This thread is intended for the discussion of Milo Wolff's theory "The Wave Structure of Matter". Releated topics would be, the wave structure of the other "particles", action at a distance, EPR, etc.
A paper reprinted from Galilean Electrodynamics 6 No. 5, October 1995
pages 83-91 (updated 15 May 1998) is linked here:Beyond the Point Particle - A Wave Structure For the Electron .
The Abstract:
Abstract. The dual particle/wave nature of the electron has long been a paradox in physics. It is now seen that the electron consists entirely of a structure of spherical waves whose behavior creates their particle-like appearance. The correctness of this structure is supported by the physical laws which originate from this wave structure, including quantum theory, special relativity, electric force, gravity, and magnetism. This type of structure is termed a Space Resonance.
Other papers include:
The Physical Origin of Electron Spin
The Abstract:
It is shown how the spin of the electron and other charged particles arises out of the quantum wave structure of matter. Spin is a result of spherical rotation in quantum space of the inward (advanced) spherical quantum wave of an electron at the electron center in order to become the outward (retarded) wave. Wave rotation is required to maintain proper phase relations of the wave amplitudes. The spherical rotation, a unique property of 3-D space, can be described using SU(2) group theory algebra. In the SU(2) algebra, the inward and outward waves of the charged particle are the elements of a Dirac spinor wave function. Thus all charged particles satisfy the Dirac Equation.
The Origin of Instantaneous Action in Natural Laws
The Abstract:
In the last millennium we learned that objects obey fixed laws of nature. Until the last decade, these laws have been entirely empirical; that is, the laws were measured properties of nature, no theoretical or physical origin was known. These measurements indicated that the movement of energy and information, which are needed to carry out the laws, travel consistently at the speed of light. This motion satisfied our rule of causality; that is: Events always occur after their causes.
However, some events have annoyingly seemed to violate the rule of causality. Certain forces and events seem to be transmitted instantaneously. These events are the transmission of energy and information which are related to the gravitational force, the magnetic force, inertial force, and relatively new phenomena termed "The EPR Effect " (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) and the Mossbauer Effect.
It is the purpose of this article to explain the origin and cause of the strange instantaneous events associated with these laws. We will show that causality is not actually being violated. Instead, the strange events are merely appearances, "shaumkamm" in the words of Irwin Schroedinger. They were created by our former incomplete knowledge of the Wave Structure of Matter and of the energy exchange mechanism of quantum wave structures. All communication is actually at velocity c.
In order to understand this it is first necessary to review the origin of the natural laws and the newly developed Wave Structure of Matter, because the cause of these events lies in this wave structure and the medium of the waves.Without this preliminary review, instantaneous action cannot be explained. The Wave Structure of Matter is an exciting frontier of science which reveals the connectedness of all matter in the universe. It provides new understanding of quantum events and unravels many puzzles, including that of instantaneous action
Origin of the Natural Laws in a Binary Universe
The Abstract:
The great philosophers of cosmology, Clifford, Mach, Einstein, Wyle, Dirac, Schroedinger, have pointed out that only a wave structure of matter (particles) can conform to experimental data and fulfill the logic of reality and cosmology. This Quantum Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) has been found and is the origin of the natural laws. Since the WSM provides a quantitative origin of the fundamental natural laws, it becomes the basis of physical sciences.
Only three basic Principles of Nature determine the wave medium and enable quantitative calculation of the WSM and the origin of the natural laws. The medium of the waves is space. The properties of particles and the laws embedded in them are derived from the properties of space. This single entity, described by three principles, underlies everything. For the electron, the structure is a pair of spherical outward and inward quantum waves, convergent to a center, existing in ordinary space and termed a space resonance. Every space resonance shares its binary wave structure pair with all others in our universe. Thus we exist in an inter-connected binary universe.
The predictive power of the WSM shows how the electron's wave pair is the physical origin of the previously unknown quantum spin. These two waves are a Dirac spinor satisfying the theoretical Dirac Equation. Spin occurs because the inward quantum wave continually undergoes spherical rotation at the center transforming to the outward wave.� The significance of the WSM on �communication, life, and our connection with the binary universe is discussed.
There are other papers as well, on his web site http://www.quantummatter.com/index.htm
Please read through these and give your comments, they do a very good job at using a simple approach to the complexities and shortcomings of current theories.
TRoc
All,
The best I can find for a "biography" on Mr. Wolff is this:
".. a physicist, astronomer, and explorer of the wondrous cosmology of the universe. I have worked for MIT, Aerospace Corporation, the United Nations, as well as taught at various universities in the USA and Asia. I urge you to join the exciting and fascinating exploration of matter, the natural laws, and the universe. "
Also forgot the link to his most recent (2005) paper, which is very good:
Einstein’s Last Question
TRoc
The best I can find for a "biography" on Mr. Wolff is this:
".. a physicist, astronomer, and explorer of the wondrous cosmology of the universe. I have worked for MIT, Aerospace Corporation, the United Nations, as well as taught at various universities in the USA and Asia. I urge you to join the exciting and fascinating exploration of matter, the natural laws, and the universe. "
Also forgot the link to his most recent (2005) paper, which is very good:
Einstein’s Last Question
TRoc
troc.. or?
I am still learning all this stuff. <electrons> why does our chemistry book only say <x10e-18 for the size? Why cant we see how big itis?
I read the paper " Einstein’s Last Question" , but that was all. if he didn't understand the electron then how can we? why is it so hard??
anna
I am still learning all this stuff. <electrons> why does our chemistry book only say <x10e-18 for the size? Why cant we see how big itis?
I read the paper " Einstein’s Last Question" , but that was all. if he didn't understand the electron then how can we? why is it so hard??
anna
Hi TRoc,
First... I have not read all of Milo Wolff's Papers. Just the one on spin. This is "brilliant".
This guy is very interesting. He has a very similar concept to the one I have except that it is inside out. He has used quantum expectation values whereas I have opted for "strings" producing waves and those waves are stresses in space-time (electromagnetism). In my view the space will be inside out on the particle's interior and the "electron" spins at the speed of light on its periphery as do all strings. This confines the electron (or trapped photon) by closing space around it (length contraction in a tangential direction but not radially). This asymmetry leads to SU(2) symmetry.
The same SU(2) symmetry is created using Special and General Relativity. This is now viewed as a "phase rotation" out of the 3D + T "hyperplane" rather than the conventional concept of "relativistic length contraction", sort of an Einsteinian form of Pythagoras's Theorem. Here the "space-time goes around an internal corner" foreshortening it's projection in the first 3-space in the tangential direction near the radius of the particle. It then does exactly the same thing in the next 3-space and then it does it again in the third 3-space bringing it back into the original space except that it is now "inverted" (anti-commutation). There is a critical phase relationship there. It then needs to do this whole operation again to return the particle (or any particle under SU(2) symmetry) to its original state. Good old Dirac's Party Trick (or Balinese Candle Dancers). This involves higher dimensions for one good reason ... confinement. Wolff quotes "scalar quantum waves" and uses quantities that are not measurables of the system. This might not be necessary. The confinement I am using is purely "pocket" dimensional and in higher dimensions since the confinement will not work in 3D + T (too stiff).
Everything else he said is pretty right except when he said the spin came from the structure of space in my theory it come from the spin on the brane of our Universe scaled to the particle size, the same for all particles. This then becomes the de Broglie's postulate. I would like you to see the paper posted by Zephir. This is a discussion of how the particle (any particle) can "spin" conventionally. Exceptionally "good" refcerence by Zephir. This is one of the aspects of how this phenomenon can manifest and tie into both Wolff's ideas and into mine (perhaps into Zephir's as well but he will need to explain). Somewhere in there is the correct theory of all particles. Once that is fully understood the nature of the quantum will be known.
Please look here...
Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ? : Good Elf
I will want comments...
I have had one by Zephir but I wish he would "spell it out" about the points he is making... The discussion about the "Luminiferous Aether" is simply a distraction from this issue. The main game has always been spin as presented by de Broglie resulting in and from mass and it's ultimate nature. In my case I believe it is spin in the higher six dimensions in the particle brane.
Cheers
First... I have not read all of Milo Wolff's Papers. Just the one on spin. This is "brilliant".
This guy is very interesting. He has a very similar concept to the one I have except that it is inside out. He has used quantum expectation values whereas I have opted for "strings" producing waves and those waves are stresses in space-time (electromagnetism). In my view the space will be inside out on the particle's interior and the "electron" spins at the speed of light on its periphery as do all strings. This confines the electron (or trapped photon) by closing space around it (length contraction in a tangential direction but not radially). This asymmetry leads to SU(2) symmetry.
