screwstrip

Nice censorship

Wait a second. I was saying that mass had to do with compression because mass couldnt be at every point in space. But I also said that there could never be absolute consistency. Can someone help me out on this?

Reason I ask is because either it's a contradiction, or it has something to do with the speed of light and maybe the size of the electron, unless mass is something else but I can't imagine what.

Requiring discrete amounts of compression so it doesnt become fractal could do away with the problem but then I'm basically saying it jumps instantaneously and that's really ugly.

If mass is compression what is rarefaction?

They have to come in equal parts and occupy some volume.

As compression increases volume also increases?

Maybe rarefaction is volume!

And the two together define density?

I still don't see how this connects with the speed of light though.

I think the speed of light is the rate at which compression happens.

 

Suppose the aether has a stiffness of k and force is applied which causes a displacement of X, but now this displacement isn't really attached to anything so it continuous to propagate as a longitudinal wave propagating through distance which acts through units of time. I think this matches the units of h. Through units of time is a little hard to understand, but think of it like how you're traveling through time right now.

Some thoughts to go along with this:

k starts out at 0 when there is no compression because mass is 0 and inceases from there

Having to act through distance and time may be related to how charge and gravity drop off at r^2

For the electron instead of hooke's law newtons law F=ma might apply because if it is a spherical standing wave it is undergoing constant acceleration.

 

 

Thus far there is ZERO evidence supporting aether style theories. Believe me I lost count how many variations I've come across. Most I can't even name anymore.

It's actually hard to know what's what in this case because there are so many variations. The site http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website3/Index.htm says Lorentz transformations are sufficient to explain relativity. I haven't looked into it myself.

But for now my heads about to implode so I'm gonna take a break and reflect a little more because maybe this does lead to a dead end with so much opposition. I'll try to organize the points into another post like I did before and continue working like that. Thanks.

 

There is no wave-only explanation of the photoelectric effect (unless you count QED as being 'wave-only'). That's why it's a well-known effect! It forced physics to adopt a particle approach.

See my first post.

 

That's interesting. Could you expand on this?

Suppose the aether has a stiffness of k and force is applied which causes a displacement of X, but now this displacement isn't really attached to anything so it continuous to propagate as a longitudinal wave propagating through distance which acts through units of time. I think this matches the units of h. Through units of time is a little hard to understand, but think of it like how you're traveling through time right now.

 

 

What does this mean? Mass isn't a measure of compression in any model I'm aware of. Why do you think this should be the case? And compression of what? The 'medium' you keep referring to? Again, you haven't defined this well enough for us to comment.

I figure that mass has to show up somewhere. The medium can't have mass intrinsically because if every point has mass then we'd be dealing with a whole lot of infinity.

 

These are parameters that cannot be explained by any current theory. How does your model seek to explain them?

I'm trying.

 

 

Not always! Not even most of the time!

According to this model they are.

 

 

What is "absolute consistency" and how does a finite speed of light imply it?

Absolute consistency means no compression anywhere. But for that to happen every point would have to "know" where every other point was at every point in time.

 

 

Either you can calculate and make predictions that match nature well, or you are not really doing physics.

Then what am I doing? Is physics not about testing nature? I'm testing nature through the looking glass of the aether.

 

 

And, therefore, what you need to do to turn a vague idea into a scientific one.

Exactly what I am trying to do.

See my previous post. If you think I'm crazy or just flat out wrong so be it. I give you permission not to comment.

 

 

Well, unless you offer more in the first place it is hard to find actual fault with your ideas. They are only very loose ideas as the moment.

 

The things you will have to think about include

 

i) Lorentz invariance and the constant speed of light.

ii) The spin of electrons and the Pauli exclusion principle.

We'll get to those eventually but don't you have a single thought or feeling (besides it being incomplete) on what I've said before.

This includes:

The wave explanation of the photoelectric effect

Mass as the measure of compression

The medium being infinite, continuous, and compressible

The finite speed of light as the reason behind why absolute consistency is never achieved

 

 

Then you want to model electrons as 'lumps' in the fluid.

Electrons are said to be spherical standing waves. Don't be afraid to look at the site I provided! http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website3/Index.htm

Why waves have a finite speed is still troubling. I think infinite is just unreasonable but why it should be a certain value is concerning. Same with the size of the electron, etc. Planck's constant might have some sort of connection. I was also thinking Planck's constant might be related to Hooke's law, but again really need comments!

 

 

What you have done so far is not enough. You should apply logic to the mathematical model you need. Otherwise you cannot be sure you are doing anything meaningful.

Long way off before a mathematical model. Can you please comment on what I've proposed so far??

 

 

Before trying to contribute to physics you should first understand what is already well established. This I think is vital and needed if you want to develop your ideas.

Part of the reason why I'm here. You could either help or offer criticism. But saying I can't do it or it can't be done because of this or that doesn't do much.

 

 

Why does anything need to fill it?

Let me rephrase: It has to be something.

