Originally posted by Geoffrey Haselhurst Hi Everyone,
I agree that the wave structure of matter needs to be better presented.
Three quick points though.
1. This is the most simple science foundation for describing reality - clearly important as Occam's razor is central to science.
i.e. Physics evolved from Newton's mechanics, which has absolute space and time, and motion is ...[text shortened]... efully better quality.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/philosophy/letter-to-philosophers.htm
Did you create your account just to say this?
Are you not here to play chess?
Originally posted by Geoffrey Haselhurst 3. Should we take this seriously? Well you can test it easily enough. We know for relative motion that you get a de Broglie wave (quantum physics) and a relativistic mass increase (Einstein's special relativity).
So do the maths for the relative motion of two spherical standing waves. Guess what?
You get exactly these two things. Anyone can confirm this - it is simple maths of Doppler shifts.
You want to be taken seriously? Come up with a prediction that contradicts current theories, and that can be tested.
Hi All,
I do play chess - one of the great games - and shows that logic exists in the universe.
The Wave Structure of Matter explains why / how this logic exists - as waves behave logically.
I found this post because I get Google alerts for certain terms - wave structure of matter is one of them - so I joined to say hi, add a few comments.
It is not really necessary to deduce new things - the existing laws of nature have been determined over several hundred years and the wave structure of matter deduces them.
To ignore this would be silly / and contradictory to the principle of Occam's razor, the most simple foundation that explains the most things is the better science theory.
Having said that, obviously people are very skeptical of 'truth and reality' so deducing something new would be useful.
Two things I am aware of;
1. The motion of distant galaxies should behave as if they are surrounded by matter - as in WSM every wave center particle is at the center of its Hubble sphere (observable universe) within infinite space.
See cosmology pages;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm
2. EPR. The nonlocality is due to the de Broglie phase wave, whose velocity is c^2 / relative velocity. So maybe it is possible to do this experiment where the relative velocity between emitter and absorber is high so the phase wave velocity is low and can be measured.
What WSM really needs is people much smarter than me thinking about it - there must be many things that can be done to test if an electron is really just a spherical standing wave in space.
I am away for a while - so any more replies may be late!
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Forgive me for being dense, but why is that a requirement? Perhaps this WSM thing is just a way of tightening things up.
OK, fair enough, it could be a formulation that is identical to current theories. In which case it's nice, but not exactly revolutionary.
If it actually contradicts current theories, though, then it's (potentially) a lot more important. But then we need to be able to test this.
WSM in Space
20 Jun '08 14:04
Back to Top