"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

On page 4 of 107 in the .pdf file "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory" we see the quote, "Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning." at the end of the paragraph. It shows the "as fields" was an editorial comment:

Note to the Fifteenth Edition

In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space in general and on the gradual modifications of our ideas on space resulting from the influence of the relativistic view-point. I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning.

June 9th, 1952 A. EINSTEIN

And on page 93 of 107, in "Appendix 5(a): The field," we find the rest of the missing quote "The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton." at the end of this paragraph:

Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the hypothesis of an aether at rest. It was therefore necessary to renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter in the theory of Newton.

Another word that should have been in brackets to show editorial comment: "particles."

reply to post by Mary Rose

Thanks for looking at the details in the quote and "editorial comments". Now do you see why I don't really trust that spaceandmotion.com website?

There is a difference between saying objects are physically extended, and saying they are physically extended as fields.

And in the second part of your excerpt above, Einstein refers to electromagnetic fields, not physical objects.

Physical objects and electromagnetic fields aren't the same thing, though your comments seem to show that spaceandmotion.com altered what Einstein said to try to make it look that way and support their wsm idea, unless you can find the complete quote as presented on spaceandmotion, without undocumented "editorializing" (which could also be called "falsification").

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I think you may be blowing this way out of proportion, but we shall see.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think you may be blowing this way out of proportion, but we shall see.

The proportion is precisely defined as the speed of light squared, in the formula E=mc²

Physical objects go on the right, and electromagnetic radiation goes on the left side of the equation, and the speed of light squared is the factor describing the proportion between them.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Physical objects and electromagnetic fields aren't the same thing, though your comments seem to show that spaceandmotion.com altered what Einstein said to try to make it look that way and support their wsm idea, unless you can find the complete quote as presented on spaceandmotion, without undocumented "editorializing" (which could also be called "falsification").

Physical objects and electromagnetic fields aren't the same thing. Correct.

However, the word "particles" is the editorializing in question, and it is not editorialized in relation to electromagnetic fields, it is editorialized in relation to the word "matter."

According to Tom :

Belief is the problem and the scientists have a belief .

They believe that the reality is Objective .



I think the first 5 minutes of this video does accurately describe the beliefs some scientists.

Originally posted by 23432
I think the first 5 minutes of this video does accurately describe the beliefs some scientists.

You don't see the irony in that video?

He is unintentionally equating himself with young earth creationists who think the Earth is 6000 years old.

On the one hand, he makes fun of the idea of a 6000 year old Earth, but what is the basis for rejecting this hypothesis?

The answer is science, the same science that rejects his ideas which lack evidence to support them. So without even realizing it, he has put himself on the same side of the debate against science as the young Earth creationists, who hold views opposing mainstream science in spite of evidence to the contrary. It takes a distinct cognitive shortcoming to not recognize this.

Furthermore, if I roll a die 600 times and get roughly 100 ones, 100 twos, 100 threes, etc, this seems perfectly objective to me. I fail to understand his argument that it's not objective...it's nonsense.

Arb

Tom Campell is not a crackpot .

He is a Scientist too .



As ever , this thread is my favorite one .

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Physical objects and electromagnetic fields aren't the same thing, though your comments seem to show that spaceandmotion.com altered what Einstein said to try to make it look that way and support their wsm idea, unless you can find the complete quote as presented on spaceandmotion, without undocumented "editorializing" (which could also be called "falsification").

Originally posted by Mary Rose
However, the word "particles" is the editorializing in question, and it is not editorialized in relation to electromagnetic fields, it is editorialized in relation to the word "matter."

Therefore, your use of the term "falsification" was jumping to conclusions based on your mis-reading.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think you may be blowing this way out of proportion, but we shall see.

The proportion is precisely defined as the speed of light squared, in the formula E=mc²

Physical objects go on the right, and electromagnetic radiation goes on the left side of the equation, and the speed of light squared is the factor describing the proportion between them.

Arb, it's a little more general than this. If you have a beta-decay, for example, the equation still holds, of course, but the energy corresponding to the difference in mass, between the initial system and the resulting products, is transformed into kinetic energy of the electron and neutrino (or the positron and neutrino). That applies to any decay, it's the detail which will be different depending on how it goes.

reply to post by Mary Rose

I was referring to this:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
If it's a correct quote, then "(as fields)" should have been in brackets to show editorial comment.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Yes.

Originally posted by 23432
Tom Campell is not a crackpot .

He is a Scientist too .

Science is published in peer reviewed journals.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Are you having a problem concentrating today?

You were discussing the word in question in the second excerpt, "particles," not "fields," and you mixed up the Einstein statement, focusing on "electromagnetic field" rather than "matter."

I thought it might be helpful to put together the apparent sources from which the Wave Structure of Matter Einstein quotes are drawn, including the full paragraphs drawn from. The text quoted by spaceandmotion.com is in red:

From "The Special and the General Theory," page 4 of 107, "Note to the Fifteenth Edition:

In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space in general and on the gradual modifications of our ideas on space resulting from the influence of the relativistic view-point. I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning ... June 9th, 1952 A. EINSTEIN

From "The Special and the General Theory," page 93 of 107, in "Appendix 5(a): The field":

Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the hypothesis of an aether at rest. It was therefore necessary to renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ...

From Scientific American, 1950, page 15:

The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables—the coordinates of space and time. It is just this particular kind of dependence that expresses the spatial character of physical reality.

Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Science is published in peer reviewed journals.

Arb

Scientists may disagree on many points .

What Tom says can't be published in Science journals because what he says is outside of Science's domain.

I thought he was describing the behaviour of some scientists rather well .

