It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
New Theory of Matter – profound implications on the perception of reality, space & time.
page: 4share:
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading Dr Wolff's book, published by Outskirts Press, Schrodinger's Universe - Einstein, Waves & the Origin of the Natural Laws
A similarly important passage, from the Prologue, on page vii:
It is tempting to imagine scientists as noble pioneers, questing for the greater good of humanity, and transfixed by the wonderful mysteries of the world. However scientists are not different than other people. A scientist makes choices according to his personal feelings of what is good for his own survival. Scientists suffer the same fears, uncertainties, avarice, and hypocrisy as other persons. Few of them are willing to make personal sacrifices in the name of truth. Bread on the table, a car in the garage, and clearing the way for a professorship are usually the first priority in their lives. As Winston Churchill wrote: "Most of us often encounter the truth but we usually pick ourselves up and pretend it did not happen."
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading Dr Wolff's book, published by Outskirts Press, Schrodinger's Universe - Einstein, Waves & the Origin of the Natural Laws
A similarly important passage, from the Prologue, on page vii:
It is tempting to imagine scientists as noble pioneers, questing for the greater good of humanity, and transfixed by the wonderful mysteries of the world. However scientists are not different than other people. A scientist makes choices according to his personal feelings of what is good for his own survival. Scientists suffer the same fears, uncertainties, avarice, and hypocrisy as other persons. Few of them are willing to make personal sacrifices in the name of truth. Bread on the table, a car in the garage, and clearing the way for a professorship are usually the first priority in their lives.
Yeah well, scientists are also not immune from senility, as Milo Wolff sadly demonstrates.
And truth be told, those who value material things more than intellectual rewards of research simply move on to other fields of endeavor, practice law or high finance. I know plenty of such people. Those who are still in the field for the kicks of it are, well, there -- and getting good science done is a priority, especially when you are surrounded by smart people who WILL question your application of scientific method and will not forgive anything hypocritical should you attempt it.
The paragraph is an ad hominem directed to science in general, who won't seriously consider these unfounded and random pronouncements, unsupported by any experimental evidence. I can claim that the electron has the shape of the Star of David, except it's very small. Prove me wrong.
edit on 22-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yeah well, scientists are also not immune from senility, as Milo Wolff sadly demonstrates.
The above is an unsupported, silly, ad hominem.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
And truth be told, those who value material things more than intellectual rewards of research simply move on to other fields of endeavor, practice law or high finance.
Truth be told, you're misstating what the quotation said, which was not talking about valuing material things over intellectual rewards, or greed as you're insinuating. The quotation is talking about the real world necessity of all people - not just scientists - to make a living, which sometimes might seem to call for going along to get along.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . unfounded and random pronouncements, unsupported by any experimental evidence.
From page 19 of Wolff's book:
Choosing an unbeaten path were the great pioneers of 20th century physics: Clifford, Schrodinger, Mach, Wyle, deBroglie, and Einstein. They did propose that matter was composed of only waves. But their insight was abandoned by mainstream science. Nevertheless it has turned out that a wave-only universe is the simple answer to half a century of puzzles and confusion. All matter is structured of quantum waves. There are only two principles required to describe the waves and their consequences that underlie the science of physics. The waves will be described in the following pages.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
From page 19 of Wolff's book:
Choosing an unbeaten path were the great pioneers of 20th century physics: Clifford, Schrodinger, Mach, Wyle, deBroglie, and Einstein. They did propose that matter was composed of only waves. But their insight was abandoned by mainstream science.
It's preposterous to say that the ideas of Schrodinger, de Broglie and Einstein were swept under the rugs of modern science. Quite the oposite. What's more, Milo Wolff is essentially lying (again):
Louis-Victor-Pierre-Raymond, 7th duc de Broglie actually wrote the following:
"The fundamental idea of [my 1924 thesis] was the following: The fact that, following Einstein's introduction of photons in light waves, one knew that light contains particles which are concentrations of energy incorporated into the wave, suggests that all particles, like the electron, must be transported by a wave into which it is incorporated... My essential idea was to extend to all particles the coexistence of waves and particles discovered by Einstein in 1905 in the case of light and photons."
...which contradicts what that idiot Milo alleges. It's coexistence, not exclusivity of waves.
reply to post by buddhasystem
No, Copenhagen is the easy way out.
The only reason it exists, is that there was such a desire to adhere to classical particles.
It's coexistence, not exclusivity of waves.
No, Copenhagen is the easy way out.
The only reason it exists, is that there was such a desire to adhere to classical particles.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
It's coexistence, not exclusivity of waves.
No, Copenhagen is the easy way out.
