Since there is no specific order in which pages can be viewed, this foreword may be used in many pages. This site is currently under construction so please be understanding that much of this is brief and basic as a result. The work contained here is certain to undergo continual metamorphism during the site's era of operation. Both from gaining ground in building the pages and from continued learning.
The following thought is appropriate to many topics and is hoped it to be present in everyone's mind.....
When trying to share new ideas and thoughts, we often come across negative people who don't like to give much consideration to anything different than what they already think. We can quickly recognize these people by their closed minded questions where they really seek no answer and/or their scoffing statements. We can always find an excuse of why not to change. Sorrowfully, it takes for the train to follow the tracks off the cliff before some people finally want to accept that maybe they should have rebuilt and diverted the train track a long time ago.
We all must step back, clear our minds, and remember that some ideas that have come to be regarded as facts, are not facts but theories. A technicality can be said that some topics are more hypothesis and others are more theory. That technicality is really unimportant to the point. We shouldn't hold all solid conclusions as eternally incontrovertible. The best available logic and technology that was used to arrive at today's verdict can be obsolete and surpassed tomorrow; this can allow us to gather new data, gain new understandings, and come to new conclusions.
We have a perpetual possibility that things are not as we have held them to be. If we have become possessive and steadfast to a single doctrine, then we set ourselves up to reject new knowledge and put a cap on our growth. It is not in our best interest to have a mindset that refuses to question the accuracy of what we think we know. We should not turn away from examining other peoples' ideas that are different; we might realize we are wrong and not them. As long as we are open to entertain other possibilities without subjecting them to the bias of preconceived beliefs, we have the potential for growth. We all have our personal favorite theory, but we should try to remain neutral when analyzing other ideas. We must not put limits in our minds.
"Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous."
"If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee
A few years ago I decided to start studying nuclear physics topics, both in and out of school. I came across an interesting site during some research. The "outside of the box" ideas I found on Xavier Borg's site (www.blazelabs.com) caused the bubble that my mind was trapped in to burst. My mind was freed and I felt as if the whole universe opened up to me. It is from the Blaze Labs site that I was introduced to the work of Dr. Milo Wolff. I bought both of Milo's books (Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe and Schrodinger's Universe and the Origin of Natural Laws), visited his website (www.quantummatter.com), and the site by Geoff Haselhurst that Milo is tied with (www.spaceandmotion.com). All of which I have high regards for and suggest everyone to check out for themselves. I should also add that I feel blessed with having had many email conversations with Milo. I truly believe he is one of the Greats of our time and will someday be in the history books along side of Einstein, Tesla, Thomas Townsend Brown, et al. At the time of this writing, I am working on permission to link a few more sites as well.
I have planned to write a few short papers for further explanation, but for now I will keep it short. I studied Milo's advancements on the Wave Structure of Matter theory. During some of my nuclear classes, the information I had learned from the above mentioned sites really started to click. It was apparent that Einstein was right when he stated that, "mass and energy are two different forms of the same thing." I also strongly agree with Xavier and Milo when they comment about the wrong turn physics took with pursuing the tangible particle theory.
I sent a copy of Milo's Schrodinger's Universe book to the brother of an elder, mentor friend of mine. The brother had let me borrow some of his books on physics subjects so I returned the favor. He is a U.C. Berkeley Nuclear Physics Graduate and retiree from Lockheed Martin. He commented that Milo's work was the best he has seen to date at explaining the electron. It answered many questions he had pondered for the past many decades. An action that speaks even louder; he ordered copies of Milo's books for himself.
To give a quick description of WSM, this theory holds that particle appearances are composed of both inward and outward spherical quantum waves, simultaneously. The standing wave structures produced during in phase alignment is what gives the appearance of atomic structures.
Even if one were to put aside all other theories and just view the standard particle theories, they just don't have a logical, fluid unification. I am only a green horn who has just begun learning the tip of the iceberg. I am aware that my limited knowledge makes me susceptible to not posses or comprehend the intricate aspects and how all the pieces of the puzzle fit. But I keep seeing main stream theories that scream foul. Because the patchwork to tie the theories together, is not unification, but a circus act. It seems some of these issues stick out like a fireworks show on a dark, quiet night.
