Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can vacuum be considered as excitable medium?

  1. Jun 20, 2008 #1
    I can formulate the problem as follows:

    Assume that the vacuum is multidimensional excitable medium. We want to prove or reject this statement. The simplest way to reject is to find any fact (phenomenon or property of the world) which contradicts the assumption.

    I can assume some consequences which follows from the assumption and which can be disproved.

    1) According to assumption photons can be described as autowaves which are in parametric resonance with oscillations of the medium. Such autowaves move along strait line with speed determined by properties of the medium. This implies that in the medium there should be some global “oscillating field” with which parametric resonance is possible.

    2) On the other hand, elementary particles can be considered as multidimensional whirlwinds (autosolitons) in this medium. Such autosolitons are not in resonance with global oscillating field, that’s why they have rest mass.

    3) Quantification may mean prohibition of autowaves (autosolitons) for which frequency of rotation is not divisible by (or multiple of?) frequency of ‘main’ oscillation field.

    Unfortunately, my knowledge does not allow me to prove or disprove these assumptions. Can anybody help me?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 20, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    GR and QM attach physical properties to vacuum. GR attach tension and states that it propagates at speed of light. QM attach fluctuations to vacuum but does not state anything about any differences in those fluctuations across distances but anyways there is a property.

    So why to assume otherwise?
    And the simplest way to reject this is simply to ignore it.
  4. Jun 20, 2008 #3
    Of course existing models of physical world (QM and GR in particular) well describe most of known properties of reality. To talk about going “deeper” then QM and GR one should have serious enough reasons.

    I see two reasons for this move: weak and strong. They both come from analysis of phenomena related to life.

    “Weak” reason for my assumption comes from observation that all organisms (starting from single cells) are actually a bunch of autowave media. I assume that there was some external medium, processes in which caused appearance of first cells. If this assumption is correct then it is highly probable that this unknown medium was excitable. In this case autowave properties of living beings are just replica, imprint of basic properties of this medium.

    Again, if life appeared in tight relationship with this hypothetic medium, one can assume that any organism today still have some kind of connection to this medium. If we discover this connection we will find (and prove) physical background of the Life.

    “Strong” reason comes from attempt to find physical proofs of such connection. It is clear that such proofs cannot be found in well-established and studied fields such as genetics, pharmacology or physiology. Target phenomena should possess two properties: a) they should have physical nature and be firmly validated by physicists, and b) they should not be explainable using existing physical or biological models.

    Luckily such phenomena are well known and described in scientific literature. I mean papers of H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ who studied telekinesis. Due to them this phenomenon can be considered as scientific fact which cannot be explained using any existent physical model or theory.

    I can add some very interesting papers of Russian physics Pytyev (in Russian) who studied the physics of out-of-body vision, but I’m not sure that this will help the discussion.

    Under assumption about connection between an organism and surrounding it excitable medium, the telekinesis can be considered as some kind of “leaking” of energy from this medium to our physical world. This “leaking” is organized and directed by psychic who uses biochemical processes in his body to establish some kind of “resonance” with processes in excitable medium.

    So, if surrounding us hypothetic “excitable medium” exists, telekinesis and out-of-body vision most of all are based on mechanisms of direct interaction with this medium. And this, in turn, can be the proof of the role of this medium in appearance of life.

    But here we come to the original question of the discussion.

    If such unknown and undiscovered yet medium really exists, we can say about it two things. 1) Most of all it underlies any physical process in our world and 2) Interaction between this medium and baryons is very weak because this medium was not yet discovered.

    From my point of view physical vacuum is the best candidate for this medium.

    Concerning QM and GR I can remind that they are based on some primary assumptions or experimental facts which are taken “as is” and are not explained in limits of these models. If I am right, these basics of QM and GR can be just derived from the properties of “excitable vacuum”. In this case QM and GR, like Newton mechanics, will become an “asymptotic limit” of new model. But in no case there should be contradiction between well-known facts and new model.
  5. Jun 20, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I would say that physics are more concerned about non living things.

    I think it is best addressed in mathematical formalism. Axiomatic systems start with Undefined terms/primitive terms and Axioms/postulates. So you have to take something "as is" before you can start some deduction process.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook