Gravity Propulsion Drive

[Aqueous Id]

The wave function as it is used in this case is a function of probablilty and a way to calculate that probablilty, nothing more. It is used to measure the universe, not explain why it does what it does.

This comports with your scenario that a painting of an explosion doesn't cause an explosion, and any number of similar comparisons. This idea that there's something magic about FM, or that ludicrous modulation rates (10[sup]25[/sup] Hz/s) actually cause something unnatural to occur, are similar. It's as if sci-fi can't be distinguished from science, since now every property of a real object can be synthesized in order to create the object itself as if all of reality if made of transforms that are not only reversible, they accept data on our side and "generate" causation back into reality somehow - as if by magic. It reminds me of alchemy in which something real is synthesized out of some secret process (like gold out of water).

 

[Mazulu]

The wave function as it is used in this case is a function of probablilty and a way to calculate that probablilty, nothing more. It is used to measure the universe, not explain why it does what it does.

This comports with your scenario that a painting of an explosion doesn't cause an explosion, and any number of similar comparisons. This idea that there's something magic about FM, or that ludicrous modulation rates (10[sup]25[/sup] Hz/s) actually cause something unnatural to occur, are similar. It's as if sci-fi can't be distinguished from science, since now every property of a real object can be synthesized in order to create the object itself as if all of reality if made of transforms that are not only reversible, they accept data on our side and "generate" causation back into reality somehow - as if by magic. It reminds me of alchemy in which something real is synthesized out of some secret process (like gold out of water).

Chemistry evolved from alchemy; the quest to turn lead (base metals) into gold was finally understood when we discovered that we had to change the components of the nucleus (82 protons to 79). The downside is that it costs more to make gold from lead than just to dig it out of the ground.

All of reality is made out waves, not transforms. Atoms can be modeled with wave-functions, they look like this. This interpretation (hypothesis) satisfies Occam's razor. Thus ultimately, everything, matter, light, space-time itself is composed of waves.

If not? Then how do you explain particle-wave duality? How do you explain the 2 slit diffraction experiment? How does light itself propagate without something to propagate in?

 

[sigurdV]

Chemistry evolved from alchemy; the quest to turn lead (base metals) into gold was finally understood when we discovered that we had to change the components of the nucleus (82 protons to 79). The downside is that it costs more to make gold from lead than just to dig it out of the ground.

All of reality is made out waves, not transforms. Atoms can be modeled with wave-functions, they look like this. This interpretation (hypothesis) satisfies Occam's razor. Thus ultimately, everything, matter, light, space-time itself is composed of waves.

If not? Then how do you explain particle-wave duality? How do you explain the 2 slit diffraction experiment? How does light itself propagate without something to propagate in?

I gave you a tip there...

 

[Mazulu]

I gave you a tip there...

I looked at that website. QM is a perfectly good explanation for observed phenomena.

 

[Mazulu]

Virtual photons are the carriers of electromagnetism, of Maxwell's equations. Why do virtual photons exists if space is not filled with waves?

We take light for granted. You couldn't even see your monitor or keyboard if it was not for light. Light has characteristics like permitivity and permeability (which scale the strength of the electirc and magnetic fields). Light is an oscillating electromagnetic field that looks like this. Those sure do look like waves to me.

If physicists created the laws of physics, they would say: Let there be light ... and nothing would happen. Why? Because they failed to create anything that supports the characteristics of light. They failed to create any kind of a medium that propagates light. Physicists think that photons are stand alone objects. But they are wrong. If photons were stand alone objects that didn't need a medium, they would look like spherical marbles. But photon is an electromagnetic wave. Physicists do need a medium to describe the laws of physics.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Photons are the phonons of the vacuum of space.

I know what photons and phonons are, thanks very much. The problem is I don't think you really understand any of this. Reading a Wikipedia page doesn't grant you a working understanding of quantum field theory and general relativity. If anything, it tends to delude people into thinking they do when in fact they are 5~10 years and thousands of hours of work away from such an understanding.

Given the extremely successful description of photons provided by quantum electrodynamics it's completely false to try to claim the behaviour of photons is evidence for some aether-like medium, since QED provides an accurate model without requiring such a medium. That isn't to say there isn't an aether model which can also describe them accurately, it's just presently there's no known example of such a thing, undermining your claim as being even more baseless.

