B Can a Wave Exist Without a Medium?

[QI]

Thank you.

hi Gary, in describing waves / particles etc it may be of help to create a drill down from Space to the atmosphere on Earth ----- to the nucleus etc, defining and redefining as needed for each addition / change in definition. This it quit old fashioned but I have always found it an invaluable tool for focusing the mind and you pick up things that most people miss. :)

 

[Gary Smith]

hi Gary, in describing waves / particles etc it may be of help to create a drill down from Space to the atmosphere on Earth ----- to the nucleus etc, defining and redefining as needed for each addition / change in definition. This it quit old fashioned but I have always found it an invaluable tool for focusing the mind and you pick up things that most people miss. :)

Thank you. I probably have to look in another direction to find my answers.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Thank you. I probably have to look in another direction to find my answers.

You also need to be looking for a way to connect all these answers together in a coherent way. It's the relationship between things that makes Science what it is. It's not just a set of interesting instances. That's why I have been batting on about structured learning. it can't be done without it.

 

[Gary Smith]

You also need to be looking for a way to connect all these answers together in a coherent way. It's the relationship between things that makes Science what it is. It's not just a set of interesting instances. That's why I have been batting on about structured learning. it can't be done without it.

I grew up in a household dominated by academic and scientific thinking. I understand structured learning. It sounds like being force-fed another person's ideas. Even if it is peer reviewed and meets the highest standards of science, it is from an incomplete perspective. Not for me, thank you.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I grew up in a household dominated by academic and scientific thinking. I understand structured learning. It sounds like being force-fed another person's ideas. Not for me, thank you.

OK. That's your choice but don't expect to get much real understanding with your method. It's a shame that you use the word "dominated". Scientific thinking liberates one because it give you the tools with which to learn. 'Dabbling' doesn't achieve very much except that it can be enjoyable.

 

[Gary Smith]

All I meant by dominated is that my dad was a university professor. His academic choices and scientific mind influenced my family life growing up. We never fully understood each other, but our mutual love and respect was enough. I just made other choices in life.

sophiecentaur, if you have interest to know why I choose my method, a visit to my PF profile might help. I don't expect you to read it, but if you do you may realize that structured learning will not give me the tools I need. What physics class will provide anything I want to know about the consciousness of matter?

 

[davenn]

What physics class will provide anything I want to know about the consciousness of matter?

nothing ... because again you are straying into the non-science realm which won't do any good in the long run as far as gaining knowledge about the world around you and how it works

If you want to learn real science, we are all willing to help you.
But if you want to talk about stuff that cannot be grounded in reality, then you are on your ownDave

 

[sophiecentaur]

a visit to my PF profile might help

There is nothing on your page except your age and location. They 'explain' nothing to me.

What physics class will provide anything I want to know about the consciousness of matter

This is just more word salad. If you want to discuss such airy fairy stuff then you need a very different forum. Read the PF mission statement and it will tell you what we discuss. It suits us fine.

 

[UsableThought]

There is nothing on your page except your age and location. They 'explain' nothing to me.

@sophiecentaur - you must click the "Info" tab for someone's profile to see if they have written anything about themselves. If you right-click on the tab you will also find it has a direct link - in this case, https://www.physicsforums.com/members/gary-smith.626067/#info

 

[sophiecentaur]

@UsableThought: thanks. I can't think how I didn't know that already. Perhaps the format has changed over the years.

 

[sophiecentaur]

@GarySmith
I have read your info now. I can see how your views are at odds with PF. You say "The implications of conscious matter which can be communicated with have to be right up there with the most significant discoveries/ breakthroughs of science. If it is disproved, I accept it. My first priority is to know the truth." In particular :"If it is disproved, I accept it". That is not the way Science works. If a new idea like Conscious Matter is introduced, it is not the task of the Establishment to disprove it. It is the task of its exponents to Prove it. If you or your chums can prove it exists then it will take its place in main stream Science and PF will accept it. If Science took on board every bit of random fancy that turns up, we would still be using the Four Elements of History and would know nothing about Electricity, Space travel or Curing Disease. Those subjects (and all creditable subjects) are based on Evidence, not fancy.

 

[Gary Smith]

If you want to learn real science, we are all willing to help you.
But if you want to talk about stuff that cannot be grounded in reality, then you are on your own

Dave, I appreciate that you are all willing to help me with learning real science. This morning, I was going to delete some of my earlier comments, as they are straying too far from the PF mission. I am just wondering, how does anything become 'real science'? And in its history, which I do not know, has there ever been stuff which was considered to be not grounded in reality, and then was discovered to in fact be so? My interest is in applying real science to stuff which appears metaphysical but which I suspect will eventually be discovered to be actual. Anyway, I leave the PF with gratitude for everyone's help. If I return in the future, it will be with renewed effort to keep my posts within PF guidelines and the subjects of real science. Thank you all.

 

[Brian blake science]

I don't think so ! A wave is a disturbance in a medium. So it needs to be generated by a variation of pressure like factors .

 

[Gary Smith]

It is the task of its exponents to Prove it.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I have been doing my own experiments to objectify ideas. I came to PF to find ways to validate or invalidate the ideas within the context of scientific method.

If you or your chums can prove it exists then it will take its place in main stream Science and PF will accept it.

My only chum in this is a stone. We may prove it in the end after all. Or not. I think you have been advised by a moderator to avoid the word 'exists' in these threads.

If Science took on board every bit of random fancy that turns up, we would still be using the Four Elements of History and would know nothing about Electricity, Space travel or Curing Disease.

My subject of interest is hardly a fancy, when you consider its history. Another scientist in the PF told me science has never done serious studies of my subject of interest. If I continue this writing, I will inevitably veer again into non-PF territory. If anyone wants further communication with me, please take it out of the public conversations and into private, to respect the mission of PF. Thank you.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Another scientist in the PF told me science has never done serious studies of my subject of interest.

That doesn't surprise me at all. It isn't Science.

We may prove it in the end after all.

You have suitable experiments planned, to provide evidence? You will find a willing audience to discuss any work that you plan to do or that you can provide references for

 

[Gary Smith]

A wave is a disturbance in a medium. So it needs to be generated by a variation of pressure like factors .

On a particle level, does all motion create disturbance, therefore waves, in the medium through which it moves?

 

[jbriggs444]

On a particle level, does all motion create disturbance, therefore waves, in the medium through which it moves?

To the extent that the question is sensible, the answer is "no".

First, there is not necessarily any medium. Second, all motion is relative. A "moving" particle (e.g. a neutron) can equally well be described as being at rest. If it is at rest, it naturally does not create any disturbance.