Wave structure of matter

[screwstrip]

 

 

And, therefore, what you need to do to turn a vague idea into a scientific one.

 

Exactly what I am trying to do.

[ajb]

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.

 

If you don't have a model it is impossible to comment. Either you can calculate and make predictions that match nature well, or you are not really doing physics. This is the problem.

[screwstrip]

 

 

Either you can calculate and make predictions that match nature well, or you are not really doing physics.

 

Then what am I doing? Is physics not about testing nature? I'm testing nature through the looking glass of the aether.

[ajb]

Then what am I doing?

Maybe philosophy at a push.

 

Is physics not about testing nature?

Really physics is about constructing and testing models against nature. To move beyond very loose ideas you need a mathematical model.

 

Based on what you have said so far, you may be able to construct a model akin to classical models of the aether. I already hinted that ideas from fluid dynamics may help you. Not that I think that such a model could be useful, in part for reasons I and others have already given.

 

I'm testing nature through the looking glass of the aether.

Then you already know why this idea has been rejected by science.

[Strange]

 

Then what am I doing? Is physics not about testing nature? I'm testing nature through the looking glass of the aether.

 

Not without quantitative predictions you aren't.

 

Physics tests nature by having a mathematical model that calculates, for example, the amount that the path of light is bent in the presence of mass. We can then measure the amount and see which theory is closer (in this case GR wins and Newton loses).

[elfmotat]

See my previous post.

 

Okay:

 

 

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

 

There is no wave-only explanation of the photoelectric effect (unless you count QED as being 'wave-only'). That's why it's a well-known effect! It forced physics to adopt a particle approach.

 

Mass as the measure of compression

 

What does this mean? Mass isn't a measure of compression in any model I'm aware of. Why do you think this should be the case? And compression of what? The 'medium' you keep referring to? Again, you haven't defined this well enough for us to comment.

 

The medium being infinite, continuous, and compressible

 

The first two assumptions seem reasonable for any 'medium' that's supposed to fill space, but I don't see why you're assuming it should be compressible. How does it get compressed? How does it evolve? What are the dynamics of this medium?

 

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

 

What is "absolute consistency" and how does a finite speed of light imply it?

 

Electrons are said to be spherical standing waves.

 

Not always! Not even most of the time!

 

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.

 

These are parameters that cannot be explained by any current theory. How does your model seek to explain them?

 

I was also thinking Planck's constant might be related to Hooke's law, but again really need comments!

 

That's interesting. Could you expand on this?

 

 

 

If you think I'm crazy or just flat out wrong so be it.

 

I think you're trying to come up with a physical 'theory' without really understanding what a physical theory is, and without having all the facts.

 

I give you permission not to comment.

 

How very generous.

[Strange]

I'm testing nature through the looking glass of the aether.

And the predictions of classical aether theories are not consistent with measurements. Edited April 15, 2016 by Strange

[Mordred]

The problem here is Luminiferous aether theories has been proposed in numerous models. These aether style theories have been largely disproven.

 

One of the more famous tests is the "one way speed of light "Michelson and Morley " tests.

 

Having a medium has specific drag effects on light as it travels through a medium. When light light travels through a moving fluid (in both cases moving slower than c) in one direction with the liquid light will be dragged, so will propogate faster with the fluid than against.

 

However if the fluid is just space there is no drag effect.

 

Most people who argue aether theories are typically not aware that this older experiment has been repeatedly tested in different methodologies at extremely high precision.

 

Thus far there is ZERO evidence supporting aether style theories. Believe me I lost count how many variations I've come across. Most I can't even name anymore.

 

As mentioned before the study of field theory is your best approach.

Particularly since its well tested.

 

Aether theories is pretty much a dead end. Though I also lost count on how many posters try to argue aether theory. Over 90% of them never show any mathematics, and typically don't even have a good understanding of basic physics.

[screwstrip]

 

There is no wave-only explanation of the photoelectric effect (unless you count QED as being 'wave-only'). That's why it's a well-known effect! It forced physics to adopt a particle approach.

 

See my first post.

 

 

That's interesting. Could you expand on this?

 

Suppose the aether has a stiffness of k and force is applied which causes a displacement of X, but now this displacement isn't really attached to anything so it continuous to propagate as a longitudinal wave propagating through distance which acts through units of time. I think this matches the units of h. Through units of time is a little hard to understand, but think of it like how you're traveling through time right now.

 

 

 

What does this mean? Mass isn't a measure of compression in any model I'm aware of. Why do you think this should be the case? And compression of what? The 'medium' you keep referring to? Again, you haven't defined this well enough for us to comment.

 

I figure that mass has to show up somewhere. The medium can't have mass intrinsically because if every point has mass then we'd be dealing with a whole lot of infinity.