Relativity tells us there is no absolute frame of reference and there is no absolute clock; I completely agree with that statement. But nobody said I couldn't subdivide the vacuum of space into all possible inertial reference frames between 0 and c.

You obviously don't know what an inertial frame is. I suggest you actually open a book on coordinate geometry, linear algebra and vector calculus and once you've got yourself a Freshman level understanding of those then you open a book on relativity. Until then you're making the daft attempt to tell me things I know about and you do not.

Each inertial reference frame must carry the full frequency bandwidth, from 0.1Hz to 10^27Hz (or higher).

Well done, you just demonstrated you don't understand what an inertial frame is.

That is what convinces me that each inertial frame is made of a medium that transmits the entire E&M bandwidth.

But then you're also convinced a god speaks to you.

Therefore, it makes sense that each inertial reference frame is made of waves of the form $$e^{i(kx - \omega t)}$$.

A reference frame isn't a thing in the same a brick or photon is a thing. A reference frame is a point of view, a way of formalising your description of things. It basically boils down to picking sets of coordinate labels for where and when things are. Relativity tells us that no matter how we pick such labels provided objects experiencing no external force are considered to be moving in a constant manner then the speed of light will always be seen to be c in any such frame. It also says the way in which we write down the equations which describe the behaviour of objects shouldn't depend on which such frame we arbitrarily decide to work in.

To boil it down to something extremely basic it's akin to saying "It doesn't where you started measuring from or when you started your clock, things should behave the same". Your description of a reference frame as if it is a physical thing, made of waves, is not only ridiculous but shows you have no problem making declarations about things you haven't bothered to find out about and check. You're deliberately ignorant and have no issue being dishonest about it.

But there is a caveat.

Yes, that you haven't got a clue.

I can assign an arbitrary Cartesian coordinate system in my inertial reference frame. I can look at the arbitrary point at x = 0. At this point, the plane waves of electromagnetism look like $$e^{-i\omega t}$$. But look here: if I'm describing the vacuum of space-time, then these waves equations must obey $$c = \frac{\omega}{k} $$, one for each frequency. So the wave equation I used at x = 0 is incomplete. It needs a whole set of wavelengths. For the x, y and z directions, ...

You have just enough information to delude yourself you understand.

I was getting some training on testing/troubleshooting spectrum analyzers the other day.

Please tell me you aren't in any capacity involved in scientific work? Your employer must have no standards at all.

Sorry, I got off track a little. I guess my point is that a molecule might recognize a single photon if the photon matches the molecule's energy gap E_gap = hf.

Clearly you're not even competent at your job because molecules don't have single energy gaps, they have a whole slew of them. I guess you slept through basic spectral theory.

Beyond that, I expect the whole frequency shift to excite, and be absorbed, by what could be interpreted as a graviton.

For which you have no evidence for. Simply making up things and using buzzwords doesn't mean you're saying something valid.

A graviton has never been detected before. But what if a graviton is something that can be excited by frequency shifting? Or perhaps cancelled out by a synthetic frequency shift.?

Or perhaps gravity doesn't exist and it's actually invisible fairies pushing things around?

Virtual photons are the carriers of electromagnetism, of Maxwell's equations. Why do virtual photons exists if space is not filled with waves?

Argument from ignorance : You don't know any other explanation therefore yours must be the correct one. An enormous logical fallacy. Clearly you haven't spent any time to understand QED and what virtual particles are, you've just jumped to "It's a medium!".

Firstly the reference frame has nothing to do with it, as photons are oscillations in the photon quantum field. And secondly a quantum field is not a medium like an aether. It has no notion of viscosity or shear stress or density, as well as being Lorentz invariant, something an aether wouldn't be. Length contract, via a Lorentz transform, a fluid and you increase it's density. Lorentz transform a quantum vacuum and nothing changes.

Do you like wasting your own time? Everything you put forth is immediately and easily retorted. And this isn't me using high level, postgraduate physics knowledge, this is stuff you can find out and understand using pretty basic mathematical physics knowledge.

We take light for granted. You couldn't even see your monitor or keyboard if it was not for light. Light has characteristics like permitivity and permeability (which scale the strength of the electirc and magnetic fields). Light is an oscillating electromagnetic field that looks like this.

