A "Standing Wave" Theory

[Dennis Kane]

Hello, all... I have been thinking about the best way to describe the universe for a long time now. This has taken me through many avenues -- from the most philosophical ways of thinking to the most concrete ways.

 

For about a year now, though, I have been explicitly turning my attention to the world of physics. Like all of us around here, I have been trying to come up with my own pet TOE (I'm not talking about a body part!).

 

The problem that I had been having was to decide just how "mathematical" vs. "physical" it would be. But I've just now come to realize that a TOE cannot be a physical theory, because that will just start an "infinite regress". (It's a complicated philosophical thing... I'll talk about that if you want to.)

 

So, just like Kant says, you have to start from a priori principles. In other words, it's all about the math. But since there is nothing "physical" about math, how can we describe it? Well, I'm not afraid of the other "m" word: metaphysics.

 

Very briefly, I must say that the modern concept of metaphysics is way off the mark. Metaphysics is a very sound philosophical tradition that started with Aristotle. When we are talking about metaphysics, we are talking about the things that all physical theories must assume such as the validity of dimensions, numbers, and basic human logic. Sure, there are other metaphysical questions such as the concept of freedom vs determinism, but I truly think that space, time, numbers, and a little bit of logic are all that we truly need in order to "derive" all the rest. So, everything that talks about ghosts, astrology, and all that stuff is not metaphysics... it is just crappy [and therefore, probably very wrong] physics.

 

So now that I got the introductions out of the way, let's get started:

 

Imagine a one-dimensional universe: we can just picture a straight, continuous line. Nothing exciting going on here is there? Let us get some action going. We can picture a wave traveling across an infinite string. If the string is perfectly free of resistance, the wave will just keep going without end. In fact, we can imagine many waves traveling to and fro, all cancelling each other out and amplifying each other at the appropriate places. There is absolutely no real interaction going on here... we can call this a one dimensional, unbounded, energy-only universe.

 

A pretty boring place still, isn't it? Well, let us keep going and see what we can find...

 

Now, imagine a line that is bounded, and its boundaries are perfectly reflecting. If we start a wave now, we are going to find that it "naturally" wants to become a standing wave: it looks like it is stationary even though it is still energetic. (This is the principle of harmonics). It is at this point where we can start to think about the idea of matter. But there is a problem here, because we've rigged things by having "anchors" outside of our universe. (If you think in terms of a string between two walls, the string is the universe, and the walls are outside of it.)

 

The only way to think about a linear standing-wave that does not rely upon arbitrary boundaries is to connect its two endpoints together. Now, we have something that looks like the Planck-sized "strings" of string theory, but this is not string theory, so let us keep going...

 

The thing that we can notice about all of this is that our one-dimensional universe requires two dimensions in order to describe it. We can, in other words, imagine a square that fits perfectly around the "circle-ish" standing-wave. We can think of the one-dimensional standing-wave as the "stuff" (matter) of the universe, and the two-dimensional box as its "container" (form).

 

Now, let us go up to a two-dimensional universe. Here, we can start out with a flat sheet that acquires a standing-wave -- that is, resonance -- structure. Then, we want to connect it to itself so that it forms a "wavy sphere". Now we can think of a box around it to serve as its container.

 

At three dimensions, however, things start to get a little tricky. It is not really possible to visualize a three-dimensional resonance structure or its "bounding box". But we can give it a shot...

 

The only thing we can say about a three-dimensional standing-wave is that it is bounded by the next higher dimension. The crazy thing is, though, that the only thing that we can possibly imagine as the "fourth dimension" is time! But just because we experience the fourth dimension in a strange way does not mean that it is any less of a "formative" dimension as any of the other three dimensions. So, we can think of a 3D resonance structure as being bounded only in terms of time. This is a necessary consequence of what it means for matter to be "continuously space filling," and this is precisely the thing that most people in the world (including physicists) have an extremely tough time trying to wrap their minds around.

 

So, the ultimate concept of physical reality is just this:

 

All physical forms (material objects) are just three-dimensional resonance structures that are "contained" within an objective four-dimensional structure that is subjectively experienced as time.