The only reason it exists, is that there was such a desire to adhere to classical particles.
You are inventing content again, whereas it doesn't exist.
I was referring to de Broglie and how he was blatantly mis-quoted by a charlatan. I quoted de Broglie.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
edit on 22-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: typo
reply to post by chocise
Let me inform you that I agree electrons exist more prominently and all particles are allways constantly moving .with this observation it stands to reason all particles are moving in quanta(packets) waves,the answers most saught are ,where is the dark energy to be found expanding everything,I allude to it being found in light ray emmisions themselves as inbetween the quanta (packets),this is a new field of study and with coralis spiralling quantas of light leading the way.
Finding dark energy at present is a illusion and therefore still a theory,but it is generally excepted a method will be found to observer dark energy in all its forms and i believe it is in observing the quantas in light itself.
It is not that we can`t see dark energy,as if you look up at night you will see darkness,this means although light is all around we don`t see it,we see at night the quantas( packets)in the light being emitted and hence are seeing the gaps in light.
I wonder if this observation makes sense to you,because if you look from the outside at where we are all you will see is light disc,however when we observe upward we see darkness.It is clearly obvious perception is only one part of the equation of findinjg the expanding force,and my friend its right in front of us and blowin in the interstellar wind.
The allusive expanding force is right there but we can`t touch it,capture it or visibly see it apart from the dark flow anomaly.
Peace gringo.
Let me inform you that I agree electrons exist more prominently and all particles are allways constantly moving .with this observation it stands to reason all particles are moving in quanta(packets) waves,the answers most saught are ,where is the dark energy to be found expanding everything,I allude to it being found in light ray emmisions themselves as inbetween the quanta (packets),this is a new field of study and with coralis spiralling quantas of light leading the way.
Finding dark energy at present is a illusion and therefore still a theory,but it is generally excepted a method will be found to observer dark energy in all its forms and i believe it is in observing the quantas in light itself.
It is not that we can`t see dark energy,as if you look up at night you will see darkness,this means although light is all around we don`t see it,we see at night the quantas( packets)in the light being emitted and hence are seeing the gaps in light.
I wonder if this observation makes sense to you,because if you look from the outside at where we are all you will see is light disc,however when we observe upward we see darkness.It is clearly obvious perception is only one part of the equation of findinjg the expanding force,and my friend its right in front of us and blowin in the interstellar wind.
The allusive expanding force is right there but we can`t touch it,capture it or visibly see it apart from the dark flow anomaly.
Peace gringo.
edit on 22-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)
reply to post by buddhasystem
What are you talking about? The quote you gave is a direct reference to the Copenhagen interpretation, is it not?
Here is more regarding the quote you posted:
Wolff is saying that we(established paradigm) haven't considered the full implications of those physicists, because we don't want to accept the conclusions that are radically opposite to classical particle atomism.
The conclusion being that atoms and subatomic particles are nothing of the classical sort, and in fact are literally quantized wave structures of space.
There is no 'solid grain' to be found acting like a wave, it is only through our limited perception of a fluid system in motion that this misnomer persists. The wave structure pushes back when we observe it.
What we think the 'solid grain' is, is a standing wave structure of space. The quantization is from the periodicity, wavelength, amplitude, frequency, nodes etc. of the wave structure. Or Harmonics.
'Atoms' are cymatics of space. Diamond lattice is a dense, stable and complex cymatical geometry of space.
Seeing an atom as a system of probability of 'solid grain' points in empty space is like watching a flip book animation - an abstraction of the inseparable fluid reality actually taking place.
The mathematics of the wave function is merely a tool to measure probabilistic values, which we choose to interpret as values of 'solid grain' particles.
But the fluid inseparable reality is a wave structure of space.
I think this should be self evident by now... I don't know if I can break it down any simpler.
What are you talking about? The quote you gave is a direct reference to the Copenhagen interpretation, is it not?
Here is more regarding the quote you posted:
This theory set the basis of wave mechanics. It was supported by Einstein, confirmed by the electron diffraction experiments of Davisson and Germer, and generalized by the work of Schrödinger.
However, this generalization was statistical and was not approved of by de Broglie, who said "that the particle must be the seat of an internal periodic movement and that it must move in a wave in order to remain in phase with it was ignored by the actual quantitative physicists [who are] wrong to consider a wave propagation without localization of the particle, which was quite contrary to my original ideas."