Don't tar the rest of us with your brush of ignorance. The role photons play directly in our lives as well as the universe as a whole is something plenty of us physicists actually consider on a regular basis. You aren't providing new or disruptive thinking, you're just rehashing misunderstandings plenty of other internet hacks have had before you.

Those sure do look like waves to me.

Just because you haven't bothered to find out about quantum fields doesn't make your ignorant supposition valid.

If physicists created the laws of physics, they would say: Let there be light ... and nothing would happen. Why? Because they failed to create anything that supports the characteristics of light. They failed to create any kind of a medium that propagates light. Physicists think that photons are stand alone objects. But they are wrong. If photons were stand alone objects that didn't need a medium, they would look like spherical marbles. But photon is an electromagnetic wave. Physicists do need a medium to describe the laws of physics.

Thanks for proving you don't have any qualms about simply making up what you think physicists do, rather than finding out what they actually do and the work they produce.

Do you think being dishonest is going to somehow lead to people listening to you? Anyone with the slightest honest interest in quantum mechanics and relativity can find out you're mistaken about what physicists say and do and how physics works. Do you think if you misrepresent physics and physicists enough you'll rope enough people into listening to you that somehow you'll be taken seriously by the very people you misrepresent?

If you had something viable to say you wouldn't need to lie.

 

[Mazulu]

I know what photons and phonons are, thanks very much.

Oh good! Maybe you know a little solid state physics too. The vacuum of space is not a lattice, but we can make a few common sense observations from lattices. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do a mathematical derivation of the solid state crystal wave-function starting with Bragg's law. The crystal wave-function is calculated from the repeating pattern, the lattice of primitive or non primitive cells. With the wave-function of a crystal, I can calculate crystal vibrations of the optical and acoustic branches of the dispersion relationship for a diatomic linear lattice. Did you catch the part where I said wave-function? Wave-functions of the crystal are added together from the wave-functions of the cells which contain one or more atoms. Each of those atoms has energy shells which are described with: wave-functions.

3.2 Energy Bands by Fourier Analysis
This theory is based on direct Fourier analysis of the Schrodinger equation. Bloch's theorem tells us that the wave function can be written in the form,
$$\psi(\vec{k},\vec{r})=e^{i\vec k . \vec r}\sum_h A_{\vec K_h}e^{i\vec K_h . \vec r}$$

Crystals have conduction bands for electrons (holes), crystals transmit light of certain frequencies, crystals transmit photons, crystals have a range of momentum states and position states which remind us of a vacuum of space. Both crystals and the vacuum of space have characteristics that allow propagation of light and particles. But space is not a crystal. However, crystals have wave-functions. So maybe the vacuum is made of some other kind of wave-function?

Physicists say, "we don't need no stinkin' medium! Our physics model is just fine!" You keep jabbing at me about "voices", but let me tell you about wisdom. When God said, "Let there be light", there was a big bang. So why doesn't it work for physicists? A physicist writes his theories on a chalk board and says, "Let there be light!" But nothing happens. Why?

Genesis 1 verse 2: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Waters? What waters? Answer: the aether medium. The medium is made of waves. Something made of waves might be called: the waters. Why did God hover over the waters? Because He was telling the aether medium (made of waves) how to behave. You could even say he was programming the aether medium. So now, when God says, "Let there be light", the energy content of the big bang is taken from negative gravitational potential energy and ... BANG!!! You have your first Zero Energy Mechanism.

 

[AlexG]

Genesis 1 verse 2: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Waters? What waters? Answer: the aether medium. The medium is made of waves. Something made of waves might be called: the waters. Why did God hover over the waters? Because He was telling the aether medium (made of waves) how to behave. You could even say he was programming the aether medium. So now, when God says, "Let there be light", the energy content of the big bang is taken from negative gravitational potential energy and ... BANG!!! You have your first Zero Energy Mechanism.

God told Mazulu Himself, and God wouldn't lie, would he?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Oh good! Maybe you know a little solid state physics too.

I guess from the hints about how I work with the Schrodinger equation as a job were lost on you. I've a doctorate in physics, even taught quantum mechanics to undergrads.

The vacuum of space is not a lattice, but we can make a few common sense observations from lattices.