 

 

These are parameters that cannot be explained by any current theory. How does your model seek to explain them?

 

I'm trying.

 

 

 

Not always! Not even most of the time!

 

According to this model they are.

 

 

 

What is "absolute consistency" and how does a finite speed of light imply it?

 

Absolute consistency means no compression anywhere. But for that to happen every point would have to "know" where every other point was at every point in time.

Edited April 15, 2016 by screwstrip

[Mordred]

As you were posting at the same time I doubt you saw my last post.

 

I would suggest reading.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

 

Then I would look up each test mentioned on Aether from that link.

 

You will find that those tests seeking Aether ended up showing that an Aether isn't viable. Those tests were designed originally to isolate Aether properties however didn't match predictions and found no detectable Aether.

 

 

As the expression goes, " your flogging a dead horse"

Edited April 15, 2016 by Mordred

[screwstrip]

 

 

Thus far there is ZERO evidence supporting aether style theories. Believe me I lost count how many variations I've come across. Most I can't even name anymore.

 

It's actually hard to know what's what in this case because there are so many variations. The site http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website3/Index.htm says Lorentz transformations are sufficient to explain relativity. I haven't looked into it myself.

 

But for now my heads about to implode so I'm gonna take a break and reflect a little more because maybe this does lead to a dead end with so much opposition. I'll try to organize the points into another post like I did before and continue working like that. Thanks.

Edited April 15, 2016 by screwstrip

[Mordred]

Might be a good place to start. The fact is Aether theories has been around for centuries. Relativity doesn't require an Aether, and tests looking for Aether ended up showing zero evidence for Aether.

 

Quintessence which was a more modern version of Aether, was also shown wrong for many of these reasons.

 

Another killing blow to Aether is lack of stellar aberration.

An aether drag, via Aether wind should cause distortions in long range measurements.

 

There is zero evidence such distortions are present.

 

As I don't know your math skills I've been avoiding posting the related math.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

Lorentz transformations are sufficient to explain relativity. I haven't looked into it myself.

There is a theory called Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) which is identical to special relativity in all respects but with the addition of an undetectable aether (it must be undetectable for the theory to work).

 

What that means is that there are an infinite number of such theories. For example, LCT which is identical to special relativity in all respects but with the addition of an undetectable cat (it must be undetectable for the theory to work). And LJT which is ... well, you get the idea ... undetectable jelly (it must ... ). And so on. And then you can have an infinite number of combinations of these: Lorentz Ether and Jelly Theory, and so on.

 

For this reason, we often resort to Occam's razor and choose the theory which doesn't introduce any unnecessary entities.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Strange

[Mordred]

Along with the comment by Strange. Many of the tests supporting Aether and seeking its properties, ended up being tests that support relativity.

[studiot]

 

screwstrip

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!

 

 

I don't know if FW's hypothesis is the same or not, but I thought you might be interested in comparable ideas.

 

The main thing about FW's 'medium' is that it is not incompatible with modern measurements.

He does discuss similarities and differences with aether theories.

 

Personally I find the qeust for grand unified theories boring.

If it it ends up showing there is only one agent at work in the whole universe then there is only one thing left for that agent to interact with - itself.

I much prefer the universe of a multiplicity of agents and a myriad of interactions.

[Strange]

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

 

The problem is, if the only thing that is quantised is the energy needed to remove the electron from the atom then you have to explain why a more intense light does not cause the electron to be emitted.

 

It is only when the frequency of the light (and therefore the energy of each quantum of electromagnetic radiation) exceeds the threshold that the electron is emitted.

 

In your model, a sufficiently large amplitude of waving should be able to eject electrons. But that is not what we observe.

[screwstrip]

 

Suppose the aether has a stiffness of k and force is applied which causes a displacement of X, but now this displacement isn't really attached to anything so it continuous to propagate as a longitudinal wave propagating through distance which acts through units of time. I think this matches the units of h. Through units of time is a little hard to understand, but think of it like how you're traveling through time right now.

 

Some thoughts to go along with this:

 

k starts out at 0 when there is no compression because mass is 0 and inceases from there

Having to act through distance and time may be related to how charge and gravity drop off at r^2

For the electron instead of hooke's law newtons law F=ma might apply because if it is a spherical standing wave it is undergoing constant acceleration.

[Strange]

Having to act through distance and time may be related to how charge and gravity drop off at r^2

 

It may do, but you would have to show this.

 

On the other hand, the inverse square law can be derived from general relativity.

[elfmotat]

 

Some thoughts to go along with this:

 

k starts out at 0 when there is no compression because mass is 0 and inceases from there

Having to act through distance and time may be related to how charge and gravity drop off at r^2

For the electron instead of hooke's law newtons law F=ma might apply because if it is a spherical standing wave it is undergoing constant acceleration.