 

And if this is true, then every possible kind of physical phenomenon should be derivable from just this purely mathematical/metaphysical idea! So, let us dig into this idea even more, and see where it leads us...

 

If all 3D resonance structures are "contained" within the fourth dimension, then by its very nature, it is defined by a very definite lifetime! That is, after a very specific amount of time, the structure will be completely annihilated, and the result will be...????

 

Let us apply this idea to atoms, then. We can think of each of the "necessary elements" of atoms (i.e. those particle things that are contained within the nucleus... "electrons" are obviously not necessary) as being simple, space-filling 3D resonance structures that form various kinds of "molecular" resonance structures. That is, just as various kinds of atoms like to combine into "chemical molecules" in order to find stable, complex resonance structures, so too do the various kinds of "nuclear elements" like to form complex resonance structures, in the form of "atomical molecules".

 

But again, every simple 3D resonance structure is necessarily defined by its 4D "bounding box". This just means that each of the various nuclear elements are naturally defined by a particular life-span. And when any one of these life spans have passed -- you will have a violent destruction the nuclear element in question. So, what does this mean for the complex (the atom) that depends upon the stability of its nucleus? Well, perhaps this is exactly what is happening when think about atoms having "half-lives"! Perhaps this is not just a statistical phenomenon after all, and is simply a necessary consequence of the four-dimensional structure of 3D standing-waves?!?

 

Now, you should understand what I've tried to do here. Just from the a priori principles of space, time, and magnitude (and hopefully some sound logic) -- by way of pure wave theory -- I have tried to reconstruct a simple observable behaviour of those things that we call atoms.

 

But, let us think about going further... how are we going to think about atom-energy interactions as well as atom-atom interactions? Believe me when I tell you that I have done quite a lot of thinking about this. I have recently been studying the history of quantum theory, and I have identified a few points where I believe some of the founders (especially Einstein and Planck) got off track, so as to lead to this hodge-podge of craziness that we currently call "Quantum Mechanics". But the present, messy state of affairs is not entirely their fault. They were at a major inflection point in terms of physical thinking, and were always in danger of intermixing their classical educations with their cutting-edge intuitions.

 

If you are interested in this, let me know!

 

Copyright 2008, Dennis H. Kane

[Klaynos]

Physical theories (the theories within physics) are inherently mathematical.

 

Physics is modelling the universe mathematically and the testing of those models to a greater and greater accuracy.

 

I'm wondering, you use the term TOE, do you know it's proper meaning? What a theory of everything is? It's a theory that unifies the 4 fundamental forces. This is inherently mathematical...

[Dennis Kane]

Klaynos, I'm wondering if you actually read my entire post, or if you just read the first couple of paragraphs and skimmed through the rest...

 

Nevertheless, I'm not too sure that the term "TOE" necessarily has a proper definition, as this would be making certain assumptions that would possibly run counter to the theory itself. But yes, in a fundamental way, I am trying to develop a paradigm that is able to be "scalefully unprejudicial," so as to be able to satisfactorily explain how the "local" phenomena within and between atoms can be explained using the same language as the "nonlocal" phenomenon of gravity.

 

I guess the crux of the argument here is to attempt to seriously take the fourth dimension as a "positively structural" dimension rather than as the mere "negatively destructive" thing that we currently understand it to be. I mean, I think it is fairly obvious that things cannot be said to exist within a time of zero duration. After all, our very definitions of energy are totally dependent on the idea of time. But our idea of "mass" does not depend on time, so this presents us with a problem: which idea do we take as being the more "fundamental"?

 

I fully understand that the main problem with my theory is not so much its internal complexity, but rather the fact that "time", heretofore, has only been understood by physics in the negative, destructive sense. But the fact still remains: self-contained standing-waves (such as the one-dimensional "wavy loops" of string theory) necessarily require the next higher dimension in order to structure it! We can visualize two dimensional standing-wave as a "wavy sphere," but how are we supposed to think about a self-contained, space-filling standing wave, which physics positively understands atoms to be?

 

Well, I don't think there is any choice but to think of atoms as only being structured via the fourth-dimension, or, within time! That is, the particular "lifetimes" of the "nuclear particles" are positive characteristics -- rather than simple, random, probabilistic "events" that cannot at all be logically understood, in and of themselves.

