20190605

Are particles made of waves?


PSI Blog 20190605 Are particles made of waves?

A pertinent question from Nathan Rogers:

“Hi there!

I'm still a passionate follower of the Progressive Science Institute! I try to read as much as I can from your email updates, and something hit me the other day. In your IUT paper, there is a table comparing light in the BBT model and IUT. The BBT categorizes light as a particle-wave, while the IUT supports a wave. I was curious if you ever considered bringing in the Wave Structure of Matter to illuminate aspects of your theory on the microcosmic scale. It makes sense that light is a wave and that in turn, all matter is made of waves. I know Dr. Milo Wolff has brought forth studies on this topic - I was curious if you had looked into this theory or not and how it could relate and enforce the Ten Assumptions of Science.”

[GB: Nathan. Thanks so much for your question. Glad you are enjoying the PSI Blog.

I believe the idea particles are made of waves was nonexistent until the younger Einstein’s aether denial. Waves are the motion of matter. They only occur in a medium. For instance, a seismic wave produces shaking as it travels through bedrock. It would be foolish to claim bedrock consisted of seismic waves (i.e., that matter consisted of motion). But in the microcosmic world that type of claim has become all too common since 1905. As ridiculous as it may be, Einstein’s “wave-particle duality” ad hoc is essential for the photon theory, quantum mechanics, and the expanding universe theory.

Of course, light has well-known wave properties. This presented a special problem for the particle theory of light. How could a light particle travel through perfectly empty space and still have wave properties? Einstein’s answer was that the particle (later named the “photon”) would take the waves along with it. How this could occur is not clear, but some regressives such as Milo Wolff, who you mentioned, have advanced the idea that matter consists of waves.[1]

Where could that silly idea have come from? Here is Einstein himself, pontificating on the place particles might not have in his “immaterial” fields:

"Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."[2]

In typical fashion, “field strength” and “energy density” are not defined. That is because “fields” and “energy density” do not exist. Both are products of mathematical imagination. The universe has only two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. His denial of this fact makes him an idealist and an anti-mechanist of the first rank. Einstein’s supposed “overthrow” of Newtonian mechanism was not a revolution, but a counter-revolution. That was good for religion, but not so good for science.

In further analyzing this “matter consists of waves” idea, we need to view it as a violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). We define matter as an xyz portion of the universe and motion as what those portions of the universe do. In other words, matter exists; motion occurs. In seismology, bedrock exists; seismic waves occur. How to determine whether a phenomenon is matter or motion? Simple. If I can put it in my back pocket, it is matter; if I cannot, it is motion.

Univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without) teaches that matter (microcosms) does not “consist” of waves; it consists of other matter (submicrocosms). What has confused regressive physicists for over a century is the observation that the motion of matter is never perfect. The motion of a microcosm wavers because it must travel through a macrocosm filled with supermicrocosms. It is like running through a thick forest—you cannot do it without wavering. Similarly, the transmittance of motion from one place to another does not occur along a straight line. That is because the transmittance of motion such as sound or light requires a medium. That medium must be filled with microcosms capable of transferring motion from one microcosm to another. This transmittance is never perfect, hence the production of waves. So much so that we wrote a huge book on it called “Universal Cycle Theory.”[3]

It is true that many submicrocosms within a microcosm also travel in a wavering fashion or transmit motion through the submicrocosmic medium as a wave. Nonetheless, this does not mean that microcosms “consist” of waves, for waves are motion and motion is not a constituent. Again, waving is what constituents do. Einstein and his regressive followers would have done well to learn the difference between existence and occurrence.  
   


[2] Einstein, Albert, 1950, On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation: Scientific American, v. 182, no. 4, p. 13-17. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/24967425].
[3] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].



4 comments:

Bligh said...

Your statement that only matter exists is contradictory with your definition of "Inseparability".

Glenn Borchardt said...

False. Remember the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Matter has xyz dimensions; it exists. Motion does not have dimensions; it occurs.

Download and reread this: Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 64-68 [10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407].

Bill Howell said...

In your 20190605 blog titled Are Particles Made of Waves, you wrote that ‘fields do not exist and are simply a product of mathematical imagination’. While I agree that the concept of a field is immaterial (i.e. you can’t put it in your pocket), I think it’s more accurate to say that fields are a product of mathematical calculations.

Immaterial or not, something is influencing the orientation of iron filings around a magnet (and that something is centered on and decreases with distance from the magnet); and something is decreasing the influence of gravity as a spacecraft leaves the earth’s surface. In the hydrology work I’ve done involving pumping wells and piezometers, potentiometric-surface contour maps can be constructed from water level data. Although conceptual, potentiometric-surface maps seem to me to be good example of the concept of a field. If one accepts that space is a medium filled with aether, and that light is a waveform vibrating in that medium, could Einstein’s ‘curved space-time’ concept be re-interpreted as the mathematical expression of a massive object embedded within that medium (analogous to the potentiometric surface map of the saturated-unsaturated groundwater interface around a pumping well)?

Glenn Borchardt said...

Thanks Bill:

Here is Einstein's field definition I was referring to:

"Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part".

You are correct that a field can be something or nothing. Nonetheless, we both seem to prefer a definition in which fields consist of particles. In other words, the physical cause of
gravitation and magnetism is not nothing, but something, namely aether particles. The math works either way, so Newton and Einstein can think of it as the result of magical "attraction" or of "space-time. Of course, the data "proving" the "curvature" in GRT (General Relativity Theory) is produced by the aetherosphere that surrounds all baryonic matter. No wonder it is curved, as you implied.