New Theory of Matter – profound implications on the perception of reality, space & time.

The origins of truth and reality - about how you and everything around you exist in space is presented in a lucid and ground breaking piece of work put forward by Dr Milo Wolff & Geoff Haslehurst [2010].

They demonstrate science does actually work - we just had to get rid of the wrong foundation of matter with particle properties, and consider space and its wave properties. The answers were, on the face of it, blindingly obvious yet for the past 350 years (since Newton) we've tried to describe an interconnected reality (which has been known for thousands of years) with many discrete and separate 'particles', adding forces or fields to them, inorder to connect them in space and time. This is a mathematical solution and does not explain how discrete matter particles create continuous fields that act on other particles in the space around them.

Further, both quantum physics (particle-wave duality, non-locality, uncertainty) and Einstein's general relativity (matter-energy curves space-time) contradict the concept of discrete and separate 'particles'.

What is needed is a description of reality from the most simple foundation of the one thing, Space, that all matter exists in. This leads to only one solution, a Wave Structure of Matter in Space from which we then deduce the fundamentals of physics, philosophy and metaphysics to show that it is correct (scientific / testable).

Space is infinite. Matter is formed from the spherical standing wave motions of Space itself... a concept which finally unites Space, Time, Motion and Matter.

Haslehurst summarizes:
The rules of science (simplicity) and metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality) force us to conclude that matter is formed from spherical standing wave motions of Space (rather than Newton's particles, or Einstein's continuous fields). This is why matter can interact with other matter in the Space around it, because all matter (in the observable universe) is interconnected in Space by its spherical in and out waves.

The Wave Center causes the discrete 'particle' effect of matter that we see and interact with. The spherical in and out waves cause the field effects, but in a slightly different way than Einstein imagined because they are discrete standing wave effects, rather than his continuous field effects. i.e. Einstein's continuous field theory of matter does not explain discrete properties of light and matter as determined by quantum theory - whereas standing wave interactions (resonant coupling) only occur at discrete wavelengths / frequencies thus explaining the discrete properties of light quanta 'photons'.



In WSM cosmology the observable universe (Hubble sphere) is just a finite spherical region of infinite eternal space. It explains the nature of red shift, CMBR, relativity, black holes, dark matter/energy, the predicted motion of distant galaxies, and time. In short, it's brilliant.

Please visit their site as I know I haven't done it justice. There's simply too much to go into here and I haven't fully appreciated the implications/rammifications, but I believe we now have a coherent framework on which everything can be understood, and which relates to everything. It's a paradigm shift in science. The implications of which are profound: as the mystics believed, we really are part of everything, and it is infinitely huge.

www.spaceandmotion.com...

The Wave Structure of Matter is the most simple science theory of reality and it clearly works by correctly deducing the laws of Nature. The only difficulty is that it is new, and most people have been brought up with 'particle' physics and the Big Bang theory, so it takes a while for our minds to adjust to this new way of seeing things. But the Wave Structure of Matter in Space is simple, sensible and obvious once known. Geoff Haslehurst [2010].

The theory that they put forward, the wave structure of matter in space, reminds me a lot of an earlier theory already put forward by Stephen Hawking and others called the universal wavefunction.

en.wikipedia.org...

I should add that Erwin Schrodinger actually proposed a wave structure of matter 80 years ago (unfortunately his wave equations were used by Max Born as probability waves to find the location of the particle, rather than treating them as real waves in Space). As Schrodinger explains;

What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.
Erwin Schrödinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics.

Originally posted by chocise
The origins of truth and reality - about how you and everything around you exist in space is presented in a lucid and ground breaking piece of work put forward by Dr Milo Wolff & Geoff Haslehurst [2010].

They demonstrate science does actually work - we just had to get rid of the wrong foundation of matter with particle properties, and consider space and its wave properties. The answers were, on the face of it, blindingly obvious yet for the past 350 years (since Newton) we've tried to describe an interconnected reality (which has been known for thousands of years) with many discrete and separate 'particles', adding forces or fields to them, inorder to connect them in space and time. This is a mathematical solution and does not explain how discrete matter particles create continuous fields that act on other particles in the space around them.

Further, both quantum physics (particle-wave duality, non-locality, uncertainty) and Einstein's general relativity (matter-energy curves space-time) contradict the concept of discrete and separate 'particles'.

What is needed is a description of reality from the most simple foundation of the one thing, Space, that all matter exists in. This leads to only one solution, a Wave Structure of Matter in Space from which we then deduce the fundamentals of physics, philosophy and metaphysics to show that it is correct (scientific / testable).

