If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Contests Home
Previous Contests
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Previous Contests
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Peter Jackson: on 2/24/18 at 10:17am UTC, wrote Jeff, Apologies, it was Colin Walkers essay I posted the sequence outline...
Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/24/18 at 10:08am UTC, wrote Dear Jeff Yee, it's very interesting: longitudinal and transverse waves. I...
Jeff Yee: on 2/22/18 at 2:48am UTC, wrote Hi Vladimir, thanks for the comment. I'll take a look at the essay.
Jeff Yee: on 2/22/18 at 2:47am UTC, wrote Hi Peter, quick answers to your questions and then I'll have to review your...
Peter Jackson: on 2/21/18 at 19:19pm UTC, wrote Jeff, I think you chose your subject well. Of course whether wave or...
Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/21/18 at 8:04am UTC, wrote Dear Jeff, Here we are again all together. I highly appreciate your...
Jeff Yee: on 2/11/18 at 16:20pm UTC, wrote Thanks Sherman. I appreciate the feedback.
Jeff Yee: on 2/11/18 at 16:20pm UTC, wrote Thanks. I will take a look at the paper.
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...
Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...
Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...
James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...
Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...
Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time
Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.
Peter Jackson: on 2/24/18 at 10:17am UTC, wrote Jeff, Apologies, it was Colin Walkers essay I posted the sequence outline...
Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/24/18 at 10:08am UTC, wrote Dear Jeff Yee, it's very interesting: longitudinal and transverse waves. I...
Jeff Yee: on 2/22/18 at 2:48am UTC, wrote Hi Vladimir, thanks for the comment. I'll take a look at the essay.
Jeff Yee: on 2/22/18 at 2:47am UTC, wrote Hi Peter, quick answers to your questions and then I'll have to review your...
Peter Jackson: on 2/21/18 at 19:19pm UTC, wrote Jeff, I think you chose your subject well. Of course whether wave or...
Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/21/18 at 8:04am UTC, wrote Dear Jeff, Here we are again all together. I highly appreciate your...
Jeff Yee: on 2/11/18 at 16:20pm UTC, wrote Thanks Sherman. I appreciate the feedback.
Jeff Yee: on 2/11/18 at 16:20pm UTC, wrote Thanks. I will take a look at the paper.
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...
Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...
Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...
James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...
Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...
Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time
Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.
FQXi FORUM
May 22, 2019
CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC: The Fundamental Universe by Jeff Yee [refresh]
TOPIC: The Fundamental Universe by Jeff Yee [refresh]
Essay Abstract
The universe is vast, chaotic and it contains an incredible number of stars and planets – all of which are formed from atomic elements that can be further divided into subatomic particles. Although the universe appears to be a complex mix of particles, a simpler definition is possible when the components of the universe are split into fundamental parts. This definition, and how it applies to matter, forces and time is explored using a concept of wave energy and fundamental waves that travel the universe.
Author Bio
Mr. Jeff Yee (M.S. Management, B.S. Mechanical Engineering) is a Visiting Professor at South China Normal University. Mr. Yee holds a full-time role in the electronics industry at ZTE Corporation as the Vice President of Product Marketing and Strategy.
Download Essay PDF File
The universe is vast, chaotic and it contains an incredible number of stars and planets – all of which are formed from atomic elements that can be further divided into subatomic particles. Although the universe appears to be a complex mix of particles, a simpler definition is possible when the components of the universe are split into fundamental parts. This definition, and how it applies to matter, forces and time is explored using a concept of wave energy and fundamental waves that travel the universe.
Author Bio
Mr. Jeff Yee (M.S. Management, B.S. Mechanical Engineering) is a Visiting Professor at South China Normal University. Mr. Yee holds a full-time role in the electronics industry at ZTE Corporation as the Vice President of Product Marketing and Strategy.
Download Essay PDF File
Dear Mr. Yee,
I noticed that you focus on fundamental waves in your essay. I take a similar focus on waves much further in my own essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”. I propose that a set of slight modifications from classical physics can give rise to a consistent unified realistic physical picture on all scales. There are no point particles or gravitational singularities; abstract spacetime and Hilbert space are mathematical artifacts. Electrons are distributed wave packets. Space and time are separate, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential. This gives rise to the phenomena associated with general relativity and quantum mechanics, without requiring separate mathematical formalisms.