Despite the name common sense is not common and I don't think you have it.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do a mathematical derivation of the solid state crystal wave-function starting with Bragg's law.

You expect people to believe you can do that? I'm familiar with solid state crystalography, crystal lattices, dual lattices, wave function evolution passing through them.

With the wave-function of a crystal, I can calculate crystal vibrations of the optical and acoustic branches of the dispersion relationship for a diatomic linear lattice. Did you catch the part where I said wave-function? Wave-functions of the crystal are added together from the wave-functions of the cells which contain one or more atoms. Each of those atoms has energy shells which are described with: wave-functions.

Actually you calculate the scatterings not by mixing the wave functions of the lattice with the incoming wave function of a photon but by considering the photon moving in a potential with the symmetries of the lattice. Then you factorise the wave function to take into account the periodicity structure. Been there, done that.

None of that says space-time is made a wave functions, it means wave functions are defined on space-time. Specifically wave functions are a map from space-time to the complex numbers.

​

Crystals have conduction bands for electrons (holes), crystals transmit light of certain frequencies, crystals transmit photons, crystals have a range of momentum states and position states which remind us of a vacuum of space. Both crystals and the vacuum of space have characteristics that allow propagation of light and particles.

The crystal lattice is in space-time. Something moving through the lattice is moving through space-time while feeling the forces produced by the components of the lattice. Saying what you said is like saying people can drive through both Texas and America. No, Texas is in America, just as a crystal is in space-time.

What you've been saying, including how space-time is made of wave functions is like saying since cars can drive through Texas then Texas is made of cars. Wave functions can move through space-time but they don't form space-time. Things in space-time are not space-time.

But space is not a crystal. However, crystals have wave-functions. So maybe the vacuum is made of some other kind of wave-function?

The fact a wave function can move through space-time is not an argument to say space-time is made of wave functions, as my car analogy shows. If you take the quantum gravity approach then perhaps you could argue space-time is a seething mass of gravitons forming some ensemble construct and then the graviton wave functions are forming space-time. However, this is because one is taking a quantum gravity point of view, not your invalid "Photons have oscillations, they need a medium to oscillate, that medium is a space-time made of wave function!" argument.

Physicists say, "we don't need no stinkin' medium! Our physics model is just fine!"

I didn't say that. I said that because there's a working explanation for the wave-like behaviours of subatomic objects which doesn't involve a medium clearly the wave-like behaviours are not necessarily evidence for a medium. Only if you could prove all non-medium models are wrong would it then be evidence and you haven't done that. You also haven't shown a medium based theory can model reality.

You keep jabbing at me about "voices", but let me tell you about wisdom.

You're the one who claims to be getting his knowledge from god. Mental illness has nothing to do with wisdom. Making baseless assertions has nothing to do with wisdom. Anyone can make vapid assertions. Here, I'll make one up off the top of my head :

Tidal forces are due to the partial decoupling of quark Cooper pairs induced by a technicolour Higgs mechanism. Upon this occurring CPT violation occurs and an isospin current flows through the vacuum, resulting in gravitational fields obtaining conformally invariant curvature.

There, loads of buzzwords and an 'explanation' of tidal forces. Is it wisdom that I show or just the ability to mix and match words?

When God said, "Let there be light", there was a big bang.

You have no evidence that is true, there's no evidence for any deity. In fact if the Bible is taken literally then it is demonstrably false when it comes to Genesis. The early universe was completely different and certainly life didn't arise in the way Genesis describes. So either you believe God is a jack ass who modified the universe to look like it disagreed with his own word or you believe the Bible is to be taken metaphorically, not literally. If it's the former why should you trust anything he says to you, if you think he speaks to you? If it's the latter why should you trust anything in the Bible to be anywhere close to viable? Either way, the fact reality completely disagrees with the Bible's account of things undermines any argument you make based on "God said..." or "God did....". Would you accept it if someone said "Vishnu said...." or "Thor the Thunder God said....." or "The Invisible Pink Unicorn, sharp be Her horn, said...."? Not likely.

o why doesn't it work for physicists? A physicist writes his theories on a chalk board and says, "Let there be light!" But nothing happens. Why?

Because physicists don't have magic powers. Seriously, please tell me you're pretending to be that daft, that it's all an act, because otherwise you're just gone even more bat**** than before.