The same SU(2) symmetry is created using Special and General Relativity. This is now viewed as a "phase rotation" out of the 3D + T "hyperplane" rather than the conventional concept of "relativistic length contraction", sort of an Einsteinian form of Pythagoras's Theorem. Here the "space-time goes around an internal corner" foreshortening it's projection in the first 3-space in the tangential direction near the radius of the particle. It then does exactly the same thing in the next 3-space and then it does it again in the third 3-space bringing it back into the original space except that it is now "inverted" (anti-commutation). There is a critical phase relationship there. It then needs to do this whole operation again to return the particle (or any particle under SU(2) symmetry) to its original state. Good old Dirac's Party Trick (or Balinese Candle Dancers). This involves higher dimensions for one good reason ... confinement. Wolff quotes "scalar quantum waves" and uses quantities that are not measurables of the system. This might not be necessary. The confinement I am using is purely "pocket" dimensional and in higher dimensions since the confinement will not work in 3D + T (too stiff).
Everything else he said is pretty right except when he said the spin came from the structure of space in my theory it come from the spin on the brane of our Universe scaled to the particle size, the same for all particles. This then becomes the de Broglie's postulate. I would like you to see the paper posted by Zephir. This is a discussion of how the particle (any particle) can "spin" conventionally. Exceptionally "good" refcerence by Zephir. This is one of the aspects of how this phenomenon can manifest and tie into both Wolff's ideas and into mine (perhaps into Zephir's as well but he will need to explain). Somewhere in there is the correct theory of all particles. Once that is fully understood the nature of the quantum will be known.
Please look here...
Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ? : Good Elf
I will want comments...
I have had one by Zephir but I wish he would "spell it out" about the points he is making... The discussion about the "Luminiferous Aether" is simply a distraction from this issue. The main game has always been spin as presented by de Broglie resulting in and from mass and it's ultimate nature. In my case I believe it is spin in the higher six dimensions in the particle brane.Cheers
Hi TRoc,
I think there is the acknowledgment of a problem of "confinement" with this theory in the section... "Matter Waves and Buddhist Thought - Explaining Tetrode and the EPR Effect". There it is still a mystery to everyone how the waves know to return to the origin. I think this point is covered quite well in my explanation which has extra dimensions in a dimensionally closed space. Of course (except for the extra dimensions and strings) it is a conventional view of confined space and also the effects of sources as well. You can be "stubborn" and only accept the "pure quantum view" of the process... "shut up and calculate". It will not lead to any new physics though!
Matter Waves and Buddhist Thought - Explaining Tetrode and the EPR Effect : Milo Wolff
Comments welcome...
Cheers
I think there is the acknowledgment of a problem of "confinement" with this theory in the section... "Matter Waves and Buddhist Thought - Explaining Tetrode and the EPR Effect". There it is still a mystery to everyone how the waves know to return to the origin. I think this point is covered quite well in my explanation which has extra dimensions in a dimensionally closed space. Of course (except for the extra dimensions and strings) it is a conventional view of confined space and also the effects of sources as well. You can be "stubborn" and only accept the "pure quantum view" of the process... "shut up and calculate". It will not lead to any new physics though!
Matter Waves and Buddhist Thought - Explaining Tetrode and the EPR Effect : Milo Wolff
Comments welcome...
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 27 2006, 10:47 AM)
There it is still a mystery to everyone how the waves know to return to the origin
Not for everyone at all - it's a simple quantum effect. The Aether Wave Theory has some similar points with the Wolff's wave structure of matter, of course, as it supposes, all particles are formed by the interference of graviton waves with it own density field. This leads to the gravity lens effect - the waves are spreading like wave pockets, concentrating itself at the certain place.
Such autofocusation effect is selfprounounced by such a way, the so called total reflection occurs by such a way, the wave spreading separates itself from its neighborhood and it will become behave like particles. I'm missing such explanation in Wolff's wave pocket formation mechanism, as it's structure is supposed ad-hoc, it seems.
Furthermore, such effect is recursive, the field can be considered to be formed by the waves of such particles, forming a tiny internal structure of electron (after all, such density field is neccessary to explain the autofocusation effect itself - the wave in fully homogeneous environment doesn't behave like Rayleigh wave). Such electron isn't homogeneous, but it contains a dense core formed by the gauge bosons wave pocket interactions. This gives a electron a recursive structure of multiple wounded quantum loop (.e. the nested toroidal dualities), the field particles are making a multiple wounded spiral motion inside it (see the schematic picture at the right). It means, the internal structure of electron should be slightly more complex than Dr. Milo Wolff's supposes, as it exhibits both the leptonic, bot the EMG charges at the same time.