Alan Kadin
report post as inappropriate
I noticed that you focus on fundamental waves in your essay. I take a similar focus on waves much further in my own essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”. I propose that a set of slight modifications from classical physics can give rise to a consistent unified realistic physical picture on all scales. There are no point particles or gravitational singularities; abstract spacetime and Hilbert space are mathematical artifacts. Electrons are distributed wave packets. Space and time are separate, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential. This gives rise to the phenomena associated with general relativity and quantum mechanics, without requiring separate mathematical formalisms.
Alan Kadin
Alan,
Yes, I am aware of your paper (I read it even prior to the submission of my paper). I found a lot of similarities in our thinking and found it to be an enjoyable read. Completely agree with you on particles as wave packets, and time as the frequency of these real (longitudinal) waves.
I do have a different thought on gravitational potential and have worked out a mathematical relationship between magnetism and gravity for the electron - both of which are related to the particle's spin. You might have an interest in it -- see this site on gravity
I'd be happy to converse further and mutually share ideas.
Jeff
Yes, I am aware of your paper (I read it even prior to the submission of my paper). I found a lot of similarities in our thinking and found it to be an enjoyable read. Completely agree with you on particles as wave packets, and time as the frequency of these real (longitudinal) waves.
I do have a different thought on gravitational potential and have worked out a mathematical relationship between magnetism and gravity for the electron - both of which are related to the particle's spin. You might have an interest in it -- see this site on gravity
I'd be happy to converse further and mutually share ideas.
Jeff
Yee,
Waves are either translating or “standing”. Without a boundary, how does a standing wave “stand”?
Have you considered particles as waves rotating on themselves? Curved in a loop?
Good luck,
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Waves are either translating or “standing”. Without a boundary, how does a standing wave “stand”?
Have you considered particles as waves rotating on themselves? Curved in a loop?
Good luck,
Marcel,
Marcel,
I believe you mean "traveling" waves not translating in your comment?
A standing wave in this model is a combination of (spherical) traveling in-waves and out-waves to form the standing wave. It is assumed to reflect off something to create the out-wave, and this was given the name "wave center" by Dr. Milo Wolff.
Since this happens in nature today, such as sound waves, I do not personally see the need to complicate it when considering particles. Standing waves eventually break down to become traveling waves again. This becomes a particle's radius.
Everything inside this boundary (particle radius) is standing waves. It is stored energy (particle mass). Everything beyond this radius is still energy back in the form of traveling waves, with the ability to cause a force (electric force).
Jeff
I believe you mean "traveling" waves not translating in your comment?
A standing wave in this model is a combination of (spherical) traveling in-waves and out-waves to form the standing wave. It is assumed to reflect off something to create the out-wave, and this was given the name "wave center" by Dr. Milo Wolff.
Since this happens in nature today, such as sound waves, I do not personally see the need to complicate it when considering particles. Standing waves eventually break down to become traveling waves again. This becomes a particle's radius.
Everything inside this boundary (particle radius) is standing waves. It is stored energy (particle mass). Everything beyond this radius is still energy back in the form of traveling waves, with the ability to cause a force (electric force).
Jeff
Jeff,
Yes, I meant traveling waves... My comment above comes from the following. In the process of pair annihilation, electron and positron turn into two gamma rays. The idea that the particles were actually and already “waves” curled-up is in my opinion logical. I believe that there is a sort of “conservation of structure”; they swap, change shape etc. but keep the same number crests and dips holding the causality of motion.
Thanks,
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Yes, I meant traveling waves... My comment above comes from the following. In the process of pair annihilation, electron and positron turn into two gamma rays. The idea that the particles were actually and already “waves” curled-up is in my opinion logical. I believe that there is a sort of “conservation of structure”; they swap, change shape etc. but keep the same number crests and dips holding the causality of motion.
Thanks,
Marcel,
Jeff,
While I agree with the WSM (Wave Structure of Matter) view on the Universe, there are a few things I would like to point out:
- light’s speed slows down in a medium such as water or glass due to absorption and re-emission of the light by the molecules of the medium. It travels unimpeded at ‘c’ between molecules.
- charge cannot be determined by constructive/destructive interference alone, as a slight movement of two particles with respect to one another would change charge from positive to negative or vice-versus. Rather, charge is determined by the flow of phase either inwards or outwards wrt the particle center. This way, when the waves from two or more particles overlap, the waves add together in such a way as to cause the reflected waves (at the combined waves’ nodes) to be Doppler shifted to higher or lower frequencies - causing the wavefunctions to move (I.e. a force).