Space is infinite. Matter is formed from the spherical standing wave motions of Space itself... a concept which finally unites Space, Time, Motion and Matter.

Haslehurst summarizes:
The rules of science (simplicity) and metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality) force us to conclude that matter is formed from spherical standing wave motions of Space (rather than Newton's particles, or Einstein's continuous fields). This is why matter can interact with other matter in the Space around it, because all matter (in the observable universe) is interconnected in Space by its spherical in and out waves.

The Wave Center causes the discrete 'particle' effect of matter that we see and interact with. The spherical in and out waves cause the field effects, but in a slightly different way than Einstein imagined because they are discrete standing wave effects, rather than his continuous field effects. i.e. Einstein's continuous field theory of matter does not explain discrete properties of light and matter as determined by quantum theory - whereas standing wave interactions (resonant coupling) only occur at discrete wavelengths / frequencies thus explaining the discrete properties of light quanta 'photons'.



In WSM cosmology the observable universe (Hubble sphere) is just a finite spherical region of infinite eternal space. It explains the nature of red shift, CMBR, relativity, black holes, dark matter/energy, the predicted motion of distant galaxies, and time. In short, it's brilliant.

Please visit their site as I know I haven't done it justice. There's simply too much to go into here and I haven't fully appreciated the implications/rammifications, but I believe we now have a coherent framework on which everything can be understood, and which relates to everything. It's a paradigm shift in science. The implications of which are profound: as the mystics believed, we really are part of everything, and it is infinitely huge.

www.spaceandmotion.com...

The Wave Structure of Matter is the most simple science theory of reality and it clearly works by correctly deducing the laws of Nature. The only difficulty is that it is new, and most people have been brought up with 'particle' physics and the Big Bang theory, so it takes a while for our minds to adjust to this new way of seeing things. But the Wave Structure of Matter in Space is simple, sensible and obvious once known. Geoff Haslehurst [2010].

nice post indeeeed. i've always been a follower of this theory. ever since high school physics class: there was a question that asked if light was a particle or a wave....I picked both and explained how it shows behavior of both. of course the teacher had to say i was incorrect and that light is really a particle. (my teacher didn't agree with the particle theory either and sympathized with me, he knew he had to say it was wrong because he had to teach his students not knowledge, but how to pass the state's Standards Of Learning test)

I would also like to say that quantum physics does NOT disagree with the light wave theory. it actually supports it in many ways and is somewhat founded upon the idea itself. "particles" are quite literally a cloud of potential being...it is charge with energy, but is a non physical cloud of charge and probability.

Standing waves are due to boundary conditions. In case of a string, the boundary condition is defined by it's fixed end points. There can be a moving boundary, in case of an organ pipe, for example, but the presence of the pipe is essential to establish the dimension of the standing wave.

In the proposed theory, there are spheres where nothing serves as the scale parameter. And, according to observations at energies currently available to us (which are quite high with cosmic rays), we don't observe any dimension of fundamental particles such as electrons, at all.

In addition, there are more cases of charge than just electrical charge. There is color charge and weak charge (effectively). Nothing of this sort can be reasonable squeezed into that spherical standing wave scheme.

reply to post by chocise


I've been getting bang into this stuff for months now - I would suggest checking out the following for inspiration:
video.google.com...#

Ok, now I've got your attention:
www.aetherometry.com...

Enjoy

Oh, and there may be government research done into this field - just type your search term into the box on the right and see what you get...
www.osti.gov...

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.

The first few paragraphs of the OP could just as well describe my own model. The point of departure is the first mention of standing waves.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Standing waves are due to boundary conditions. In case of a string, the boundary condition is defined by it's fixed end points. There can be a moving boundary, in case of an organ pipe, for example, but the presence of the pipe is essential to establish the dimension of the standing wave.

In the proposed theory, there are spheres where nothing serves as the scale parameter. And, according to observations at energies currently available to us (which are quite high with cosmic rays), we don't observe any dimension of fundamental particles such as electrons, at all.

In addition, there are more cases of charge than just electrical charge. There is color charge and weak charge (effectively). Nothing of this sort can be reasonable squeezed into that spherical standing wave scheme.

Well said, Buddahsystem! I had a similar reaction, though not as well thought out, when I first encountered the concept of particles as standing waves.

In my own model, particles are not standing waves, but strange attractors in the chaotic interaction between regular energy and dark energy. Regular energy is ethereal shear waves, which propagate at the speed of light; dark energy is ethereal pressure waves, which are at least 20 billion times faster. When a pressure wave collides with a shear wave, there is a small but significant exchange of momentum. The character of the exchange is a funcation of the phase and polarity relationship between the two waves. At different angles around the shear wave, you get different disturbances of the dark energy flux. Consequently, pairs of shear waves feel forces of attraction or repulsion, depending on their phase and polarity relative to each other.