 

And now because the idea of "physical lifetime" makes sense on the smallest imaginable scales, we can now see how it can become a positive characteristic of larger phenomena, such as stars and galaxies...

 

Klaynos, I guess the main point I was trying to make about a "mathematical" versus a "physical" theory is that physical theories take the idea of "mass" as being fundamental alongside the dimensions and numbers. But this is a problem, because the entire point of general relativity is to try to come to an understanding of this thing called "gravity" which depends solely upon the phenomenon that we experience as intertial mass. So, my theory is mathematical precisely because it attempts to derive the concept of mass from the pure a priori principles of the Kantian system (space, time, mathematics, logic). And when you realize that Einstein was very familiar with the Kantian system from his formative years, you can then understand where he was coming from with his derivation of his general theory of relativity!

[Klaynos]

TOE has a fixed definition whether you think it's appropriate or not.

 

You mention maths, and yet I don't see any, why is that?

 

You're right I only read the first few paragraphs and skimmed the rest, I'm a bit busy right now, and don't have a great deal of time for long lumps of text which are NOT theories as they don't make mathematical predictions...

[Dennis Kane]

TOE has a fixed definition whether you think it's appropriate or not.

 

Fixed definitions, by definition, are precisely what the theoretician is trying to realize.

 

You mention maths, and yet I don't see any, why is that?

 

Would you care to point me in a direction that tries to construct a rigorous model of three-dimensional (space-filling) standing waves, such that the fourth dimension (time) is taken as a positive structuring device rather than as a negative destructive one? You see, the problem is, just like Einstein with his general theory of relativity, I haven't been able to find a formalism that deals with this precise question.

 

You're right I only read the first few paragraphs and skimmed the rest, I'm a bit busy right now, and don't have a great deal of time for long lumps of text which are NOT theories as they don't make mathematical predictions...

 

Why am I not surprised? I immediately took you as the student-type who is concerned with hurredly learning already established, conflicting formalisms rather than attempting to patiently develop one that can possibly "unify" them all.

 

And I'm having trouble trying to understand the import of your statement about theories making "mathematical predictions." I am trying to use mathematics so as to construct a rigorous formalism that does not make "predictions" per se, but rather firmly grounds the various observable phenomena within a system based upon nothing other than a priori synthetic judgements.

 

With due respect, are you sure you want to keep coming after me in this manner?

[ajb]

About predictions, I am sure Klaynos would be satisfied if your "theory" would produce results that agree with established theories within various limits and/or experimental bounds.

 

For example, you would need to ensure that the bending of light around a massive object agrees with General Relativity.

 

Other than that, I cannot comment on anything else here.

[Dennis Kane]

About predictions, I am sure Klaynos would be satisfied if your "theory" would produce results that agree with established theories within various limits and/or experimental bounds.

 

This is not a "theory" in the typical sense of having an already well established formalism, other than some very basic concepts that can be roughly sketched.

 

For example, you would need to ensure that the bending of light around a massive object agrees with General Relativity.

 

Well, seeing as "mass" is nowhere contained within my considerations (as this is exactly what I am trying to derive), I have had to make use purely of these simple concepts: dimensions, numbers, and human logic. But because I haven't been able to find a rigorous formalism that handles the questions I am asking, the "numbers" that I am using are simply implied rather than explicitly referred to. For example, the existence of a standing-wave implies that there are a precisely integral number of waves that constitute it. But because I am still in the process of developing this paradigm, I am very, very far from being able to "predict" how many numbers of waves constitute each particular "nuclear element," for instance.

 

Getting back to the point I was trying to make, the end result is that all of these standing-waves -- for lack of having some kind of material substrate to fall back on -- will necessarily have to be constructed purely geometrically. That is, I am using the dimensions themselves as the sole constitutive agents. What this means for my investigation is that the dimensions are far from passive agents. In fact, they are even more dynamic that in Einstein's sense. What I am ultimately trying to do is to show how vast numbers of "quantum sized" space-filling resonance structures can lead to "cosmic sized" structures that resonate in a kind of composite, ultra-mundane way that is common to all forms of ponderable matter.