- reflection of the particle’s waves cannot only occur at the ‘wave center’ because if the particle started to move, most of the inward waves would miss the Centre and be lost in space. Rather, reflection occurs at every node within the particle’s standing wave - inwave becoming outwave and vice-versa at every node. The particle’s standing wave can then respond immediately to movement and its wave energy doesn’t get lost (unless the movement causes a photon to be emitted of course).
See my electron wave-function paper that models electrons and positrons using these principles:
http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0054
Regards,
Declan Traill
report post as inappropriate
While I agree with the WSM (Wave Structure of Matter) view on the Universe, there are a few things I would like to point out:
- light’s speed slows down in a medium such as water or glass due to absorption and re-emission of the light by the molecules of the medium. It travels unimpeded at ‘c’ between molecules.
- charge cannot be determined by constructive/destructive interference alone, as a slight movement of two particles with respect to one another would change charge from positive to negative or vice-versus. Rather, charge is determined by the flow of phase either inwards or outwards wrt the particle center. This way, when the waves from two or more particles overlap, the waves add together in such a way as to cause the reflected waves (at the combined waves’ nodes) to be Doppler shifted to higher or lower frequencies - causing the wavefunctions to move (I.e. a force).
- reflection of the particle’s waves cannot only occur at the ‘wave center’ because if the particle started to move, most of the inward waves would miss the Centre and be lost in space. Rather, reflection occurs at every node within the particle’s standing wave - inwave becoming outwave and vice-versa at every node. The particle’s standing wave can then respond immediately to movement and its wave energy doesn’t get lost (unless the movement causes a photon to be emitted of course).
See my electron wave-function paper that models electrons and positrons using these principles:
http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0054
Regards,
Declan Traill
Thanks Declan
Jeff,
I'm glad to see that Dr. Wolff's thinking is still influential to people. I like the idea that the neutrino is fundamental. The total neutrino mass in the universe is similar to the total star mass in the universe. So, there are LOTS of nuetrinos out there.
I am very impressed by the correspondence between your predicted particle values and the measured particle values. I especially like the exponent "5" in your equation 2. The value 6*pi^5 is very close to the ratio between the mass of the proton and the mass of the electron and I have used that observation to infer that there are 5 dimensions. Some people would argue this is numerology and they might be correct. I believe it is a CLUE.
Your graphics and illustrations are well done and effective.
All in all this is a good essay.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
I'm glad to see that Dr. Wolff's thinking is still influential to people. I like the idea that the neutrino is fundamental. The total neutrino mass in the universe is similar to the total star mass in the universe. So, there are LOTS of nuetrinos out there.
I am very impressed by the correspondence between your predicted particle values and the measured particle values. I especially like the exponent "5" in your equation 2. The value 6*pi^5 is very close to the ratio between the mass of the proton and the mass of the electron and I have used that observation to infer that there are 5 dimensions. Some people would argue this is numerology and they might be correct. I believe it is a CLUE.
Your graphics and illustrations are well done and effective.
All in all this is a good essay.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
Thanks Gary. I remember your paper on the proton-electron mass ratio and it being close to pi^5. I did try to work on a relationship between the particle energy linearization model and the fact that the mass ratio is pi^5, but ultimately, I could not find anything.
Although if it is helpful, I did manage to get the proton-electron mass ratio expressed in the same wave constants used in Energy Wave Theory that can derive 19 fundamental physical constants. I find it interesting that it's a ratio of wave amplitude to wavelength, and that the same ratios appear in two other mass ratios related to Planck mass. That work can be found here:
Proton-Electron Mass Ratio
Although if it is helpful, I did manage to get the proton-electron mass ratio expressed in the same wave constants used in Energy Wave Theory that can derive 19 fundamental physical constants. I find it interesting that it's a ratio of wave amplitude to wavelength, and that the same ratios appear in two other mass ratios related to Planck mass. That work can be found here:
Proton-Electron Mass Ratio
Dear Professor Jeff Ye,
You wrote: “The universe contains fundamental units that provide the foundation of particles, charges and even time itself.”
I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
report post as inappropriate
You wrote: “The universe contains fundamental units that provide the foundation of particles, charges and even time itself.”
I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
How do you conclude that there is only one dimension when we live in three spatial dimensions?
Dear Jeff Yee,
There am only one single INFINITE dimension. There am not three finite abstract special dimensions.
This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
There am only one single INFINITE dimension. There am not three finite abstract special dimensions.
