Science can mislead just as religion can; both can lead to falsehoods and thus both can mislead.

[rojse]

Science can mislead just as religion can; both can lead to falsehoods and thus both can mislead.

Two tautologies in one sentence. I didn't think that was possible.

 

[MysticPhD]

Your use of these quotes to say that nothing is material fundamentally misunderstands their meaning. The quotes are a call to redefine the meaning of material. Wave-particle duality means that everything is BOTH wave and particle. Previously waves had been perceived as immaterial, but with their unification with particles the definition of material had to change, not that material did not exist.

Incorrect . . . typical superficial understanding by those who have not studied the implications of ALL the evidence to date. The perfect fluid . . . instead of the Higgs Boson . . . is the only reality.Composite spherical standing waves are the ways that it manifests as substance.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

MysticPhD,

Can you identify one quantitative prediction (i.e., some observable, i.e., the numerical outcome of some experiment) which follows from your theory of composite spherical standing waves, which is different from what is predicted by the standard model?

 

[MysticPhD]

MysticPhD,

Can you identify one quantitative prediction (i.e., some observable, i.e., the numerical outcome of some experiment) which follows from your theory of composite spherical standing waves, which is different from what is predicted by the standard model?

You could begin your quest for this alternate view with this dissertation:

Exact spherical wave solutions to Maxwell's equations with applications
Silvestri, Guy G.
Ph.D. Thesis Oregon Graduate Inst. of Science and Technology, Beaverton.

Electromagnetic radiation from bounded sources represent an important class of physical problems that can be solved for exactly. However, available texts on this subject almost always resort to approximate solution techniques that not only obscure the essential features of the problem but also restrict application to limited ranges of observation. This dissertation presents exact solutions for this important class of problems and demonstrates how these solutions can be applied to situations of genuine physical interest, in particular, the design of device structures with prespecified emission characteristics. The strategy employed is to solve Maxwell's equations in the spherical coordinate system. In this system, fundamental parameters such as electric and magnetic multipole moments fall out quite naturally. Expressions for radiated power, force, and torque assume especially illuminating and simple forms when expressed in terms of these multipole moments. All solutions are derived ab initio using first-principles arguments exclusively. Two operator equations that receive particularly detailed treatment are the vector Helmholtz equation for the time-independent potential vector-a and the 'covariant divergence' equation for the energy-momentum-stress tensor T(exp mu nu). An application of classical formulas, as modified by the requirements of statistical mechanics, to the case of heated black bodies leads to inquiries into the foundations of quantum mechanics and their relation to classical field theory.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thank you, however the abstract is the only thing available, there is no access to the full text. In the abstract, the author is applying classical relativistic electrodynamics rigorously. Does the author arrive at correct experimental predictions (presumably about black body radiation) as standard quantum mechanics does?

I'm just trying to understand if your argument is about physics, or the philosophical interpretation of physics.

 

[MysticPhD]

Thank you, however the abstract is the only thing available, there is no access to the full text. In the abstract, the author is applying classical relativistic electrodynamics rigorously. Does the author arrive at correct experimental predictions (presumably about black body radiation) as standard quantum mechanics does?

Yes

I'm just trying to understand if your argument is about physics, or the philosophical interpretation of physics.

Both . . . but the mathematics of wave mechanics will require a breakthrough on the order of the calculus to attain a unified field theory (quantum gravity?) eliminating any and all discrete "particle" measurements. Something on the order of a superset of Bohm's nested functions within functions (composites) instead of discrete measured variables using spherical standing wave functions as the "particles." Whoever achieves the breakthrough will be as famous as Liebnetz/Newton, IMO.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes

For blackbody radiation?

Both . . . but the mathematics of wave mechanics will require a breakthrough on the order of the calculus to attain a unified field theory (quantum gravity?) eliminating any and all discrete "particle" measurements. Something on the order of a superset of Bohm's nested functions within functions (composites) instead of discrete measured variables using spherical standing wave functions as the "particles." Whoever achieves the breakthrough will be as famous as Liebnetz/Newton, IMO.