Genesis 1 verse 2: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Waters? What waters? Answer: the aether medium. The medium is made of waves. Something made of waves might be called: the waters. Why did God hover over the waters? Because He was telling the aether medium (made of waves) how to behave. You could even say he was programming the aether medium. So now, when God says, "Let there be light", the energy content of the big bang is taken from negative gravitational potential energy and ... BANG!!! You have your first Zero Energy Mechanism.

Wow. Just wow. Out of interest, do you have a job? I occasionally ask hacks here that question because occasionally they, you, say things which show such a profound detachment from reality and rationality that I find it hard to believe they, you, can function in the real world.

You really aren't in a position to lecture anyone, never mind me, about how science is done, quantum mechanics or wisdom. Your faith might have conned you into believing giving unjustified vapid, even contradicted, answers to questions is somehow 'wisdom' (after all, that's what pretty much every religion since time immemorial has done) but that isn't 'wisdom', it's delusion and dishonesty. I can understand a preacher trying to con people that way, to get some money in his collection plate, but it's just said that you are conning yourself.

 

[Mazulu]

AlphaNumeric,
You challenged whether I understood what a reference frame is. A reference frame is just an abstraction, an idea, a way to talk about a region of space. It could be a 3D space or a 4D space-time. So then you define a coordinate system in this reference frame, Cartesian, spherical, polar, whatever is convenient. There are two kinds of reference frames, inertial and accelerating. Inertial frames are in a constant state of motion; an accelerometer would read 0 acceration. If you're in a frame with a non zero accelerometer reading, it's an accelerated frame. Someone got the idea of inertial and accelerating reference frames from observing nature.

Likewise, wavefunctions are a mathematical tool. They are mathematical solutions to the Schrodinger equation. When the potential energy term is zero, you get nice easy plane waves. When V is not zero, the solutions are more challenging. DeBroglie and others got the idea of wave-functions by watching nature. Specifically, the electron paths around the nucleus.

More to follow...

 

[sigurdV]

AlphaNumeric,
You challenged whether I understood what a reference frame is. A reference frame is just an abstraction, an idea, a way to talk about a region of space. It could be a 3D space or a 4D space-time. So then you define a coordinate system in this reference frame, Cartesian, spherical, polar, whatever is convenient. There are two kinds of reference frames, inertial and accelerating. Inertial frames are in a constant state of motion; an accelerometer would read 0 acceration. If you're in a frame with a non zero accelerometer reading, it's an accelerated frame. Someone got the idea of inertial and accelerating reference frames from observing nature.

Likewise, wavefunctions are a mathematical tool. They are mathematical solutions to the Schrodinger equation. When the potential energy term is zero, you get nice easy plane waves. When V is not zero, the solutions are more challenging. DeBroglie and others got the idea of wave-functions by watching nature. Specifically, the electron paths around the nucleus.

More to follow...

Hi! Er... "Frame" was mentioned and it struck me: Perhaps you could tell me if the age of the universe is relative to the frame one happen to be in or not? Im just a poor logician waiting for the experts to clarify the question. Thank you.

 

[Mazulu]

I guess from the hints about how I work with the Schrodinger equation as a job were lost on you. I've a doctorate in physics, even taught quantum mechanics to undergrads.

Yes, you've said as much many times. But I haven't seen you demonstrate your knowledge. For all I know, you could be a fast food worker. Please amaze me with your knowledge.:shrug:

Actually you calculate the scatterings not by mixing the wave functions of the lattice with the incoming wave function of a photon but by considering the photon moving in a potential with the symmetries of the lattice. Then you factorise the wave function to take into account the periodicity structure. Been there, done that.

That's better. OK, I believe you have some knowledge.

None of that says space-time is made a wave functions, it means wave functions are defined on space-time. Specifically wave functions are a map from space-time to the complex numbers.

The crystal lattice is in space-time. Something moving through the lattice is moving through space-time while feeling the forces produced by the components of the lattice. Saying what you said is like saying people can drive through both Texas and America. No, Texas is in America, just as a crystal is in space-time.

What you've been saying, including how space-time is made of wave functions is like saying since cars can drive through Texas then Texas is made of cars. Wave functions can move through space-time but they don't form space-time. Things in space-time are not space-time.