 

You seem to be describing some sort of field whose properties determine mass. If you could formalize this it would help narrow down exactly what you're talking about, and whether or not the idea is self-consistent and consistent with observation.

 

Personally I find the qeust for grand unified theories boring.

If it it ends up showing there is only one agent at work in the whole universe then there is only one thing left for that agent to interact with - itself.

I much prefer the universe of a multiplicity of agents and a myriad of interactions.

 

I'm not sure how this is a problem. Any ToE is going to have broken symmetries, resulting in interacting components. For example electroweak symmetry -- at low energies the symmetry is broken resulting in EM and the weak force. Is the universe more 'boring' because we know they unify at some level?

[screwstrip]

Wait a second. I was saying that mass had to do with compression because mass couldnt be at every point in space. But I also said that there could never be absolute consistency. Can someone help me out on this?

 

Reason I ask is because either it's a contradiction, or it has something to do with the speed of light and maybe the size of the electron, unless mass is something else but I can't imagine what.

 

Requiring discrete amounts of compression so it doesnt become fractal could do away with the problem but then I'm basically saying it jumps instantaneously and that's really ugly.

 

If mass is compression what is rarefaction?

 

They have to come in equal parts and occupy some volume.

 

As compression increases volume also increases?

 

Maybe rarefaction is volume!

 

And the two together define density?

 

I still don't see how this connects with the speed of light though.

 

I think the speed of light is the rate at which compression happens.

Edited April 15, 2016 by screwstrip

[Mordred]

Mass isn't determined by compression.

At least not in the manner you are implying. For example if a star collapses to a black hole. It's mass doesn't change. The only thing that changes is the radius.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Mordred

[elfmotat]

Mass isn't determined by compression.

At least not in the manner you are implying. For example if a star collapses to a black hole. It's mass doesn't change. The only thing that changes is the radius.

 

He's positing that mass is some functional of the stress (tension/compression) of the aether field... which seems immediately false, unless there's some way to get discrete mass values for elementary particles in this manner.

Edited April 15, 2016 by elfmotat

[Mordred]

Mass is simply resistance to inertia. There can be multiple or even singular contributors to a particles mass.

 

For example some particles do not interact with the electromagnetic or strong force. Example neutrinos. It's only two interactions is gravity and the weak force.

 

However the weak force interaction uses the Higgs field. Other particles such as the w-,w+ and z bosons also gain their mass from the Higgs field.

 

These particles gain no mass from the strong field or the electromagnetic field.

 

Yet other particles that interact with the Strong or electromagnetic force do gain mass from those forces.

 

(Do not treat the Higgs field as a force).

 

Each force has a coupling constant,

 

"In physics, a coupling constant or gauge coupling parameter is a number that determines the strength of the force exerted in an interaction"

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant

 

This shows us the amount of force, and correlates that the strength of that force at a certain radius (using formulas not on that wiki page)

 

The strong force though is the strongest force falls off in strength at a given radius faster than other forces.

 

The electromagnetic force has infinite range, yet the Strong force doesn't.

 

Now recalling that mass us resistance to inertia, and the coupling constants we can start to correlate some examples.

 

For example in a solid the majority of the rest mass is defined by the electromagnetic force.

 

Yet in a proton or neutron the majority of the mass is the Strong force with the Higgs field being a small contributor.

 

So even though a solid has all these interactions involved we still consider the majority of the mass of a solid being the electromagnetic force. The reason being is from one atom to another atom, the strong force interaction is extremely miniscule. The strong force interaction falls off too quickly. Yet dominates within the structure of a proton and neutron.

 

A way to think of mass is the resistance to inertia due to interactions with the various fields.

 

Each field though has its own properties and each particle may interact differently to different fields.

 

Now all the above is essentially rest mass. Inertia mass is slightly different.

 

If you consider gravity as a result of spacetime curvature. We can also think of spacetime as a field. (Fields can overlap, ie the electromagnetic and Higgs field must follow the same curvature)

 

Inertia mass is simply due to the particles interaction to the spacetime. This includes gravitational and inertia mass as both are equivalent in GR.

 

However this includes the observers measure of mass which influence the measured mass.

 

From the above one can see that mass isn't easily defined. Certainly not just involving compression though how that compression is applied in some cases can apply.

 

He's positing that mass is some functional of the stress (tension/compression) of the aether field... which seems immediately false, unless there's some way to get discrete mass values for elementary particles in this manner.

 

Yes I know that's why I gave him better details on mass that I was working on when you posted the quoted section.

[screwstrip]

Nice censorship

[swansont]

Nice censorship

 

Excuse me?