What I'm wondering is, do you have experimental observations in mind, which standing spherical waves will explain, and which particles currently cannot explain? Or is this all purely speculative? After all without any experimental evidence, you could claim almost anything, and then maintain that it's true but it would require a momentous breakthrough in mathematics to prove it. A breakthrough might prove it, and it might yield better predictions; but only if it is indeed true. And that of course is begging the question.

 

[Imagist]

Incorrect . . . typical superficial understanding by those who have not studied the implications of ALL the evidence to date. The perfect fluid . . . instead of the Higgs Boson . . . is the only reality.Composite spherical standing waves are the ways that it manifests as substance.

What I'm saying is that composite spherical standing waves and Higgs Bosons are merely two different mathematical representations of the same phenomena, just as

ax^2 + bx + c = 0

and

(x - a) (x - b) = 0

... are two different reprsentations of the same family of mathematical functions. For certain things it is more useful to choose one or the other. To extend the mathematics metaphor, it would be easier to find the derivative from the first representation, whereas it would be easier to find the zeroes in the second representation. In experimental cases it seems that particle representations are easier mathematically, but one could do all the same stuff and arrive at all the same results using the wave equations instead (doing so would require a large degree of masochism).

Claiming that one representation is right and one representation is wrong is like claiming that "manzana" is right and "apple" is wrong. Clearly neither is right or wrong: they are merely different representations of the same model.

In any case, the very existence of the Large Hadron Collider shows that your rejection of the particle representation is not shared by the scientific community.

 

[MysticPhD]

For blackbody radiation?
What I'm wondering is, do you have experimental observations in mind, which standing spherical waves will explain, and which particles currently cannot explain? Or is this all purely speculative? After all without any experimental evidence, you could claim almost anything, and then maintain that it's true but it would require a momentous breakthrough in mathematics to prove it. A breakthrough might prove it, and it might yield better predictions; but only if it is indeed true. And that of course is begging the question.

I cannot disagree. Let me shortcut this discussion by agreeing that as a concept "particles" (quantized energy) work, as does Mass and other "measurables," in our physics. The high frequency problem (ultraviolet catastrophe) is a measurement and representational problem that is partially solved by spherical standing wave approaches . . . but still inadequately. Conceptually, to make the existence of measurement and mathematical representation difficulties the reason to maintain a "materialist" view in the face of the extant knowledge is not rational . . . practical . . . but but not rational .

That they work and have enabled virtual miracles of achievement is indisputable. I have been closely watching the development of nano-scale manipulation of the characteristics of materials that already portend electromagnetically invisible battleships and given the optical manipulations at those scales possibly even Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. These practical applications are ALL they need to do . . for many if not most people. The implications of such discoveries are seldom of as much importance. Even Planck had no idea of the profound implications of his tweaking of the blackbody curve (he thought it was just a technical fix that worked).

I have no dispute with physics that works. I have a dispute when they extrapolate from these practical "measures" that work to speculation about the composition of reality and what is or is not rational. Yes Imagist . . . the LHC means they are invested in the "particle" view (for practical reasons) . . . but I am convinced there is nothing to find except a perfect fluid. The string theorists, loop quantum gravity theorists, spherical standing wave theorists, etc. have their work cut out for them in juggling the mathematics to unify the separate fields. That does not mean there isn't just one field that encompasses them all that is fundamentally immaterial.

 

[Imagist]

I have no dispute with physics that works. I have a dispute when they extrapolate from these practical "measures" that work to speculation about the composition of reality and what is or is not rational. Yes Imagist . . . the LHC means they are invested in the "particle" view (for practical reasons) . . . but I am convinced there is nothing to find except a perfect fluid. The string theorists, loop quantum gravity theorists, spherical standing wave theorists, etc. have their work cut out for them in juggling the mathematics to unify the separate fields. That does not mean there isn't just one field that encompasses them all that is fundamentally immaterial.

Well, it's true that the Higgs boson is not yet isolated, but it is all but proven to exist. Scientists from all over the world have put billions of dollars behind the idea to put in the last few steps toward a unifying proof. You may be convinced that a perfect fluid is the real answer, but until I have some real, up-to-date evidence for your theory, I'm going to stick with the world-class scientists with billions of dollars behind them.

Admittedly, I'm not qualified to judge either theory based on my limited knowledge of quantum physics. But peer-review is pretty reliable and seems to support the Higgs boson.