There are many concepts where the tangible particle theories contradict themselves, here are a few: In most of the explanations I have seen, the electron is not said to be a part that makes up a nucleus; it is broken down into protons, neutrons, quarks, gluons, muons, leptons, etc.. Yet there is an event that is called "electron capture", where the proton of a nucleus absorbs an electron, turns into a neutron, the atomic mass stays the same, but a new element is formed as a result of changing the proton count. The nucleus can emit a beta particle (β), that has the same mass as an electron, but if it is + charged it is called a positron (aka an anti-electron), if it is negatively charged it is commonly said to be "equivalent" to an electron. It's a slow change, but more people are starting to make the change in accepting and teaching that the electron is not a tangible, solid little particle. Still clinging to particle theory, some even call it a wave-icle. In his book A Brief History in Time, Stephen Hawking describes the "Grand Unification Theory". A part of which says that given enough energy, quarks will transform into different particles! (Again- with only energy input, a tiny particle will transform into a bigger particle.) In standard quantum mechanics, there is what is called a "force carrying virtual particle" that exchanges energy between "real" particles. I have seen the idea of an aether or space medium shunned, but in contradiction the concept of dark matter and/or other matter distributed throughout the universe is accepted. It is said that an object increases mass with speed. An object gains 1/2% (one half percent) above its normal mass at 10% the speed of light. It will double its mass at 90% the speed of light. Photons are called particles, but yet they are admitted to be an "energy packet". A gamma ray (photon), has no mass or charge, yet it can be converted into 2 particles in the intense electric field close to a charged particle such as an atom's nucleus; a positron-electron pair (both of which have mass and charge) with the sum of their energies equaling that of the photon. If the positron-electron pair are followed, they can reunite to form a chargeless and massless gamma ray again. The well known "particle-wave duality" phenomenon is especially contradictory.
We can evaluate even further. Neutrons are said to have more mass than a proton. It is also stated for a neutron decaying into a proton that supposedly a down quark transforms into an up quark by the emission of a W- boson, the W- boson then transforms into an electron (e-) and an electron anti-neutrino: β- decay.
Now let’s consider a proton decaying into a neutron: β+ decay. Since the mass of a neutron is heavier than a proton, there must be an energy input to the proton and the subsequent conversion of energy into mass. So an amount of energy is put into the proton (such as from nucleus binding energy), the proton transmutates into a neutron, and the emission of a positron (e+) and neutrino occur.
I have listed many incidents where we have that spooky phenomenon of energy becoming, and altering the appearance of, particle properties.
Speaking of “spooky phenomenon”, Einstein believed that everything was connected in continuity; that matter was inseparable from the space it occupied. To him, to consider different was in violation of natural laws. Unfortunately, he did not take the idea further. He considered “non-locality” to be “spooky action at a distance”. This was derived in a paper he, Podolsky, and Rosen published in 1935.
Surely if everything is a part of the universe, the universe is a part of everything, then what happens at one location will have effects in other locations; and can very well do it at the speed of light. Bell’s Theorem of non-locality has shown us that there is in fact what we term action at a distance. To further the application of this, we know the Chinese have capitalized on this with their military use of “teleporting” communication messages. (see: Time, Sept. 9, 2010, “China’s Great Quantum Leap Forward”)
What happens if the Wave Structure of Matter theory is applied? Apply it to aether, dark matter, or to an unknown matter -said to be seen due to its gravitational effects in the universe- the name is not important. There appears to be a space medium and that medium can conduct waves. Space is not empty, we know it is full of waves. Background radiation waves, light waves, or other electromagnetic waves, show that space is not empty. It is the medium in which the energy from the stars is transmitted throughout the universe and it is the medium in which everything is linked in continuity. As Dr. Wolff pointed out, "once particle theory is discarded, all paradoxes disappear with it." In my research over the past few years, I have been noticing that more Physicists are starting to question the tangible particle notion.
It can be shown as Einstein stated, "mass and energy are just different forms of the same thing", and we know that a wave is energy being transferred. Below is an example comparing two hydrogen atoms and their fused product deuterium. There is a value of missing mass, which is found and accounted for in the energy of the photon emitted from the process.
1 hydrogen atom ≈ 1.00794u, 2 hydrogen atoms = 2.01588u
2 hydrogen atoms fused into deuterium ≈ 2.01410178u + photon emission (+ kinetic energy), E=mc^2
2H mass ≈ 2.01588u minus deuterium mass of 2.01410178u = a mass defect of 0.001778u
Converting amu to m: 0.001778u * 1.660538782 *10^-27 kg = 2.95244*10^-30 kg
E=mc^2= 2.95244*10^-30 kg * (2.998*10^8)^2 = 2.65356*10^-13J
2.65356*10^-13J * (1 MeV/1.6022*10^-13J) = 1.656 MeV
E ≈ 1.656 MeV
Checking E vs. the nuclear binding energy lost from the nucleus (B.E.):
amu is used for mass (m) in this formula...