Not for everyone at all - it's a simple quantum effect. The Aether Wave Theory has some similar points with the Wolff's wave structure of matter, of course, as it supposes, all particles are formed by the interference of graviton waves with it own density field. This leads to the gravity lens effect - the waves are spreading like wave pockets, concentrating itself at the certain place.
Such autofocusation effect is selfprounounced by such a way, the so called total reflection occurs by such a way, the wave spreading separates itself from its neighborhood and it will become behave like particles. I'm missing such explanation in Wolff's wave pocket formation mechanism, as it's structure is supposed ad-hoc, it seems.
Furthermore, such effect is recursive, the field can be considered to be formed by the waves of such particles, forming a tiny internal structure of electron (after all, such density field is neccessary to explain the autofocusation effect itself - the wave in fully homogeneous environment doesn't behave like Rayleigh wave). Such electron isn't homogeneous, but it contains a dense core formed by the gauge bosons wave pocket interactions. This gives a electron a recursive structure of multiple wounded quantum loop (.e. the nested toroidal dualities), the field particles are making a multiple wounded spiral motion inside it (see the schematic picture at the right). It means, the internal structure of electron should be slightly more complex than Dr. Milo Wolff's supposes, as it exhibits both the leptonic, bot the EMG charges at the same time.
Anna, Good Elf, Zephir:
I can not give you a "text book" answer.
The answer lies somewhere between "technical limitations" and "theoretical expectations" leading to different ways to interpret the empirical data.
Terms like "rest mass" of a "particle" that is neither a "little piece of something" nor ever "at rest" are the beginning of a mental journey to nowhere.
I should point out that Einstein thought the same (lack of clarity) for defining the "photon". Yet this mans' theory of the photoelectric effect holds a defining position in the current state of understanding.
The combination of the photoelectric theory by Einstein, and the "solution" to the black body radiation curve problem (not being definable by classical theory) by Planck, has had tragic consequences for Science.
Planck postulated that energy only comes in discreet quantities, founding quantum theory. Nowhere in this quantum theory does it predict "combinations of jumps", or taking more than one step at a time. E = hf strictly means that if energy in to be measured in quantums, then frequency, wavelength, mass, etc., must ALL do so as well. They are all "married" by the equations that produce them. (the same has been said about "strings"; if 1 thing is a string, then everything is a string)
While Placks postulate avoids "UV catastrophe", and can describe the unique "curve" of the energy measurement from a radiating blackbody, it does not explain why "h" would cause this. It does not explain the JUMP that the spectrum of frequencies takes from yellow to cyan without ever radiating "green". This is a fatal flaw in the postulate; it matches the equation that was made to define it, but does NOT match the of reality of what happens.
The problem is then confounded by "wave equations" based on standing wave resonances for the electron, but then it "asked" by Science to produce a location for a "particle". Finally, "probabilities" were invoked to reduce the argument to "numbers", rather than our reality. The term wave / particle "duality" was created to mystify the explanation; there is no rationale behind the concept of a wave being the dualistic opposite of a particle. It is like saying that water is dualistic to a rock. The state change between a solid to a liquid is a much better explanation. You have to keep SOMETHING similar to maintain the definition of duality. The H2o molecule changes state from liquid to solid, while retaining the deeper meaning of H2o molecule; that is a duality.
In the end, "densities" is the right approach to the answer. Spherical wave amplitudes provide the commonality of the mass / energy duality. The quadrupole oscillations of a spherical wave entities will always produce a 90 deg relationship between dualistic density readings, measured by electric and magnetic techniques. We have NO OTHER way to measure than by vibrations: either light/photons or mass/electrons. If we continue to IGNORE the principles of what causes resonance, we can not find the "simple" answer.
This whole journey can be turned back to the point where we became mesmerized by the movement of a vibrating string of a violin. Disregarding the functional wave front theory of Euler, Science went down a mathematical path that blurred cause and effect. At no point, did Science search in ernst for the obvious question of how an unlimited # of vibrating strings could be "mixed" and produce the resonance of Euler's wave front. At no point, did anybody question the state of the electrons in the vibrating string, causing the very specific vibrations to the electrons in the chaotic state of "air", effecting the equilibrium state of the electrons in our ears (or any electron based devise) exactly matched Huygens "spherical-integral". Instead they went for linear based equations of the bound-at-2-points string, leading to playing with infinities. The electron's spherical wave is a limitation in itself, and all of the resonances and harmonics of that wave are limited mathematically; these mathematical limitations mysteriously show sound and light to be dualistic in nature, and our biological state defines their separation. Certainly, we are made of the same groups of vibrations, based on this limited scale of resonances, as are all of our measuring devices.