 

What I want to be able to show is that Einstein's cosmic scale gravity structures (which are "temporally uncontained" spatial transformations) are an emergent phenomenon of the atomic/sub-atomic structures (which necessarily rely upon time as a structuring factor in my estimation) that are its necessary constituents. This is the fundamental point of any "quantum gravity" theory worth its salt.

 

Other than that, I cannot comment on anything else here.

 

I guess I'll hear from you when the cat lets go of your tongue!

[Klaynos]

Would you care to point me in a direction that tries to construct a rigorous model of three-dimensional (space-filling) standing waves, such that the fourth dimension (time) is taken as a positive structuring device rather than as a negative destructive one? You see, the problem is, just like Einstein with his general theory of relativity, I haven't been able to find a formalism that deals with this precise question.

 

You're the one proposing the idea, you've got to come up with the evidence, which means maths. Have you read any of Einstein's papers on GR, and seen just how mathematical it is? I'm just leaving work, but for the record I'm a researcher, not classified by my university as a student.

[ajb]

I guess I'll hear from you when the cat lets go of your tongue!

 

Ok, what I mean is I won't comment.

[Dennis Kane]

You're the one proposing the idea, you've got to come up with the evidence, which means maths. Have you read any of Einstein's papers on GR, and seen just how mathematical it is? I'm just leaving work, but for the record I'm a researcher, not classified by my university as a student.

 

So you feel that new theories arrive all of the sudden, with a perfectly developed mathematical formalism in tow? Do you think that Einstein's field equations came out of the blue one day? Or perhaps, his thoughts about a theory of "general covariance" evolved gradually over time -- starting out as simple sketchings in a notepad, and finally ending with the form that we see today.

 

There is something that you're not quite getting about "maths." The mathematical arts have nothing whatever to do with the symbols that the average human thinks are its essential ingredients. Rather, the essence of mathematics is the fact that certain concepts can at all be succinctly stated, in whatever kind of symbolic format in which they are represented.

 

The large problem with "modern physics" is that quite a few of its respected practitioners do not understand this concept. They think that, just because they are able to rattle off a bunch of mildly coherent truisms about a well established construct does not mean that they put very much effort in trying to integrate this construct into personally meaningful, committed philosophical posture.

 

And it is here that we can see the difference between, say, the competent "technicians" that occupy contemporary American universities and the intellectual giants that were actually responsible for inventing the very systems about which the former claims to have such an "iron grip." From where I stand, the difference is obvious. Many of the fathers of quantum theory, for example, were deeply immersed in the philosophical classics from a very early age. In fact, several of them would have preferred to think of themselves as philosophers more than anything else.

 

And it is only through large amounts of intensive meditation on the very questions that occupied humanity's collective imagination since time immemorial that ones "intuitions" can be sharpened so as to lead to the kinds of profound insights that are required for the development of lasting physical theories. And this is precisely the kind of thing that is lacking in the American educational experience.

 

Ok, what I mean is I won't comment.

 

And there is another problem... when people don't say what they mean. I'm just not sure what I am meant to understand by this. Whether you can't or won't comment on something is pretty meaningless to me -- and to hear about such trivia it is rather annoying.

[ajb]

Sorry to annoy you, but some of us get a little fed up of huge "word salad" posts that do not mean anything to anyone. Again, sorry.

[Dennis Kane]

Sorry to annoy you, but some of us get a little fed up of huge "word salad" posts that do not mean anything to anyone. Again, sorry.

 

Revert back to everything I said in my previous post. Meditate on that until its significance begins to sink in. Then pick up a random book that wasn't necessarily written within the last 100 years. Repeat that quite often, and obtain the requisite intellectual sophistication so that you may be able to digest what currently appears to your eyes as "word salads." Then come back here and talk to me.

[swansont]

The large problem with "modern physics" is that quite a few of its respected practitioners do not understand this concept. They think that, just because they are able to rattle off a bunch of mildly coherent truisms about a well established construct does not mean that they put very much effort in trying to integrate this construct into personally meaningful, committed philosophical posture.

 

 

Please restrict your discussion in this thread to your thesis. Diatribes about the problems with science can be discussed elsewhere.

