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

Nature loves the waveform

  1. Aug 12, 2004 #1
    Nature "loves" the waveform

    Nature "loves" the waveform; from our psychological states to quantum mechanical states, from the motion of the pendulum to the alternating current we use everyday, from the motion of stars and the planets to the tides on earth, we are surrounded by the wave nature.

    My best regards to all

    Enjoy the wave nature of reality!

  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 12, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Possibly of explanatory power is something I read once, somewhere, somewhen. Any reasonably smooth potential (smooth in its value as position in space varies) that has a minimum will look like a linear spring for small displacements from the minimum. And the good old Hooke's Law spring & mass system moves sinusoidally over time, like any common stripped-to-the-bone wave ought to.
  4. Aug 13, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Lurking in the background. Sometimes you disturb me, Janitor. Having considered, and heard, your arguments make me uncomfortable.
  5. Aug 14, 2004 #4
    Nature "loves" the waveform; from our psychological states to quantum mechanical states, from the motion of the pendulum to the alternating current we use everyday, from the motion of stars and the planets to the tides on earth, we are surrounded by the wave nature.
    Even photons travel as waves , but does that mean that they are both particle and wave , just depending on how you look at them.
  6. Aug 14, 2004 #5
    assume that for pure knowledge sake you might be interested in understanding the missing link. Spacetime is not the true way to understand the relationship between the concepts of matter, energy, time, space and speed. Relativity is the point of origin mass to energy transfer between matter, bound, and matter, free- the Gravity wave. That is to say that matter evaporates into the gravitational wave creating the actions of space, time and gravitational wave sychronization. Space is the gravitational wave being freed to its lowest form of matter. Time is the cosmological constant -the evaporation rate of matter. There is no real curved spacetime. It is gravitational wave sychronization, gravitational waves aligning through the path of least resistance that brings matter together, that is responsible time and space distortion as the waves elongate just as the dopler effect works in sounds. Instead of the sound wave being shortened or elongated when compared to moving objects the gravity wave is shortened or lengthened, red-blue shift which affects not the action of sound but the actions of time and space. Time and space are actions created by each discrete piece of matter as the matter evaporates into the gravitational wave. Space is the unfolding of matter. Time is the resulting action of the rate of evaporation of the gravitational wave. Relativity- Point of origin mass to energy transfer in wave form.
    Newton- Einstein- Turner Copyright @ 2003, All Rights reserved. C. Michael Turner
    P.S.- no extra dimensions and no dark energy and dark matter.
  7. Aug 14, 2004 #6
    Is not photon the quantum of the electromagnetic field?
  8. Aug 14, 2004 #7
    Interesting proposal! but how do you conciliate the fact that according to Gauss's Law there is a complete equilibrium in the, as it were, gravitational charge? This is not the case with non gravitational fields such as the magnetic field, from which all energy seems to come
  9. Aug 14, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    When a fellow racks up 900 posts in six months, he's going to be doing a lot of lurking.

    I will try to stay reasonably on-topic, but a lot of times the topic at hand gets me to thinking about something a little different, but not so different that I want to start a whole new thread.
  10. Aug 15, 2004 #9
    Yes Janitor, thank you, but why is it so difficult to take such a fact of nature for granted?
    My best regards
  11. Aug 15, 2004 #10
    duel monopoles

    Monopoles of equal displace cancel out any potential seen charges of the equation.
  12. Aug 15, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I think it is natural for scientists to try to explain the "why" behind phenomena to the degree that they can. In the case of waves, which in general may be defined as "a disturbance that propagates," they will want to investigate things like the nature of the medium for the waves, whether the wave motion is damped, whether the wave equation that best describes the wave is linear or nonlinear, and so on.

