If earth would be a standing wave model with the solar constant of 1370W/m^2 as the amplitude of the incoming wave combined with earth amplitude defined by the solar constant received into a massless spherical cavity defined as a spherical volume 4/3pi, the surface temperature of earth is ½1370/(4/3)^2, the outward radiated energy as 1/3 of surface temperature in Kelvin^4, then the total energy of the wave is(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

2σT^4*(4/3)^2+1/3σT

2σT^4/π seems to be what is called the effective temperature.

2σT^4*(4/3)/4=2/3σT is the energy balance inside the cavity

This seems to work as a model for the energydensity of earth as a spherical cavity. It gives the right temperatures throughout the system.

If I divide the speed of light in km/s with the solar constant, I get the tropopause temperature in Kelvin, 218.97K without a constant.

If I divide the speed of light in km/s with 2σT^4 I get σT^4

If we take m*c^2 as a fact, dividing with the solar constant gives the energy of deccelerating and extracting potential energy. Treating the solar constant and the tropopause temperature in Kelvin, 1/3σT^4, as different sized packets of radiation, like macroscopic photons, it seems like solar energy can be quantized to describe the earth as a wave function. The dissappearance of σ when dividing light speed with the solar constant seems to clear up the relationship between outwards radiated energy and solar energy, as maximum solar energy directly translated to minimum earth energy in Kelvin. When it also can give both σT^4 and 2σT^4 as relationship between the smallest amount of solar energy in the system and the maximum amount of earth radiated energy, both as Joule or Watts, it is almost a bit spooky.

As far as I can see, this model describes the relationship between the sun and earth as a standing wave, mass included, as temperature or energydensity. The wave of the sun and earth, travels side by side at light speed, the sun acts as a resistance for earth, deccelerating it to a difference equal to extracting 1370J/m^3 of potential energy. The explanation for this would be that mass came into existance, or condensed, when acceleration to the speed of light was already a fact. That would give the speed of light a twist, it is the speed of mass. Also, the big bang is not a past event, it is what is happening now. Using W/m^2 gives the funny result of the universe having the age of a second. Or it can be seen as the difference in speed between the sun and earth, one second.

This gives a perspective where gravity can be the consequence of relative acceleration, like being pushed inte the seat of a car accelerating. It also explains how matter can have the energy of mc^2 and why it is unavailable for extraction. It is potential energy shared between us and the solar system. Extraction of energy can only be made by some sort of force deccelerating mass. When it slows down, space time dissolves and release the energy. It also seems more logical to think of reality composed of a onedimensional signal expanding in 3 dimensions of time. Because a point signal strength of Intensity 1370J is expanded into spacetime as a body in space, and the only factor needed is time. Since we are using Watts for the solar constant, and it corresponds to Kelvin with the speed of light(or matter), the expansion into the mass of earth is equal to one second.

Thinking like this, the illusion of reality is a fact. A point signal defined by a standing wave from the sun travelling at the speed of light, expands into spacetime as a function of relative acceleration. If expanding energy from big bang meets a resistance that is equal to 1370J in a point, the difference in relative velocity result in mass equal to 2σT^4*(4/3)^2+1/3σT with a surface temperature 287K equal to 385.3125J/m^3 and a outer boundary temperature of 218K equal to 128,4375J/m^3.

Dividing light speed in km/s with the state of the standing wave gives slightly different values, it might be a question of perspective. It doesn`t differ by much, a few watts at the surface and a fraction of a Kelvin at the tropopause.

What to make of this? It describes the relationships very well, I think. The inclusion of speed of light, disappearance of the stefan-boltzmann constant, and nailing the temperatures inside the system is hard to ignore. And, the quantized macroscopic photon, turned into a standing wavefunction in harmonic resonance with solar energy, seems to be the quantum mechanics of earth, treating earth as a particle in space. The resemblance of atomic structure in the solar system suddenly makes sense. And Planck´s quantization of the photon is the microscopic model of the same thing, the photon being a spherical cavity, a bubble, receiving energy.

If we are inside a quantum system, it is not strange that we have been unable to identify quantum states above the microscopic level, because we are all observers measuring inside the wavefunction making it "collapse". The collapsing wavefunction now seems like an incorrect description of what is happening. A measurement simply correspond to the rest of the wavefunction and the illusion of time makes them appear separate.

A last thought, the energy E in E=mc^2 seems to be impossible to define in a way that exclude matter entirely. All definitions of energy includes a relationship to matter, like a photon only is measured interacting with matter. We cannot describe energy in a way that separates it from ourselves as existing indepently, that is, we cannot describe energy independent of spacetime objectively. The energy E has no properties in itself. A joule or Watt, for example, is defined as a property of dimensions in space, or more correctly, a property of time as a function of a point signal.

There are two things that display this lack of properties, the vacuum and E. Could it be that they are the same thing?

I´m having a hard time denying this, the inclusion of e=mc^2 on a macroscale as a macrophoton, and the speed of light corresponding to the system state without constant is so surprising. Explaining the relationships like this seems to put everything at rest.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# I Can earth be described as a wave function only?

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - earth described wave | Date |
---|---|

I How can General Relativity explain the Moon drifting apart from Earth | Mar 3, 2018 |

B Another question about Gravity -- Does the apple attract the Earth? | Jan 25, 2018 |

I Exceeding the speed of light (stars seem to exceed c in our Earth's rotating reference frame) | Jan 7, 2018 |

I Why special relativity is unsuitable to describe gravity | Jul 8, 2017 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**