One such force of attraction causes shear waves of particular wave lengths to orbit one another, converting their radiant energy to the rest mass of a particle. Each species of particle is a strange attractor, and those attractors may join at larger scales to form a hierarchy of particles at different scales. The flux disturbances around the individual shear waves are spun into spiral patterns, and those spirals may mesh with the spirals of neighboring particles to form large particles. At greater distances, the flux disturbance looks blurred, and you get inverse-square law forces, like the electroweak and gravity.

In my model, there are no standing waves and no need for boundaries. Our universe is just a chaotic mix of waves in a medium made of particles which are strange attractors in another medium of waves... ad infinitum.

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.

You might make the same objections to my model, as well. I am no mathematician, and I have no mathematician helping me to develop my model. At least Milo Wolff has a PhD in Physics, which gives him some credibility among his peers. I ask you to judge my model on its own merits, just as you should his, without being dazzled by degrees.

Couldnt the electromagnetic connections between 2 stars in the very common binary systems make a sort of string, or jump rope, that could define a boundry?

reply to post by Wertdagf


Standing waves are interference patterns (nodes and antinodes) between waves moving in opposite directions. To get standing waves at the scale of electrons and quarks, you would need boundaries which are smoothe to the same scale.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Couldnt the electromagnetic connections between 2 stars in the very common binary systems make a sort of string, or jump rope, that could define a boundry?

According to what we know, there is no significant electromagnetic component in the interaction of members of binary systems, it's by far mostly gravity.

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
reply to post by Wertdagf

 

Standing waves are interference patterns (nodes and antinodes) between waves moving in opposite directions. To get standing waves at the scale of electrons and quarks, you would need boundaries which are smoothe to the same scale.

According to what we know electrons and quarks have no scale, they are point-like particles.

reply to post by Phractal Phil


No math, no proof.

No testable theory, no proof.

Sorry.

reply to post by masterp


There is math in there [look in the Einstein section], & he even gives the Equation of the Cosmos. I recall Albert's original was submitted on a single leaf, and his solution required only a knowledge of multiplication.

The Julia sets arising from a Mandelbrot need only a knowledge of addition, subtraction and multiplication. It needn't be complicated.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
to what we know electrons and quarks have no scale, they are point-like particles.

That's just it. You're observing wave interference at yet another scale. It only appears to be particulate.

He deserves credit at least for uniting, for the first time, the two central theories of modern physics: quantum theory and Einstein's special relativity. That's pretty remarkable in itself. It's no doubt a bold theory, as it challenges everything we've done over the last 350 years. That doesn't go down well.

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by masterp

 

There is math in there [look in the Einstein section], & he even gives the Equation of the Cosmos. I recall Albert's original was submitted on a single leaf, and his solution required only a knowledge of multiplication.

The Julia sets arising from a Mandelbrot need only a knowledge of addition, subtraction and multiplication. It needn't be complicated.

I'm sorry but he's wayyyyyy overselling the classical electron radius in the "Equation of the Cosmos". And what's really missing from that discourse is the math that would explain a few simple phenomena.

And, equation (3) is complete bullcr@p.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Originally posted by chocise
He deserves credit at least for uniting, for the first time, the two central theories of modern physics: quantum theory and Einstein's special relativity. ....

To ignore this would be crazy.

Further, the Wave Structure of Matter is deduced as the most simple science theory for describing reality - founded on the one and only thing that we all commonly experience, Space (mind and matter are many things, space is always one thing).

This not only satisfies the central principle of Science, Occam's razor, but also explains the foundations of Metaphysics and Philosophy, that reality must be described from only one thing existing to explain the interconnection of all things in the universe.

His words, my emphasis.

Originally posted by chocise
He deserves credit at least for uniting, for the first time, the two central theories of modern physics: quantum theory and Einstein's special relativity. That's pretty remarkable in itself.

Sorry but this has been done a while ago, in a lot more fruitful way, in QED and its siblings.

Yeah.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Nope, that simply isn't the current play of things, we've moved on from Fenyman et al! There is still much contention on the very nature of mass and the Higgs Boson – the 'Standard Model' is far from complete. It would be more helpful if you offered up some concrete objections and even postulated an alternative. Try here: www.physforum.com...

Thanks.

All of this actually makes scene to me. Its been proven that vibration can create structure. The idea of every thing around me is actually a wave function is kinda cool. Its just a sea of possibilities until I observe it and make that wave function collapse into solid matter.

Here's a good visualization, and explanation of de Broglier waves:

www.youtube.com...