B.E.= amu * 931.46 MeV
0.001778u * 931.46MeV ≈
1.656 MeV = B.E.
Essentially, 1.656 MeV = B.E. = E = mc^2 = mass defect * c^2 = Mass and energy being 2 forms of the same thing. Due to the law of conservation of energy, this is also equal to the energy of the photon emitted, which is also equal the energy required to perform the fusion.
To give further relationships where...
v = velocity c = speed of light h = Plank's constant m = mass J = joules
v= c/ λ
h= 6.62606896 * 10^-34J
1 eV= 1.60217733 * 10^-19J = 1240 nm/s
c= 2.99792458 * 10^8 m/s
1 amu= 931.46 MeV
1 J= 6.241506363 * 10^18 eV
We can produce the following relation: E = mc^2 = mass defect * c^2 = B.E. = hf = hv = hc/λ = hc/ (h/mv)
If mass and energy are the same thing and it is commonly held that energy is not a tangible particle, then there are no tangible particles in the universe that we know of and our search for the "God particle" is in vain.
There is yet another topic for an example of contradiction. After learning a very long time ago that the original labeling by Benjamin Franklin was wrong; why do we continue to label electricity and "particles" that we know to carry a charge, as being negatively charged? - Given that "negative" is defined as being void or without. For an ill effect example of this situation, this has caused many to believe that electricity flows from the positive to the negative.
I shall leave this with observation and thought:
It is interesting to evaluate some of the theories of the great Greek Philosophers from over 2000 years ago. This idea in mention claims all substances consist of the same root atom, arranged in different structural shapes, which gave the properties of the different substances, and the density was determined by how tightly these atoms were packed in a given area. In applying the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) to that theory, we might see they were incredibly close. If all atoms are cosmic wave energies, each different element being made up of a different wave frequency or interaction producing a different standing wave structure, with the density of this structure being related to how much energy is found in that given structure's area, we can see the logic of the Greek Philosophers was phenomenal. From the view point of a WSM theorists, they stumbled in the same area that current particle physics does; holding to the concept that particles must be material objects like subatomic sized grains of sand. A belief to coincide with the conception in our minds of a material universe as it appears to our observation through our limited senses.
Just because we label something with a name, does not mean we know what it is or where it comes from. Because it has a name does not mean it is a tangible object. The more sensitive our test equipment becomes, the smaller the subatomic particles become. Once we are able to see what we thought was the smallest particle, we find it is not there. We smash particles together in an accelerator to break them up in hopes of finding the even smaller particles that many theorize they are made out of; which produces smaller "particles" that only last a short time before disappearing. Hence a new theory emerges that the particle must be made of even smaller particles. When even more energy is whirled around in the large particle accelerators, they find more particle fragments upon collision. Keep in mind, energy and mass are the same thing; if more energy is added, of course there is going to be more mass (sum of particles) detected. I feel this is going to be a perpetual hunt for the illusive particle that will never be found and only get smaller as our test equipment becomes more sensitive. Possibly because they don't exist as the tangible particles we think we detect. I feel we are looking for and trying to create a description of something that shows how our limited bandwidth of perception presents the manifestations of quantum wave products into a material world.
Another food for thought topic: Look how many of the "fundamental forces" have the strength of their effect measured by the inverse square law. Gravity, magnetism, etc, have this similarity. We can throw in that radiation strength can be quantified the same way. Professor Carver Meade has shown in his book, Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism, that electromagnetism is not a force in itself, but an effect. Will we someday realize that the "five fundamental forces" are really "five fundamental effects," and that there is a single, fundamental and unifying, root cause currently hidden from our understanding?
It is my hypothesis that WSM theory will some day spread the answer and explanations of that to the world.
Interestingly, all of this can present even deeper thoughts of possibility. How can we fathom a reality, that before the cause, the universe has already responded with the effect? How do we grasp a reality, that there are no tangible particles and any substance that we see is just an illusionary manifestation? How can we understand a possibility of some theories 4 dimensions and the known unlimited bandwidth, when our senses operate in such a narrow window and we are but a 3 dimensional observation point?
Appearance is a property of the being. A characteristic of the conceptions in our mind. A property of understanding, rather than of reality. A summation unique to each observer. Relative to the past, present, and future of our coordinates in space and what we call time.