The fact a wave function can move through space-time is not an argument to say space-time is made of wave functions, as my car analogy shows. If you take the quantum gravity approach then perhaps you could argue space-time is a seething mass of gravitons forming some ensemble construct and then the graviton wave functions are forming space-time. However, this is because one is taking a quantum gravity point of view, not your invalid "Photons have oscillations, they need a medium to oscillate, that medium is a space-time made of wave function!" argument.

Physicists say, "we don't need no stinkin' medium! Our physics model is just fine!"

I didn't say that. I said that because there's a working explanation for the wave-like behaviours of subatomic objects which doesn't involve a medium clearly the wave-like behaviours are not necessarily evidence for a medium. Only if you could prove all non-medium models are wrong would it then be evidence and you haven't done that. You also haven't shown a medium based theory can model reality.

That's what I wanted to hear. So you do entertain the possibility that a medium of some kind exists. But you want proof that it exists. So do I. But I don't see how direct proof is possible.

So you don't have proof. What you do have an a physics model that leaves unanswered questions. I'll list them:
1. Particle-wave duality. How can something be both a wave and a particle?
2. Relativity experts tell us that the speed of light is invariant for all reference frames, inertial and accelerating. How is this possible?
3. Invariance of c leads to time dilation and length contraction. How does nature keep time? How does nature measure distance? In other words, what is the mechansim?
4. How does empty space uphold the characteristics of light? Permitivity, permeability, invariant speed, bandwidth?

Without a medium, how do you answer these questions?

I tried to emphasize the need for a medium, a medium that upholds the characteristics of light, but you had a knee jerk reaction to god(s) and all that.

 

[arfa brane]

1. Particle-wave duality. How can something be both a wave and a particle?

"Easy". It's a wave when it looks like a wave, and a particle when it looks like a particle. The ontological aspect is irrelevant because the model works very well.

2. Relativity experts tell us that the speed of light is invariant for all reference frames, inertial and accelerating. How is this possible?

The measured speed of light, you mean. So how is it possible to measure this invariant speed in all frames?

3. Invariance of c leads to time dilation and length contraction. How does nature keep time?

It doesn't, clocks do.

How does nature measure distance?

Again, it doesn't, rulers do that.

In other words, what is the mechansim?

If clocks and rulers are "natural" devices (used by humans who are part of nature), then we and our clocks and rulers are the mechanism.

4. How does empty space uphold the characteristics of light? Permitivity, permeability, invariant speed, bandwidth?

Although I'm no physicist, I understand there's a way to treat space as a perfectly homogenous fluid with zero viscosity, a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Statistically, that means every part of the vacuum has the same microstate. Or something.

 

[Mazulu]

"Easy". It's a wave when it looks like a wave, and a particle when it looks like a particle. The ontological aspect is irrelevant because the model works very well.

Not good enough.

The measured speed of light, you mean. So how is it possible to measure this invariant speed in all frames?

It doesn't, clocks do. Again, it doesn't, rulers do that.

If nature doesn't keep track of time or distance, then what keeps the planets from floating away, away from the sun? Why is Alpha Centauri always 3 lightyears away (or whatever the actual distance is)? Why can't it be 3 feet away?

If clocks and rulers are "natural" devices (used by humans who are part of nature), then we and our clocks and rulers are the mechanism.
Although I'm no physicist, I understand there's a way to treat space as a perfectly homogenous fluid with zero viscosity, a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Statistically, that means every part of the vacuum has the same microstate. Or something.

Atomic clocks rely upon photon frequency emissions of Caesium (and other elements) with known bandgaps between energy levels. E_gap = hf. Since the speed of light is always $$c = \lambda f$$, then frequency can potentially be used as a clock (nature's clock or our clock), and wavelength can be used as a measuring stick (nature's or ours).

Have you ever heard of Murphy's law? If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. Have you ever heard the carpenters saying, "measure twice, cut once". The laws of nature are orderly. Mother nature makes it look easy because there are measuring sticks and clocks (frequency and wavelength) everywhere.

If nature didn't make careful measurements, the universe would be sloppy.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Chemistry evolved from alchemy; the quest to turn lead (base metals) into gold was finally understood when we discovered that we had to change the components of the nucleus (82 protons to 79). The downside is that it costs more to make gold from lead than just to dig it out of the ground.