[Klaynos]

So you feel that new theories arrive all of the sudden, with a perfectly developed mathematical formalism in tow?

 

By the time they are described at theories they are fully mathematical.

 

Do you think that Einstein's field equations came out of the blue one day?

 

He derived them mathematically from first principles, this was before they were included in anything that could have been described as a theory.

 

Or perhaps, his thoughts about a theory of "general covariance" evolved gradually over time -- starting out as simple sketchings in a notepad, and finally ending with the form that we see today.

 

Many many people have worked on it to make it what it is today. But the first basis was mathematical, even a sketch can be mathematical.

 

There is something that you're not quite getting about "maths." The mathematical arts have nothing whatever to do with the symbols that the average human thinks are its essential ingredients. Rather, the essence of mathematics is the fact that certain concepts can at all be succinctly stated, in whatever kind of symbolic format in which they are represented.

 

I don't get what you mean here. Maths is a language. I think you might be getting at a straight line is mathematics as is y=mx+c which is true and any physicist will know that maths is more than just equations and any graph etc, will be maths.

 

The large problem with "modern physics" is that quite a few of its respected practitioners do not understand this concept. They think that, just because they are able to rattle off a bunch of mildly coherent truisms about a well established construct does not mean that they put very much effort in trying to integrate this construct into personally meaningful, committed philosophical posture.

 

I fear you may not understand what physics is.

 

Physics is the creation (derivation) of mathematical models, and the testing of these models, once these models are well tested they are described as theories.

 

And it is here that we can see the difference between, say, the competent "technicians" that occupy contemporary American universities and the intellectual giants that were actually responsible for inventing the very systems about which the former claims to have such an "iron grip." From where I stand, the difference is obvious.

 

Science tends not to care what people think, only what can be tested as being true.

 

Many of the fathers of quantum theory, for example, were deeply immersed in the philosophical classics from a very early age. In fact, several of them would have preferred to think of themselves as philosophers more than anything else.

 

You are aware of how mathematical QM is? and a citation on this please, I don't believe you.

 

And it is only through large amounts of intensive meditation on the very questions that occupied humanity's collective imagination since time immemorial that ones "intuitions" can be sharpened so as to lead to the kinds of profound insights that are required for the development of lasting physical theories.

 

QM one of the most successful theories of all time is completely counter-intuitive...

 

And this is precisely the kind of thing that is lacking in the American educational experience.

 

I cannot comment on an education system I'm unfamiliar with.

 

And there is another problem... when people don't say what they mean. I'm just not sure what I am meant to understand by this. Whether you can't or won't comment on something is pretty meaningless to me -- and to hear about such trivia it is rather annoying.

 

Please restrict your discussion in this thread to your thesis. Diatribes about the problems with science can be discussed elsewhere.

 

It's probably best if most of my above reply is ignored then.

 

 

And you just give us some nice mathematical predictions

[Dennis Kane]

Please restrict your discussion in this thread to your thesis. Diatribes about the problems with science can be discussed elsewhere.

 

Sure. But please, will you first tell me the precise dividing line between the poor educational circumstances of the "modern physicist" and my ability to conduct profitable intellectual exhanges within forums such as this. And will you then show me where any of my intelocutors -- including the present one -- have made even the feeblest attempt to try to engage me as regards my "thesis"?

 

I find all of the above to be terrible "problems with science".

[farmboy]

Is there any evidence to support this theory?

[Klaynos]

Is there any evidence to support this theory?

 

Without mathematical predictions that question cannot be answered in a definite way. So at this stage, no.

[Bignose]

Dennis,

 

What Klaynos is trying to say here is that while you may indeed have the kernel of a good idea, it is impossible to know without the ability to make predictions and test them against the evidence.

 

And, so, since it is impossible to know, there really is nothing to discuss. You may be right, or any of an infinite number of other ideas may be right, too. We don't know. Just because something sounds good, doesn't mean that it is so.

 

So, without anything to discuss, an Internet forum -- 100% based on the idea of discussion -- this may not have been the best place to post this. Because this forum is based on discussing things in a scientific manner, and without evidence there is nothing to discuss here. Maybe this would be better posted on a philosophy or literature forum, but on a science forum, evidence is going to be asked for every time.