 

We already have explanations. So your idea needs to improve on those in some way: make them more accurate, explain things that can't be explained, etc.

And yet I hear all the time that physics is incomplete. If your explanations can explain the medium (which this whole thread is supposed to be about) then list its properties so I can be on my way. And I don't know about you but a wave nature of light makes a whole lot more sense than particles.

 

 

They have different properties. (Which can be measured.)

How do they have those properties, or better put how can those properties be explained?

 

 

Unless you can produce some testable predictions that show that the medium is present (i.e. a theory that produces different predictions than existing theory) then the assumption is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

How about if it explains things that are already testable? i.e. photoelectric effect as above.

 

 

Space is just the distance between things. I don't see the logic that says you can't have a distance between things if space is empty.

What fills that distance? Or maybe since you all like math so much try adding 0 to itself.

 

 

But space is not empty. It is full of fields and virtual particles

What differentiates fields from other fields and virtual particles from each other?

 

 

I think one of the challenges you will have here is the invariant speed of light.

The site I was using mentions Lorentz transformations but I haven't investigated that in depth yet.

 

 

Not really. How do you develop a testable hypothesis that way?

It's mostly about the interpretations. For example take the view of two particles floating in "empty" space. Well if space is empty of everything what really separates the particles? Technically youre saying space is nothing, therefore nothing separates the particles.

 

 

Sounds to me like to are describing Frank Wilczek's theory.

If it is the same thing could you explain the properties of the medium for me. I've heard about the book and might have even read it, I'll take a look. I don't care whose theory it is, or even what theory you want to call it, I just want to understand it!

 

 

What you have to do now is construct a mathematical model here. Otherwise it is impossible to really say much more.

I've been using logic and I think that works fine too.

 

 

Can you rephrase your question so that I don't have to go off pitch to find out what it is please?

Alright, sorry. If one were to assume that space was filled with a medium and that medium could explain all natural phenomena what would the properties be of that medium and how would it operate?

 

 

So this medium sound a bit like the aether.

Yep.

 

 

You want to model this as a fluid that can under go compressible flow: the aether was assumed to be incomprssiable.

I assumed it was compressible because of the longitudinal component in the hypothesis of how light works and the supposed spherical standing wave structure of the electron.

 

Anyway, you may have to invent more and more unreasonable properties for this medium before long. For instance you may have problems with Lorentz invariance and the exclusion principle for electrons if you think of some mechanical medium.

We'll see what happens. But before things get more complicated I would like to make a couple of proposals. First is that the amount of compression might represent mass. Second is a little more convoluted but to explain why the medium is moving rather than static maybe the finite speed of light has something to do with it, meaning for it to be static it would have to be consistent or "smooth" throughout, never achieving absolute consistency.

 

1. How does this medium differ from fields used in current scientific theories? Other than you seem to be talking about a single medium rather than multiple fields.

I'm still trying to describe the medium. So far I've determined it would have to be infinite, compressible, and continuous. If you have objections then give your reasons and we'll discuss.

 

 

2. What is the evidence for this medium?

It's the main assumption. Like I said before, this isn't a debate about whether it actually exists.

 

 

In order for this to be part of a scientific hypothesis, it needs to be made far more exact. Is there a mathematical model describing this interaction which is able to predict the measurements we make?

All things have to start somewhere. I think it's required for it to fit the standard mathematical models already in place unless those can be shown to be wrong. Really it's all about the interpretation and the explanation of how the mechanics work.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. Thread's still open if anyone understood me but my hopes are dwindling.

I made a thread on another forum, here, and am mostly getting responses from people who want to argue for the sake of arguing. I think it really is a topic for philosophy but I want to see what the people of science have to say.

I am trying to understand the mechanics of the universe through the use of a hypothetical medium, mostly working off of this. I do not mean for this to be a debate about who said what, whether a medium actually exists, and the like. Please stay on topic. This thread should only by about the possible properties of said medium and how those produce the phenomena we observe in nature.

The properties so far are: the medium should be continuous, infinite, and compressible; electrons are spherically standing waves, while light is a longitudinal wave that undulates transversely.

The site I was working off didn't seem to explain the photoelectric effect so I did so on the other forum, stating:

Those in support of photons assert in the equation E=hf E is the energy of the absorbed photon.
What I am asserting is that in E=hf E is the energy absorbed by the atom/electron/(not entirely sure) from the wave of light.

According to the model, light is longitudinal waves that undulate transversely. You can view some animations here www.mysearch.org.uk/website.../html/22%20The%20Light.htm. Now the reason why only frequency is affecting the energy absorbed by the atom is because it's absorbing the longitudinal component.

How it absorbs the energy I'm still unsure of but take this as one possibility:

A single electron (spherical standing wave, though I should really start calling them "wave-particles") is approached by the longitudinal wavefront of light. This wavefront has an increase in density making the side of the electron closest to the wavefront oscillate faster, then as the wave passes through the electron and out the other side, that side begins to oscillate faster.

 

That's about it as of now. Let the discussion commence!