All of reality is made out waves, not transforms. Atoms can be modeled with wave-functions, they look like this. This interpretation (hypothesis) satisfies Occam's razor. Thus ultimately, everything, matter, light, space-time itself is composed of waves.

If not? Then how do you explain particle-wave duality? How do you explain the 2 slit diffraction experiment? How does light itself propagate without something to propagate in?

No, it's particle-wave duality. That's a huge difference. A photon is not said to be made out of waves, nor an electron, quark, nor anything else. Nor space, nor time.

It's hugely different to say "reality is made out of waves". In the first place, waves are a phenomenon of propagation - radiation. The sources that produce them - let's call them emitters - those objects are not themselves propagating. They are creating fields that propagate. To claim that reality is made of waves is to claim that everything real - matter, space, time energy - is made of "propagation" which makes no sense.

It's even more nonsensical to say that the synthetic production of waves "creates" or "annihilates" specific laws of reality, such as the law of gravity. It's even more nonsensical to say that FM is the magic mode of synthesis that will defeat gravity. Add to this the arbitrary 10[sup]25[/sup] Hz frequency deviation which has no bearing on anything - it's an invented number.

Relating this to "creating redshift" or creating a relativistic relationship between two arbitrarily chosen objects is nonsensical.

Finally, the assumption that in the last century of extensive exploitation of the EM spectrum, no one would have stumbled upon any of these strange relationships - yet they must be true because everything is made of waves - adds meaningless nonsense to meaningless nonsense.

In short, we don't make reality with machines. We make machines that conform to the laws of reality, and we do so by discovering what reality is, then applying its laws to do mechanical work.

 

[Aqueous Id]

God told Mazulu Himself, and God wouldn't lie, would he?

Maybe God didn't exactly tell him. Maybe He showed him a sine.

 

[Mazulu]

No, it's particle-wave duality. That's a huge difference. A photon is not said to be made out of waves, nor an electron, quark, nor anything else. Nor space, nor time.

A photon is not wavy?:bugeye: Then why do they draw it wavy?

It's hugely different to say "reality is made out of waves". In the first place, waves are a phenomenon of propagation - radiation. The sources that produce them - let's call them emitters - those objects are not themselves propagating. They are creating fields that propagate. To claim that reality is made of waves is to claim that everything real - matter, space, time energy - is made of "propagation" which makes no sense.

Made of propagation? Hmm... The speed of light is invariant and is $$c = \lambda f$$. One important detail! When I say photon, I mean an energized wavefunction with energy E=hf. When I say space is made of wave-functions, I mean that they generally just sit there, un-energized, until some energy comes along, a photon, and energizes the wave-function. Do you have an electric stove? When the coil is un-energized, you can put your hand on it. But when you turn on the coil, it gets hot. Do you get it? Energized wave-function = photon;
Unergized wave-function = quantum vacuum.
Anyway, these unenergized wave-functions that compose the quantum vacuum, they measure space and time, space with their wavelength and time with their frequency. So, in a way, you could say that space is made out of propagation of light. But personally, I wouldn't argue it that way.

It's even more nonsensical to say that the synthetic production of waves "creates" or "annihilates" specific laws of reality, such as the law of gravity. It's even more nonsensical to say that FM is the magic mode of synthesis that will defeat gravity. Add to this the arbitrary 10[sup]25[/sup] Hz frequency deviation which has no bearing on anything - it's an invented number.

Relating this to "creating redshift" or creating a relativistic relationship between two arbitrarily chosen objects is nonsensical.

Finally, the assumption that in the last century of extensive exploitation of the EM spectrum, no one would have stumbled upon any of these strange relationships - yet they must be true because everything is made of waves - adds meaningless nonsense to meaningless nonsense.

In short, we don't make reality with machines. We make machines that conform to the laws of reality, and we do so by discovering what reality is, then applying its laws to do mechanical work.

 

[AlexG]

Then why do they draw it wavy?

:roflmao:

 

[Aqueous Id]

A photon is not wavy?:bugeye: Then why do they draw it wavy?

You're saying it's "made of" a wave. Big difference. Most people would say the wave is "made by" the particle. Something like that.

Made of propagation? Hmm... The speed of light is invariant and is $$c = \lambda f$$. One important detail! When I say photon, I mean an energized wavefunction with energy E=hf.

