute to physics you should first understand what is already well established. This I think is vital and needed if you want to develop your ideas.

 

 

Part of the reason why I'm here. You could either help or offer criticism. But saying I can't do it or it can't be done because of this or that doesn't do much.

Edited April 15, 2016 by screwstrip

[ajb]

You could either help or offer criticism.

I thought that I, and the others were helping!

 

But saying I can't do it or it can't be done because of this or that doesn't do much.

Well, unless you offer more in the first place it is hard to find actual fault with your ideas. They are only very loose ideas as the moment.

 

The things you will have to think about include

 

i) Lorentz invariance and the constant speed of light.

ii) The spin of electrons and the Pauli exclusion principle.

 

The first one is quite classical. You will need to show that the theory you build does not make predictions that do not fit with special relativity. This I expect will be difficult, for reasons exactly as for the aether. You will need to overcome these classical problems.

 

Then you want to model electrons as 'lumps' in the fluid. This too I think will be difficult as it seems that electrons need, at the classical level, to be described by anticommuting degrees of freedom. You need to do this to get a classical notion of spin-1/2. I do not think you can mix photons and electrons quite so easily as considering them as different kinds of 'lumps' in some mechanical media.

[elfmotat]

 

Let me rephrase: It has to be something.

 

Why? The term "empty space" implies that there's space (i.e. not zero distance between all objects) and that it's empty. You can define distances in space without needing any matter, or any type of "medium" as you call it.

 

And yet I hear all the time that physics is incomplete. If your explanations can explain the medium (which this whole thread is supposed to be about) then list its properties so I can be on my way.

 

Your proposed "medium" is not well-defined, and it has no explanatory power, theoretical basis, or evidence for its existence. Physics is incomplete, for sure, but that doesn't mean making up nonsense is a good way to fill in the gaps.

 

How do they have those properties, or better put how can those properties be explained?

 

As of yet many of them cannot be. There are many tunable parameters in the Standard Model that cannot at present be explained by any deeper theory. (Because we don't have a deeper theory yet!)

 

 

Long way off before a mathematical model.

 

I'm curious how you're able to do any physics without math.

 

Part of the reason why I'm here. You could either help or offer criticism. But saying I can't do it or it can't be done because of this or that doesn't do much.

 

It's not entirely clear what you're trying to do because you haven't expressed or defined any of the concepts you're discussing to any satisfying degree. You also appear to hold a number of misconceptions. We're not clear on how to help, because frankly none of us know what you're talking about!

[screwstrip]

 

 

Well, unless you offer more in the first place it is hard to find actual fault with your ideas. They are only very loose ideas as the moment.

 

The things you will have to think about include

 

i) Lorentz invariance and the constant speed of light.

ii) The spin of electrons and the Pauli exclusion principle.

 

We'll get to those eventually but don't you have a single thought or feeling (besides it being incomplete) on what I've said before.

 

This includes:

 

The wave explanation of the photoelectric effect

Mass as the measure of compression

The medium being infinite, continuous, and compressible

The finite speed of light as the reason behind why absolute consistency is never achieved

 

 

 

Then you want to model electrons as 'lumps' in the fluid.

 

Electrons are said to be spherical standing waves. Don't be afraid to look at the site I provided! http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website3/Index.htm

 

 

Why waves have a finite speed is still troubling. I think infinite is just unreasonable but why it should be a certain value is concerning. Same with the size of the electron, etc. Planck's constant might have some sort of connection. I was also thinking Planck's constant might be related to Hooke's law, but again really need comments!

[Strange]

Let me rephrase: It has to be something.

 

Why? Does a distance of 1 inch need to be "made" of something?

 

And yet I hear all the time that physics is incomplete.

 

It is. So we need new theories to fill the gaps.

 

If your explanations can explain the medium (which this whole thread is supposed to be about) then list its properties so I can be on my way.

 

Current theories do not need your medium and so they don't define its properties. It is up to you, as the peroson proposing the hypothesis, to say what properties are required and how they could be tested.

 

And I don't know about you but a wave nature of light makes a whole lot more sense than particles.

 

Making sense (to you or anyone else) is not really relevant. Theories just have to "work".

 

How do they have those properties, or better put how can those properties be explained?

 

In general, we don't always know the "why" of things. They appear to be fundamental. It is possible that some new theory will explain why certain fields exist and why they have the properties they do. If your single medium has properties that can reproduce all the effects attributed to different fields, then great.

 

But then, of course, there is the question of how your medium has those properties, or better put how can those properties be explained.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Strange

[screwstrip]

See my previous post. If you think I'm crazy or just flat out wrong so be it. I give you permission not to comment.

[Strange]

I would just like to help you understand the nature of science: what it is and how it works. And, therefore, what you need to do to turn a vague idea into a scientific one.