This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
I believe Mr. Jeff Yee's study resolves the nagging problem of wave particle duality and opens a new way of thinking about of what the universe is really built of.
He holds it true that the space cannot be an absolute empty void, regardless that Einstein's SR declared that aether is nonexistence and by the way this declaration was the only modification to Lorentz's relativity.
Finally when Einstein gave an address on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden. [he admitted that GR would not hold up without eater.] He chose as his topic Ether and the Theory of published by Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, in 1922.
Jeff Yee's study [2] found the deeper fundamental truth, an explanation that based on the WSM philosophy, which provides the physical explanation of the wave structure of matter.
In plain words, it says that there are no particles we try to envision as tiny billiard balls. There are no such things; the wave/particle confusion may be resolved once and for all. There are just standing and traveling waves in the aether that fills the infinite Universe.
Will it open a new horizon to understand of what is the next possible level of something more fundamental that explains the underlying mechanism of the earlier findings?
[1] http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ethe
r.html
[2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078HTWT7W/
report post as inappropriate
He holds it true that the space cannot be an absolute empty void, regardless that Einstein's SR declared that aether is nonexistence and by the way this declaration was the only modification to Lorentz's relativity.
Finally when Einstein gave an address on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden. [he admitted that GR would not hold up without eater.] He chose as his topic Ether and the Theory of published by Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, in 1922.
Jeff Yee's study [2] found the deeper fundamental truth, an explanation that based on the WSM philosophy, which provides the physical explanation of the wave structure of matter.
In plain words, it says that there are no particles we try to envision as tiny billiard balls. There are no such things; the wave/particle confusion may be resolved once and for all. There are just standing and traveling waves in the aether that fills the infinite Universe.
Will it open a new horizon to understand of what is the next possible level of something more fundamental that explains the underlying mechanism of the earlier findings?
[1] http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ethe
r.html
[2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078HTWT7W/
Thank you Karoly for your comment and feedback.
Hi Jeff Yee
“Although the universe appears to be a complex mix of particles, a simpler definition is possible when the components of the universe are split into fundamental parts. This definition, and how it applies to matter, forces and time is explored using a concept of wave energy and fundamental waves that travel the universe.” Wonderful words dear Jeff Yee…. By the way see my...
view entire post
“Although the universe appears to be a complex mix of particles, a simpler definition is possible when the components of the universe are split into fundamental parts. This definition, and how it applies to matter, forces and time is explored using a concept of wave energy and fundamental waves that travel the universe.” Wonderful words dear Jeff Yee…. By the way see my...
view entire post
Thanks. I will take a look at the paper.
Jeff
Almost but not quite. There are more “why” questions created than answered. The structure of the vacuum is fundamental and if you invert your approach from waves creating charge and etc. to charge creating waves etc. many more “why” questions are answered. At that point you can return to question “where does charge come from.”
Well done! Deserves a good score!
Sherman
report post as inappropriate
Almost but not quite. There are more “why” questions created than answered. The structure of the vacuum is fundamental and if you invert your approach from waves creating charge and etc. to charge creating waves etc. many more “why” questions are answered. At that point you can return to question “where does charge come from.”
Well done! Deserves a good score!
Sherman
Thanks Sherman. I appreciate the feedback.
Dear Jeff,
Here we are again all together.
I highly appreciate your work, and your aspirations for the particle table are close to me.
I completely agree with you.
«A fundamental wave center is the foundation for the creation of particles. As longitudinal waves reflect off the wave center to create standing waves, the stored energy becomes the mass of a particle. When wave centers combine, new particles are created. The universe is simple and fundamental».
I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
report post as inappropriate
Here we are again all together.
I highly appreciate your work, and your aspirations for the particle table are close to me.
I completely agree with you.
«A fundamental wave center is the foundation for the creation of particles. As longitudinal waves reflect off the wave center to create standing waves, the stored energy becomes the mass of a particle. When wave centers combine, new particles are created. The universe is simple and fundamental».
I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
Hi Vladimir, thanks for the comment. I'll take a look at the essay.
Jeff,
I think you chose your subject well. Of course whether wave or quanta we still need to ask 'of what'? but I think you did a very good job. I covered such interactions and the LT in my finalist 2012 & 2013 essays and this year the 3D wave(/particle) dynamic leads logically to rather a shock. Do check it out. I'm interested if you agree my postulates. And the Majorana fermion??
As an Astronomer waves and Lambda are the primary scalar, frequency just the time derivative after arrival/interaction, and Huygens rules. But I didn't see mention of the often ignored Doppler shift found when entering a co-moving medium. Why so?
I'm interested in your electron work and will follow the link you posted to Alan K above. Are you familiar with the Poincare sphere? - 4 orthogonal conjugate states as Maxwells, I've just discovered my experimental discovery already existed! (though ignored). My title; "Ridiculous Simplicity" agreed your conclusion; "The universe is simple and fundamental."
Very best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
I think you chose your subject well. Of course whether wave or quanta we still need to ask 'of what'? but I think you did a very good job. I covered such interactions and the LT in my finalist 2012 & 2013 essays and this year the 3D wave(/particle) dynamic leads logically to rather a shock. Do check it out. I'm interested if you agree my postulates. And the Majorana fermion??
As an Astronomer waves and Lambda are the primary scalar, frequency just the time derivative after arrival/interaction, and Huygens rules. But I didn't see mention of the often ignored Doppler shift found when entering a co-moving medium. Why so?
I'm interested in your electron work and will follow the link you posted to Alan K above. Are you familiar with the Poincare sphere? - 4 orthogonal conjugate states as Maxwells, I've just discovered my experimental discovery already existed! (though ignored). My title; "Ridiculous Simplicity" agreed your conclusion; "The universe is simple and fundamental."
Very best
Peter
Hi Peter, quick answers to your questions and then I'll have to review your 2012/2013 essays later to answer your first question. But regarding Doppler shift, it is addressed elsewhere, just not in this essay. Doppler would indeed explain the Lorentz factor in relativity and a logical explanation for time dilation and length contraction. I have more information here: http://energywavetheory.com/explanations/length-contraction/
.
Also, regarding the Poincare sphere question... no, not that familiar with it but thanks for the tip. I will review.
.
Also, regarding the Poincare sphere question... no, not that familiar with it but thanks for the tip. I will review.
Jeff,
Apologies, it was Colin Walkers essay I posted the sequence outline on. I'll add it below.
The Poincare Sphere is simply what I showed in my figs lat year and experiment (photo's) this year. There's a 2nd (orthogonal) momentum pair 'hidden away' in orbital angular momentum OAM, equivalent to Maxwells 'curl' at poles, but just 'linear' at 90o on the equator left/right also opposite at 180o. Bohr didn't use it formulating QM!
100sec video here, including classical 'non-integer spins' from y & z axis rotation!!
The easy way to start is to follow through the actual mechanism using the brains visualisation skills computing power and logic. As Wheeler said, get the answer before doing the maths! The Process;
1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.
2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)
3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.
4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.
5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.
6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.
7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.
8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!
If the numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 you've got them right.
Not this all came from the simple SR solution discussed, so allows unification both decluttered. (not that mainstream will welcome it or allow it in!) Let me know how you get on.
I'm a bit tied up with a dinner & rugby internationals this weekend so I'm scoring yours now in case I get tight for time. A well deserved boost. Well done.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Apologies, it was Colin Walkers essay I posted the sequence outline on. I'll add it below.
The Poincare Sphere is simply what I showed in my figs lat year and experiment (photo's) this year. There's a 2nd (orthogonal) momentum pair 'hidden away' in orbital angular momentum OAM, equivalent to Maxwells 'curl' at poles, but just 'linear' at 90o on the equator left/right also opposite at 180o. Bohr didn't use it formulating QM!
100sec video here, including classical 'non-integer spins' from y & z axis rotation!!
The easy way to start is to follow through the actual mechanism using the brains visualisation skills computing power and logic. As Wheeler said, get the answer before doing the maths! The Process;
1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.
2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)
3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.
4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.
5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.
6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.
7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.
8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!
If the numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 you've got them right.
Not this all came from the simple SR solution discussed, so allows unification both decluttered. (not that mainstream will welcome it or allow it in!) Let me know how you get on.
I'm a bit tied up with a dinner & rugby internationals this weekend so I'm scoring yours now in case I get tight for time. A well deserved boost. Well done.
Peter
Dear Jeff Yee, it's very interesting: longitudinal and transverse waves. I wish these waves were considered in the physical space, which for Descartes is a matter which is moving. Physical space is the basis for fundamental theories. Time is a synonym for the total movement. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. the identity of space and matter Descartes Evaluate and leave your comment there. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which can to be the theory of everything OO.
I wish you success! Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
I wish you success! Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris
Login or create account to post reply or comment.