    Perturb a U-tube partly filled with liquid, and the height of the liquid surface in one side of the tube plotted vs. time is predicted to be a perfect sine wave--if one makes enough simplifiying assumptions, such as: the liquid is incompressible, the gravitational field is constant in its value over the range of motion, and the viscosity of the liquid is zero. (These idealizations amount to turning the problem into the simple harmonic oscillator, alluded to in my first post above.) Real-world deviations from these idealizations will make the time plot of surface height look more complicated than a simple sine wave looks.
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2004
  13. Aug 15, 2004 #12
    Yes, it will be more complicated but there we have Fourier Analysis according to which "any signal can be resolved into sinusoidal components", but we also find odd and even symmetry in those Fourier series and the so-called "orthogonality" properties of sinusoidal waves, that make the analysis simpler
  14. Aug 16, 2004 #13
    the smallness of Gravitation- to small to ever see

    Hey that is an easy one. it is not anyform of transfering of gravity. Both sides of any equation are decaying directly related to the densities of each. Reletive and transitional densities have no direct measurable bearing on this this small of a repulsion scale that you call a charge.
  15. Aug 19, 2004 #14
    Well I was precisely thinking not in a small scale but at large, at cosmic scale, where we must have a complete balance.
  16. Aug 19, 2004 #15
    Epsilon Pi,

    Are waveforms 2D or 3D? I think, the propagation of waves is always 1D for point source (0D) but is this an idealization? Point source?
  17. Aug 19, 2004 #16
    Another question:

    In 1D, can the zero divergence of a velocity field be equivalent to the frequency of a wave?

    [tex] \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v} = 0 \equiv \nu [/tex]
  18. Aug 19, 2004 #17
    More question:

    Can the speed of light be alternatively defined as the following?

    [tex] c = \lambda \left( \lim_{\substack{\vec{v} \rightarrow \infty}} \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v} \right) [/tex]
  19. Aug 19, 2004 #18
    does it depend on the framework used?

    The answer to this question depends on the framework used:
    - if we use Einstein's framework then it will be 4D
    - but if we use a framework where duality has been rationalized in the complex plane, then using the dimension concept that in my opinion is not quite correct in this case, it must be 5D, where the 5D has to do with that totality that includes and transcends space and time.

    Best regards
  20. Aug 20, 2004 #19
    Isn't this what Kaluza did in 1919? And I think superstring theory carried this to 10D and 11D.

    I really would like to make dimension layering a conceptual base on 3D. So that 4D is really a higher layer 1D (4 - 3 = 1), 5D is 2nd layer 2D (5 - 3 = 2), 6D is 2nd layer 3D (6 - 3 = 3), ..., 10D is 4th layer 1D ( 10 - 3 - 3 - 3 = 1), 11D is 4th layer 2D (11 - 3 - 3 - 3 = 2).
  21. Aug 20, 2004 #20
    Could you give me a good reference, please, of Kaluza's work? Did he work with complex numbers?
    In regards to superstring theory I was wondering if with it, not only predictions of the so-called normal science are preserved but even most importantly all those equations such as the SWE, the equations of the Lorentz transformation group, the equations of the normal planets behaving as an ellipse, the deviation of Mercury in regard to the normal equation, and finally can it document the pendulum formula? Or does it not have to do anymore with these classical matters, but just with the chemistry of nuclear interactions?
    And yes, this generalization of space dimension including time is something I really would not buy, as it seems to me it is derived from a point of view in which duality is not rationalized, as when was written:
    "...if the ds belonging to the element DX1....DX4 is positive, we follow Minkowski in calling it time-like; if it is negative, we call it space-like..."
    "Thus, according to the general theory of relativity, gravitation occupies an exceptional position in regard to other forces, particularly the electromagnetic forces, since the ten functions representing the gravitational field at the same time define the metrical properties of the space measured." A.Einstein
    For "seeing" all these matters properly, should we not have kind of meta-system that even can tend a bridge to life?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Nature loves the waveform
  1. The Nature of IS (Replies: 0)

  2. Lovely Curves (Replies: 2)

  3. Waveform notation (Replies: 11)

  4. Waveforms & Barriers (Replies: 1)

  5. Adding waveforms (Replies: 2)