Wolff's theory is a good beginning, but not "the holy grail". We need to pick and choose from all of the good ideas, and build something.
TRoc
I can not give you a "text book" answer.
The answer lies somewhere between "technical limitations" and "theoretical expectations" leading to different ways to interpret the empirical data.
Terms like "rest mass" of a "particle" that is neither a "little piece of something" nor ever "at rest" are the beginning of a mental journey to nowhere.
I should point out that Einstein thought the same (lack of clarity) for defining the "photon". Yet this mans' theory of the photoelectric effect holds a defining position in the current state of understanding.
The combination of the photoelectric theory by Einstein, and the "solution" to the black body radiation curve problem (not being definable by classical theory) by Planck, has had tragic consequences for Science.
Planck postulated that energy only comes in discreet quantities, founding quantum theory. Nowhere in this quantum theory does it predict "combinations of jumps", or taking more than one step at a time. E = hf strictly means that if energy in to be measured in quantums, then frequency, wavelength, mass, etc., must ALL do so as well. They are all "married" by the equations that produce them. (the same has been said about "strings"; if 1 thing is a string, then everything is a string)
While Placks postulate avoids "UV catastrophe", and can describe the unique "curve" of the energy measurement from a radiating blackbody, it does not explain why "h" would cause this. It does not explain the JUMP that the spectrum of frequencies takes from yellow to cyan without ever radiating "green". This is a fatal flaw in the postulate; it matches the equation that was made to define it, but does NOT match the of reality of what happens.
The problem is then confounded by "wave equations" based on standing wave resonances for the electron, but then it "asked" by Science to produce a location for a "particle". Finally, "probabilities" were invoked to reduce the argument to "numbers", rather than our reality. The term wave / particle "duality" was created to mystify the explanation; there is no rationale behind the concept of a wave being the dualistic opposite of a particle. It is like saying that water is dualistic to a rock. The state change between a solid to a liquid is a much better explanation. You have to keep SOMETHING similar to maintain the definition of duality. The H2o molecule changes state from liquid to solid, while retaining the deeper meaning of H2o molecule; that is a duality.
In the end, "densities" is the right approach to the answer. Spherical wave amplitudes provide the commonality of the mass / energy duality. The quadrupole oscillations of a spherical wave entities will always produce a 90 deg relationship between dualistic density readings, measured by electric and magnetic techniques. We have NO OTHER way to measure than by vibrations: either light/photons or mass/electrons. If we continue to IGNORE the principles of what causes resonance, we can not find the "simple" answer.
This whole journey can be turned back to the point where we became mesmerized by the movement of a vibrating string of a violin. Disregarding the functional wave front theory of Euler, Science went down a mathematical path that blurred cause and effect. At no point, did Science search in ernst for the obvious question of how an unlimited # of vibrating strings could be "mixed" and produce the resonance of Euler's wave front. At no point, did anybody question the state of the electrons in the vibrating string, causing the very specific vibrations to the electrons in the chaotic state of "air", effecting the equilibrium state of the electrons in our ears (or any electron based devise) exactly matched Huygens "spherical-integral". Instead they went for linear based equations of the bound-at-2-points string, leading to playing with infinities. The electron's spherical wave is a limitation in itself, and all of the resonances and harmonics of that wave are limited mathematically; these mathematical limitations mysteriously show sound and light to be dualistic in nature, and our biological state defines their separation. Certainly, we are made of the same groups of vibrations, based on this limited scale of resonances, as are all of our measuring devices.
Wolff's theory is a good beginning, but not "the holy grail". We need to pick and choose from all of the good ideas, and build something.
TRoc
Good Elf & Zephir,
I suppose my last post did not address either of yours well enough, so I will add a little more.
Good Elf
I have to agree with Zephir here, although for different reasons, I'm sure. The highest energy portion of the spherical wave returning by reflection to the source via the same angle (90 w/spin) after phase change. That is very basic. It becomes a little more difficult to picture or compute ALL such interchanges with ALL wave centers over CONSTANT time; it must be looked at as an equilibrium state.