From a philosophical viewpoint, this theory of matter-waves has contributed greatly to the ruin of the atomism of the past. Originally, de Broglie thought that a real wave (i.e., having a direct physical interpretation) was associated with particles. In fact, the wave aspect of matter was formalized by a wavefunction defined by the Schrödinger equation, which is a pure mathematical entity having a probabilistic interpretation, without the support of real physical elements. This wavefunction gives an appearance of wave behavior to matter, without making real physical waves appear. However, until the end of his life de Broglie returned to a direct and real physical interpretation of matter-waves, following the work of David Bohm. The de Broglie-Bohm theory is today the only interpretation giving real status to matter-waves and representing the predictions of quantum theory. But, since it has some problems and doesn't go further in its predictions than the Copenhagen interpretation, it is little recognized by the scientific community.
Wolff is saying that we(established paradigm) haven't considered the full implications of those physicists, because we don't want to accept the conclusions that are radically opposite to classical particle atomism.
The conclusion being that atoms and subatomic particles are nothing of the classical sort, and in fact are literally quantized wave structures of space.
There is no 'solid grain' to be found acting like a wave, it is only through our limited perception of a fluid system in motion that this misnomer persists. The wave structure pushes back when we observe it.
What we think the 'solid grain' is, is a standing wave structure of space. The quantization is from the periodicity, wavelength, amplitude, frequency, nodes etc. of the wave structure. Or Harmonics.
'Atoms' are cymatics of space. Diamond lattice is a dense, stable and complex cymatical geometry of space.
Seeing an atom as a system of probability of 'solid grain' points in empty space is like watching a flip book animation - an abstraction of the inseparable fluid reality actually taking place.
The mathematics of the wave function is merely a tool to measure probabilistic values, which we choose to interpret as values of 'solid grain' particles.
But the fluid inseparable reality is a wave structure of space.
I think this should be self evident by now... I don't know if I can break it down any simpler.
Originally posted by masterp
I did not see any math to back up the extraordinary claims of this gentleman. Nor did I see any experiment that proves the theory.
I call hoax.
Gee, what if math is insufficient to describe reality?
Originally posted by grizzle2
Originally posted by masterp
I did not see any math to back up the extraordinary claims of this gentleman. Nor did I see any experiment that proves the theory.
I call hoax.
Gee, what if math is insufficient to describe reality?
Indeed, math IS insufficient and is merely a tool. We need to use experimental observations to infer validity, or lack of such, of our mathematical models.
"New Theory of Matter" does not have any experimental basis.
reply to post by buddhasystem
I haven't finished reading Schrodinger's Universe yet, but from what I've read so far, interpretation and understanding of what has already been observed with experimentation is the point.
I haven't finished reading Schrodinger's Universe yet, but from what I've read so far, interpretation and understanding of what has already been observed with experimentation is the point.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading Dr Wolff's book, published by Outskirts Press, Schrodinger's Universe - Einstein, Waves & the Origin of the Natural Laws.
Another important quote from this book is about Dirac, pages 74 and 75:
Dirac received a Nobel Prize for his work (1923) predicting the spin of the electron and the existence of the positron. At the time he did not realize that he was describing a quantum wave electron because his work was purely mathematical and not yet related to experiments that came later. Dirac had developed much of the theory describing the quantum waves of the electron, but was never satisfied with its point-particle character because the Coulomb electron required a mathematical correction termed "renormalization." In 1937, he wrote, "This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small -- not neglecting it because it is infinitely large and you do not want it!" Like Schrodinger, he had confidence in what his mathematics was telling him and refused to go along with the speculations and approximations of mainstream science.
reply to post by buddhasystem
Yes it does.
That kind of statement is ridiculous, because it implies that your opinion does have experimental basis.
In fact, this is the point at question - What do our experiments tell us about the nature of the atom and matter?
They certainly don't tell us the things you think they do. In fact, they obviously tell us that atoms and matter are more like waves in a fluid, than particles in space.
The problem is that modern physics has denied the implications of that statement, because of some sick ego-fetish that wants to cut everything up into separate pieces.
Nature is not like that!
Nature functions as an integrated and inseparable whole. Space is Full.
This is the anima, which is neglected by the mass psychology of physics.
We must learn this, for our evolutionary progress as a civilization.
This is clear once you get over the psychological whitewash of presuppositions and institutionalization.
Sometimes all it takes is a fresh pair of eyes...
"New Theory of Matter" does not have any experimental basis.
Yes it does.
That kind of statement is ridiculous, because it implies that your opinion does have experimental basis.
In fact, this is the point at question - What do our experiments tell us about the nature of the atom and matter?
They certainly don't tell us the things you think they do. In fact, they obviously tell us that atoms and matter are more like waves in a fluid, than particles in space.
The problem is that modern physics has denied the implications of that statement, because of some sick ego-fetish that wants to cut everything up into separate pieces.