Originally posted by 23432

I think the first 5 minutes of this video does accurately describe the beliefs some scientists.

I think so, too.

I think that every single scientific "fact" we have has to be viewed as something that is the best of our knowledge so far. Everything is subject to change. Nothing is absolute.

And scientists who refuse to consider new information because it conflicts with what they consider facts are not being scientific. I hear Tom Campbell describing those unscientific scientists in the first 5 minutes of that video.

An open mind is what being scientific is all about.

I see you all are still having fun

Thought you might enjoy this quote from J. S. Bell.

"Returning to the electron then, we cannot tell in advance at just which point on the screen it will flash. But it seems that the places where it is likely to turn up are just those which a certain wave motion can appreciably reach.

It is the mathematics of this wave motion, which somehow controls the electron, that is developed in a precise way in quantum mechanics. Indeed the most simple and natural of the various equivalent ways in which quantum mechanics can be presented is called just 'wave mechanics'. What is it that 'waves' in wave mechanics? In the case of water waves it is the surface of the water that waves. With sound waves the pressure of the air oscillates. Light also was held to be a wave motion in classical physics. We were already a little vague about what was waving in that case... and even about whether the question made sense. In the case of the waves of wave mechanics we have no idea what is waving... and do not ask the question. What we do have is a mathematical recipe for the propagation of the waves, and the rule that the probability of an electron being seen at a particular place when looked for there (e.g. by introducing a scintillation screen) is related to the intensity there of the wave motion.

In my opinion the following point cannot be emphasised too strongly. When we work out a problem in wave mechanics, for example that of the precise performance of the electron gun, our mathematics is entirely concerned with waves. There is no hint in the mathematics of particles or particle trajectories. With the electron gun the calculated wave extends smoothly over an extended portion of the screen. There is no hint in the mathematics that the actual phenomenon is a minute flash at some particular point in that extended region. And it is only in applying the rule, relating the probable location of the flash to the intensity of the wave, that indeterminism enters the theory. The mathematics itself is smooth, deterministic, 'classical' mathematics... of classical waves."

Bell, J. S. (1993) "Six Possible Worlds of Quantum Mechanics" in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, p. 187. CUP

I have deliberately left out my emphases and comments... for now

reply to post by beebs


It sounds like what Bell is saying is that in nature, there's actually no such thing as wave-particle duality.

Nature is fundamentally composed of waves.

And from what I've gathered, those waves travel in a 3D vortex throughout the universe.

(But it seems that even more fundamentally, there is the aether, which are scalar waves.)

reply to post by Mary Rose

It sounds like what Bell is saying is that in nature, there's actually no such thing as wave-particle duality.

Nature is fundamentally composed of waves.

Well, I think his position is substantially more nuanced (as can be seen in the next sections I have not typed up).

He is saying that the way we talk about and model the quantum world, the formal mathematics, are the mathematics of waves – 'wave mechanics'.

It is only through our interpretation of the appearance of discrete quanta on the scintillation screen, that we come up with the wacky probabilistic and indeterministic properties of the quantum world.

And from what I've gathered, those waves travel in a 3D vortex throughout the universe.

(But it seems that even more fundamentally, there is the aether, which are scalar waves.)

What I would say, and perhaps what you mean also, is that the structure of the entire atom is determined and characterized by cymatics and the behavior of fluids and fluid-like substances (wave mechanics).

The 'vortex' is simply one feature of the topology and behavior of such a substance. In this case, the substance is perhaps best termed as a continuous 'spacetime' which, in areas of low density, approaches equilibrium – although naturally obtains a non-zero energy density due to some factor or constant (call it X) – and thus remains in a state of disequilibrium.

This X factor could be an intrinsic property of the quantum world such as a 'jiggly' randomness or uncertainty of quanta, or it could be that the substance of (scalar) matter waves is infinitely 'divisible' (or 'diffusible') and thus the wavelength forever approaches (but never obtains) 0.

Since E=(hc)/λ and E ≠ 0, we know that λ ≠ 0.

Nature is NOT fundamentally composed of waves. The latest experiments in quantum mechanics are showing that matter is neither a particle nor a wave. These are merely classical physics-based concepts that describe a quantum reality only in special cases. The new experiments carried out last year defy the conventional boundaries set by the complementarity principle. This famous principle conceived by Niels Bohr shows only the two ends, black and white, of a spectrum between particle and wave. The new experiments reported in the cover story entitled "Quantum shadows" in the latest issue of New Scientist allow us to see the shades of grey between these dichotomies. "Particle" and "wave" are concepts we latch on to because they seem to correspond to guises of matter in our familiar, classical world. Attempting to describe true quantum reality with these or any other black-or-white concepts is doomed to fail. Look for a particle and you will see one. Look for a wave and that's what you will observe. The new experiments did not impose this choice on the quantum systems that they observed. The results are surprising. When the measurements of a quantum system (in this case a photon) were designed in such a way that made no prior choice whether the system was going to be observed as a particle or as a wave, what was actually detected was a signature not of particles nor of waves but a mixture of them both. A tight correlation was always found between the particle/wave nature of the mesurement and the nature of the observed system. But the latter need not be 100% particles or 100% waves. It can be in between. This is a remarkable discovery. It proves that quantum systems cannot be completely understood in terms of the concepts generated from experience of the every-day world. We do not have the concepts or even the words to express what is the reality of, say, a photon, or a subatomic particle. Instead, as yet we merely have a mathematical description based upon wave/particle duality - the two extremes of quantum reality found in the large-scale world - that is highly successful in its predictions but totally inadequate as a way of picturing what this reality really is.

reply to post by beebs


reply to post by micpsi


Is there an all-pervasive aether that can be converted to useable power via a free-energy device?