Rethinking the Formal Methodology (I): Wave-Vortex Essence of the Substance by George Kirakosyan

Gevorg,

You use the undefined term "elm' throughout your essay, and I assume it is a contraction of "electromagnetic" (elm). I use EM as the acronym, or contraction, for electromagnetic.

Please read the essay of Jarek Duda, topic 1416. Jarek uses the term "twist-like wave" and you use the term "wave-vortex". I prefer to describe EM waves with a spin type spatial field structure using the term "helical".

To: Frank Makinson

Sorry! "Elm"- means "elementary", and "elmag." - "electromagnetic".

"Twist-like wave","helical" terms are fully acceptable for me.

Dear George Kirakosyan,

I have read your essay and I agree with your viewpoint. I share most of your concerns regarding current state of Physics.

Of course, all authors in this contest cannot agree on any one point of view. I believe various contributions from many like-minded authors can definitely make a difference in the emergence of a consolidated un-orthodox viewpoint needed to remove some of the major weaknesses, contradictions and fantasies from current Physics.

As you know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.

You are also requested to read and comment my essay titled "Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

Dear Sandhu,

Your work is interesting; mostly I agree with your critics. There are some points as well (on SR), on which I have some different view (particularly, I see M-r Minkowski more "guilty" than Einstein) Nevertheless, it seems just impossible to discuss it right here because the deal is about "so heavy" theme that requires pages and time.

On W=mc^2. It is more important for me that Einstein have realized/interpreted right cognitive meaning of it (in mine opinion). Who have deduced it first - there are different views that I cannot exclude.

Regards,

George

Dear Gevork

I hope it would be interesting for you.

http://www.fairpoint.net/~kia/pubs/0503161.pdf

All the best

Yuri

Dear Yury! Thanks for favorable for me article.

It confirms mine point: alpa is really a constant. Its observed variations should have some other explanations!

To my opinion:

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

George,

Pg 4 "However, it becomes verbal/psychological declaration only, since the QM allows presenting/describing one kind of object, and not two types together ("wave" and "particle") as it is in reality. I.e. the QM accepts two kinds of objects, existing together at the same time, and it allows describing one of them only (?)"

I believe "wave" and "particle" should first be defined separately, then approach how the two definitions can be reconciled in a single "wave object" or "wave packet", which you use. A "wave" is describing a cyclic event, and it makes no difference what type of medium supports the wave, solid, fluid, gas or vacuum. A vacuum is not a benign medium, it has permittivity and permeability. A wave exists in some kind of "substance" that can support wave action. If there is some type of object associated with a wave, then it makes a difference whether the object moves in the axis of the waves propagation direction.

The term "particle" means different things to different scientific disciplines. You use the term "elementary particle" (elm) and state it is a "standing wave packet". A "standing wave" is by definition stationary, and it is produced by two waves moving in the opposite direction, a superposition phenomenon. I think it would have been better if you had stated "wave packet" and eliminate "standing".

Einstein started digging himself into a hole when he was separating electromagnetic (EM) fields, which included electric charges and magnetic poles, from "matter". Einstein's later position, as you pointed out on page 3, " W=mc2 seems unnatural". Einstein was in one of several generations where the transverse EM (TEM) field was the only field characteristic they were aware of. Once you recognize that propagating EM fields can have field structures very different from TEM field structures, it is necessary to readjust your thinking as to what constitutes "matter".

QEF, Pg 7 "Quant of Electromagnetic Field (QEF) is a unique base of substance" I will agree that EM fields produce unique characteristics, but I would not call them a "substance." It depends upon the EM field structure as to what you get. The force of gravity can be produced by a very simple EM field structure, but that field is the result of some type of structure that can produce it. The EM field propagates from this "structure" and we perceive this as an object that has mass.

The papers below, published in 2004, identified an EM link to gravity.

Electrifying Gravity

Newton's Quantum Coupling Constant

Several years later I identified the EM field structure that produces an attractant only force; I reference the above papers in my paper.

Helical Electromagnetic Gravity

The material in topic 1416 is presenting particles as localized field configurations, and they are very complex configurations, much more complex than the simple helical EM field that produces gravity.

Frank!

=I believe "wave" and "particle" should first be...=

-----------------------------------------------------

Is it a question? I will try to answer if you will formulate it clearly.