What I just said also begins to address Zephir's
I have to agree with Zephir here, although for different reasons, I'm sure. The highest energy portion of the spherical wave returning by reflection to the source via the same angle (90 w/spin) after phase change. That is very basic. It becomes a little more difficult to picture or compute ALL such interchanges with ALL wave centers over CONSTANT time; it must be looked at as an equilibrium state.
What I just said also begins to address Zephir's It means, the internal structure of electron should be slightly more complex than Dr. Milo Wolff's supposes, as it exhibits both the leptonic, bot the EMG charges at the same time.
The picture/diagram that was included, as is much of the explanation and subsequent math, in the paper, was intended for a SINGLE electron, while clearly stating that this would only be the most simple perspective possible, and that everything gets exponentially complex from there. It is only by having "accepted" parameters for the size of the Universe and the total # of "particles" in the Universe, that allows for the proof of his claim via the typical 2nd Law of Thermodynamics philosophy: just the beginning and end states are of importance in describing an interacting system.
BTW, I did read Zephir's linked article, and thought it to be very good. As usual, I think that it supports my theory more than either of yours, and it is obvious that you both feel the same way. So, here are 3 guys with 3 different explanations, each intelligent enough to see merit enough in the others' theory, yet each having invested enough to be holding tightly to "labels" that give definition to said theories, and in the end, the 3 go "nowhere" collectively.
Zephir:
Perhaps you have seen the Earthquake predictions I have made (w/roughly 80% accuracy) using this principle with Alvfen waves and bow shocks coming from the Sun and "lensing" in our magnetosphere? Just some "crude" calculations by hand, and using far too little real-time data, and I have done better than any geologist concentrating on the non-conservational idea of the Earth "generating" its' own "energy". Obviously, I agree with your idea, as it pertains to G-waves.
TRoc
I suppose my last post did not address either of yours well enough, so I will add a little more.
Good Elf
QUOTE
The main game has always been spin as presented by de Broglie resulting in and from mass and it's ultimate nature. ... There it is still a mystery to everyone how the waves know to return to the origin. "
I have to agree with Zephir here, although for different reasons, I'm sure. The highest energy portion of the spherical wave returning by reflection to the source via the same angle (90 w/spin) after phase change. That is very basic. It becomes a little more difficult to picture or compute ALL such interchanges with ALL wave centers over CONSTANT time; it must be looked at as an equilibrium state.
What I just said also begins to address Zephir's
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The main game has always been spin as presented by de Broglie resulting in and from mass and it's ultimate nature. ... There it is still a mystery to everyone how the waves know to return to the origin. " |
I have to agree with Zephir here, although for different reasons, I'm sure. The highest energy portion of the spherical wave returning by reflection to the source via the same angle (90 w/spin) after phase change. That is very basic. It becomes a little more difficult to picture or compute ALL such interchanges with ALL wave centers over CONSTANT time; it must be looked at as an equilibrium state.
What I just said also begins to address Zephir's It means, the internal structure of electron should be slightly more complex than Dr. Milo Wolff's supposes, as it exhibits both the leptonic, bot the EMG charges at the same time.
The picture/diagram that was included, as is much of the explanation and subsequent math, in the paper, was intended for a SINGLE electron, while clearly stating that this would only be the most simple perspective possible, and that everything gets exponentially complex from there. It is only by having "accepted" parameters for the size of the Universe and the total # of "particles" in the Universe, that allows for the proof of his claim via the typical 2nd Law of Thermodynamics philosophy: just the beginning and end states are of importance in describing an interacting system.
BTW, I did read Zephir's linked article, and thought it to be very good. As usual, I think that it supports my theory more than either of yours, and it is obvious that you both feel the same way. So, here are 3 guys with 3 different explanations, each intelligent enough to see merit enough in the others' theory, yet each having invested enough to be holding tightly to "labels" that give definition to said theories, and in the end, the 3 go "nowhere" collectively.
Zephir:
QUOTE
.. all particles are formed by the interference of graviton waves with it own density field. This leads to the gravity lens effect - the waves are spreading like wave pockets, concentrating itself at the certain place."
Perhaps you have seen the Earthquake predictions I have made (w/roughly 80% accuracy) using this principle with Alvfen waves and bow shocks coming from the Sun and "lensing" in our magnetosphere? Just some "crude" calculations by hand, and using far too little real-time data, and I have done better than any geologist concentrating on the non-conservational idea of the Earth "generating" its' own "energy". Obviously, I agree with your idea, as it pertains to G-waves.
TRoc
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.