What Determines the Characteristics of a Wave?

[baywax]

baywax,

Don't get caught comparing physical waves made by matter with the EM waves of light. There only similarities are on paper. Think about it this way: All EM radiation travels at c. Matter in any way shape or form cannot ever travel at c, if it tries it will be converted to energy. So, what are EM waves made of? Energy (roughly). What is energy made of?

This is were we hit a human snag. I think what and made of isn't the proper question to ask. Maybe try why? I don't know to tell you the truth. But what i do know is that some aspects of the physical world cannot be grasped in a regular humanly manner. We are bond by our own biology in a sense. So we say that light is an EM wave. What is an EM wave?

A clever mathematical description of the properties of something that you cannot apply normal human logic to so as to physically describe. Think about it. What do i mean by saying physical? Something that physically exist, and that I can personally see, touch, taste, smell, and whatnot. But if the actual make up of light contains no matter what so ever, then how can i expect it to be described by normal logic. And this is where mathematics comes trumpeting into save the day.

I cannot offer you a straight up answer to many of your questions because i simply do not know, and really maybe no one can as of yet. All I will do is give you my take on the subject in hopes that you and i both may come closer to our own understandings of the world.

robertm

Math is a language like any other language in that it we use it to describe nature. I personally feel it does a poor job of it in that it is stinted. Decimals seem to have helped but even these increments leave large gaps in their translations. So, we could say all language is a human attempt to describe nature and part of nature, if not all of it, is the phenomenon of the wave.

That's a good point about em waves traveling at c where matter would convert to raw energy at c. It could be that, if waves do generate matter, the waves are not propagating the same distance or are reflecting back and forth as a wave and so appear as and feel as a solid.

I think the link I gave you goes into "standing waves" to try and explain matter as a wave. Thank you!

PS. What is energy made of you have asked. Waves.

What makes waves... energy or... motion.

 

[baywax]

Apparently love comes in waves... (actually, waves discovered by someone named Love)

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=231769

 

[baywax]

All this aside, its looking like waves are made of motion which is a tell tale sign that there is energy at play.

 

[RocketSurgery]

What is sunrise made of?
Its made of the rotation of the earth, a sun and observation

What is an exponential growth made of?
A bunch of greedy humans. A group of cancer cells dividing at an exponential rate. The observation of these and other growths.

What is evaporation made of?
Heat and liquid. Observation

What is rising unemployment made of?
A bunch of greedy humans, high finance and low income. The observation of these things.

This is probably the most optimistic thing I've ever read.

Seriously though are people that bad? I mean maybe some, maybe a lot... But not all.

 

[Giles]

Baywax, I read Gabriel Lafreniere's site you posted on pg 2, and also others who share similar theories regarding spherical standing waves, such as Milo Wolff, Geoff Hasselhurst and the late Caroline H. Thompson.

Although I'm personally open to the possibility that modern physics may have taken a wrong turn during its evolution (and am definitely intrigued as to why no one can directly disprove SSW theories!), I think you'll find great opposition from the scientific community as a whole.

Firstly, if electrons were proven to be waves, there would be no direct application of this knowledge in industry. In other words, no way to profit. Therefore, of little interest to those who are heavily invested in the current paradigm (or, perhaps more importantly, in direct conflict to them). Secondly, it would be incredibly embarrassing given the comparative degree of complexity in QM. Can you imagine the headlines? Modern physics would end up looking like a joke with its explanations of experimental observations being called fanciful and ridiculous in the extreme.

The only people the wave theory would benefit (if found to be true) are those interested in science purely as an avenue to understand the fundamental workings of this amazing universe.

 

[baywax]

The only people the wave theory would benefit (if found to be true) are those interested in science purely as an avenue to understand the fundamental workings of this amazing universe.

Its still a cool theory. I really thought the whole idea behind science was to understand the fundimental working of the universe... not necessarily to make a profit from it. I know Edison was fairly motivated by bucks... but he was an entrepreneur. I have many friends in high places with regard to science, and the only profit they chase after is free dinners and hotel rooms when on speaking engagements.

In fact I've constantly prodded one very popular scientist to write a book so she can fund her own research without having to go to the NRF or Congress or even MicroSoft etc... and live more comfortably. But all she's really interested in is making it easier for children to learn and how to facilitate the parents role in that endeavor. She says... "I'm a scientist, Jim, not a goddamn marketing puke.

 

[Giles]

There are a lot of scientists like your friend. Unfortunately, though, the majority are reliant on the current set of principles for their livelihoods, and have a tenancy to malign anyone who comes out with a solid theory to the contrary (such as those mentioned above). The word "crackpot" and others like it are often used to dismiss anyone that deviates from the accepted paradigm. Interestingly, particularly in the case of SSW, no one is able to demonstrate the reasons “why” it’s flawed… which is probably the most telling sign that their arguments are emotive rather than rational.

Of course, this has happened throughout history to anyone who’s ideas were truly revolutionary, so it is hardly surprising. Still, you’d think we’d have learned that lesson already...

The scientific progress made during the first part of last century couldn't be compared to any other time in history. What facilitated it was the fact that the scientific community was more accepting to new ideas, and could envision the technological potential they promised.

 

[baywax]

The scientific progress made during the first part of last century couldn't be compared to any other time in history. What facilitated it was the fact that the scientific community was more accepting to new ideas, and could envision the technological potential they promised.

True enough, and it was also the fact that old ideas were proven blatantly wrong because of better technology and better observations. With every old theory being blown out the window, one would be willing to entertain more alternatives in the name of science. Today we may have reached a plateau of tolerance for new ideas. It may be attributable to economics and peer pressure or it may be that the criteria for proof is more detailed and much higher in caliber. Perhaps obtaining solid evidence of wave states presents a challenge, under today's scrutinizing scientific standards.

I'd like to know more about the standing wave.

 

[robertm]

baywax,

You might be interested in this program premiering Tuesday (5/13/08) on the science channel Joao Magueijo's Big Bang:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_Magueijo

 

[baywax]

baywax,

You might be interested in this program premiering Tuesday (5/13/08) on the science channel Joao Magueijo's Big Bang:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_Magueijo

Thank you robertm... I'm glad to see the theory of "faster than light" was first proposed by John Mofat, a Canuck scientist. Maybe the Science Channel program will get here sooner than expected.

 

[baywax]

OK... I've been looking around a bit into standing waves... and found this

Standing Wave
(Explanation by Superposition with the Reflected Wave)

Is this what matter would look like if we could see it as a standing wave?
(Interactive animation)

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/stwaverefl.htm

Cool () site with lots of physics applets.

edit... there is also an applet illustrating Standing Longitudinal Waves

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/stlwaves.htm

You can change the dynamics of this demo as well.

 

[baywax]

Benjamin Franklin warns us to:

"Never confuse motion with action"