Nature is not like that!
Nature functions as an integrated and inseparable whole. Space is Full.
This is the anima, which is neglected by the mass psychology of physics.
We must learn this, for our evolutionary progress as a civilization.
This is clear once you get over the psychological whitewash of presuppositions and institutionalization.
Sometimes all it takes is a fresh pair of eyes...
Originally posted by beebs
In fact, this is the point at question - What do our experiments tell us about the nature of the atom and matter?
They certainly don't tell us the things you think they do.
Beebs, being educated as an experimentalist, and having spent more time in the lab than you did on this planet, I do not need to think what experiments tell us. I live experiments.
In fact, they obviously tell us that atoms and matter are more like waves in a fluid, than particles in space.
What does it have to do with the spherical concentric construct that is being sold to unsuspecting public in this thread?
It's like trying to pass vinegar for wine. Both can be made of grapes.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading Dr Wolff's book, published by Outskirts Press, Schrodinger's Universe - Einstein, Waves & the Origin of the Natural Laws.
From page 103:
If you keep the traditional assumption that matter consists of points of mass and charge substance, and that energy exchange is a one-way photon bullet traveling between particles, there is no mechanism as Einstein realized below. You are doomed to the paradoxes of: causality violation, wave-particle duality, Copenhagen errors, Heisenberg uncertainty, red shift, and others. Only the two-way wave exchanges of the WSM match observation.
Even though Einstein had originally proposed the 'photon' he never understood them. In 1954, he wrote to his friend Michael Besso expressing his frustration . . .
reply to post by buddhasystem
Haha, for real? This is my point completely. You just plain can't even see what is right in front of your eyes.
The 'spherical concentric construct'?! That is the wave structure of space/energy density, which is the atom.
Cymatical structures of space/energy. Not mathematical probability of finding a 'particle', but the geometrical organization of space/energy density in a fluid medium.
What does it have to do with the spherical concentric construct that is being sold to unsuspecting public in this thread?
Haha, for real? This is my point completely. You just plain can't even see what is right in front of your eyes.
The 'spherical concentric construct'?! That is the wave structure of space/energy density, which is the atom.
Cymatical structures of space/energy. Not mathematical probability of finding a 'particle', but the geometrical organization of space/energy density in a fluid medium.
reply to post by beebs
Beebs, once again you demonstrate an astonishing degree of superficiality when dealing with physics. The fact that the electron bound in an atom demonstrates wave properties has nothing to do with what's proposed in the NON-theory of matter which is subject of this thread. The fact that you can drown in water does not mean that water is harmful to your health. No amount of pretty pictures will change that.
Beebs, once again you demonstrate an astonishing degree of superficiality when dealing with physics. The fact that the electron bound in an atom demonstrates wave properties has nothing to do with what's proposed in the NON-theory of matter which is subject of this thread. The fact that you can drown in water does not mean that water is harmful to your health. No amount of pretty pictures will change that.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading Dr Wolff's book, published by Outskirts Press, Schrodinger's Universe - Einstein, Waves & the Origin of the Natural Laws.
I'm on Chapter Nine now, "Scientists are Human Too: The Process of Finding Knowledge." On the title page, Wolff quotes Max Planck:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
reply to post by buddhasystem
And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of basic critical thinking about theoretical premises.
You keep arguing from an irrelevant and narrow-minded paradigm, whose presuppositions are out of synch with the mathematical tools and physical observations.
The problem runs so deep, that you can't even see the simple way out anymore - because you just keep covering it up with 'epicycles' building upon 'epicycles'. In other words, the mathematical theories are so exotic, because it is too devastating to re-examine the foundational philosophical and theoretical premises of a century ago that has given rise to the esoteric clique.
And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of basic critical thinking about theoretical premises.
You keep arguing from an irrelevant and narrow-minded paradigm, whose presuppositions are out of synch with the mathematical tools and physical observations.
The problem runs so deep, that you can't even see the simple way out anymore - because you just keep covering it up with 'epicycles' building upon 'epicycles'. In other words, the mathematical theories are so exotic, because it is too devastating to re-examine the foundational philosophical and theoretical premises of a century ago that has given rise to the esoteric clique.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of basic critical thinking about theoretical premises.
You keep arguing from an irrelevant and narrow-minded paradigm, whose presuppositions are out of synch with the mathematical tools and physical observations.
Please enumerate
(a) mathematical tools
(b) physical observations
...which you say are out of sync my "irrelevant paradigm", or vice versa. Be specific. If you can't do this, your pronouncements are once again what they usually are: hot air.
edit on 24-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)