Why? It's not a function. It's a particle that propagates as a wave.

When I say space is made of wave-functions, I mean that they generally just sit there, un-energized, until some energy comes along, a photon, and energizes the wave-function.

Functions don't sit. If space has an essence, it's absence. It isn't "made of" anything else per se. That sounds like ether. Here you're treating the abstraction, the wave function, as if it were real, like a particle. Functions aren't objects, so it makes no sense.

Do you have an electric stove? When the coil is un-energized, you can put your hand on it. But when you turn on the coil, it gets hot. Do you get it?

I feel like my brain is being being raked over it even as you speak.

Energized wave-function = photon;
Unergized wave-function = quantum vacuum.

The big problem is the equals sign. Besides, the wavefunction describes two states, one of wave and particle, and another which is wave or particle. And the state switching is not initiated by energy. It's due to observation.

Anyway, these unenergized wave-functions that compose the quantum vacuum, they measure space and time, space with their wavelength and time with their frequency.

Why does space need to be composed of anything? This sounds like covert ether. That's been nixed. I don't understand your fascination with the wavefunction, why you treat it as an object, and why you ascribe it all these extra duties out of the blue, from a hunch, you said.

So, in a way, you could say that space is made out of propagation of light. But personally, I wouldn't argue it that way.

No it remains to be seen that space is made of anything at all, much less symbols or abstractions from probability theory.

 

[Mazulu]

You're saying it's "made of" a wave. Big difference. Most people would say the wave is "made by" the particle. Something like that.

I'm saying that wave-functions (math) represent a real phenomena of nature. What should I call it? I just call them wave-functions (nature).

Made of propagation? Hmm... The speed of light is invariant and is . One important detail! When I say photon, I mean an energized wavefunction with energy E=hf.

Why? It's not a function. It's a particle that propagates as a wave.

Do you know what the expectation value is, $$<x>=\frac{<\psi|x \psi>}{<\psi | \psi>}$$. The expectation value is the average probability of detecting the particle at point x. Have you ever lost your keys? If they're not in your pocket, but you know that they're definitely in the house/apartment, there is a 25% they're in the living room, 25% bedroom, 25% bathroom, and 25% in the kitchen. Your keys are in one of four possible places (space) in your house. When you attempt to detect a particle, but you find nothing, then what you really found was empty space. But if you try again, and you find the particle (e.g. a photon), then you find it's energy content E=hf. When you don't find the photon, the wave-function is still there. When you do find the photon, you find something that is energized, has frequency, and is wavy. Therefore, photons are just energized wave-functions; wave-functions are just space waiting around to be energized.

Ever hear of the Pauli Exclusion Principle? In a quantum system that holds electrons (fermions), every electron gets its own set of quantum numbers. Quantum numbers are like addresses for each "space" in the quantum system.

Functions don't sit. If space has an essence, it's absence. It isn't "made of" anything else per se. That sounds like ether. Here you're treating the abstraction, the wave function, as if it were real, like a particle. Functions aren't objects, so it makes no sense.

Permittivity and permeability of free space are present whether there are photons around or not; both of these constants are inextricably tied to the speed of light, c. Why is that?

I feel like my brain is being being raked over it even as you speak.

Sleep on it.

The big problem is the equals sign. Besides, the wavefunction describes two states, one of wave and particle, and another which is wave or particle. And the state switching is not initiated by energy. It's due to observation.

Observation means you tried to detect the particle. When you find your keys in the bathroom, your house doesn't collapse (fortunately); neither does the wave-function collapse.

Why does space need to be composed of anything? This sounds like covert ether. That's been nixed. I don't understand your fascination with the wavefunction, why you treat it as an object, and why you ascribe it all these extra duties out of the blue, from a hunch, you said. No it remains to be seen that space is made of anything at all, much less symbols or abstractions from probability theory.

The luminiferous aether is supposed to be the medium that bears light. Physicists have an irrational fear of the aether. They fool themselves into thinking that M&M disproved the aether. All M&M did was demonstrate that the aether was not a point particle. I say that the aether is a collection of waves that look like $$e^{i(kx - \omega t)}$$, such that $$c=\frac{\omega}{k}$$. M&M didn't test for that.