George,

I did formulate it clearly. Did you click on read entire post?

Just now i saw the link! Give me some time ...

To Frank

1) The terminology, that we using, is imperfect actually. What we can do? We are going from known to unknown areas (exactly, which we believe as known to us). Thus, we trying bringing with us our usual old concepts, and to use these somewhat on new subjects, whereas, it is necessary to establish and use new concepts, which are a big technical problem first. Thus, it is natural some disagreements on this matter. For example, there isn not common and strong definition on =elementary particle= even, but we using it, hoping that everybody will understood it in right meaning! (i.e. as we understood it!)

2) You says, =the standing wave is a stationary= I call it =pseudo static=. The essence easy to see just from animation of wave interference (I hope you will find it in I-net. The field oscillated in the same place, without propagation. It is the localized particle or elm particle, which has its components - main and secondary maximums, i.e. mass & charges)

3) You would like to involve me in gravity problem, Thank you; it is very interesting theme for me. Now I can say only that I am sharing your approach about electromagnetic nature of gravity, hoping I can complete mine work on the subject and publish it.

George

As per your request on my blog of 29 Aug, my comments on your essay would be as follows:

1 Your opening sentence is the start point, only the issue is not philosophical, but physical. We are part of a physical reality. The evolution of sensory systems enables us (and other organisms) to detect it. So, within that confine, the physical question is, what constitutes this and why does it alter.

2 Any explanation which attributes any form of sensing (the usual form referred to is observation) with having an impact on physical reality, &/or deems it to have some form of 'indefiniteness', and/or more than one physical form at a time, is flawed, because that is contradictory to how physical reality occurs. Furthermore, only that which constitutes the immediate preceding existent reality (whatever that is-see below), and of that, only that which is spatially immediately adjacent, can be a cause of the next existent state/reality. Physically, there can be no 'jumping' in the sequence, nor can one physical state affect another directly, unless it is spatially adjacent. So you are right to question QM. Another simple question, for example is: what is the physical reality that corresponds to wave? And at which particular point is it reality (see below, re 'spin'), ie physically existent. Because 'wave' is a composite, a sequence, of physically existent states.

3 Any representational device must have a corresponding physical existence. The issue with one particular example you alight on is not 'point like', as such. But what this can mean, given the nature of physical reality. There must be a 'point like' physical state, ie that which physically exists as at any given point in time. Otherwise there is no physical existence. There must be something, ie a definitive and discrete physical state. The issue is, what is it? It cannot be just any given elementary component (of whatever type), as such, because there is alteration. So it must be associated with the state(s) of that, as at any given point in time. For example, any given elementary component of physical reality is not 'still', there is alteration(s). An elementary component 'spins', for example. So what constitutes reality in this case? Half a spin, a whole spin? The answer must be, whatever constitutes a difference from the previous existent state, because there can only be one state at a time.

4 That is all 'easy' to say. The difficult part is to establish what is occurring. That is beyond me, but I feel that whilst you are heading in the right direction, I am not altogether sure you have got to the bottom of it.

Paul

To Paul,

Thanks for response and for support with some of mine approaches.

I am explaining some of your kindly comments due to in the work are not presented most of initial definitions (I think, it may be justified technically).

I have just believed that there should be common view on the basic things, for example, on what we mean under term of ,,physical reality,, , ,,material point,, etc. Unfortunately, the modern physics is far from his mother science = philosophy. It ignores such ,,trifles,, as the ordinary logic, methodological principles as well as the initial definitions. We have that which we have now in result = the formal/abstract actions and political declarations, that offered to us as ,,Leading science,,! I think the situation is very dramatic actually; however, it has also the positive aspect. I mean, the physics have definitly reached to a wall and every serious thinker realizes it. So, the deeper revision just is inevitable!

Thanks for response and for support with some of mine approaches.

I am explaining some of your kindly comments due to in the work are not presented most of initial definitions (I think, it may be justified technically).

I have just believed that there should be common view on the basic things, for example, on what we mean under term of "physical reality", "material point" etc. Unfortunately, the modern physics is far from his mother science - philosophy. It ignores such "trifles" as the ordinary logic, methodological principles as well as the initial definitions. We have that which we have now in result - the formal/abstract actions and political declarations, that offered to us as a "Leading science"! I think the situation is very dramatic actually; however, it has also the positive aspect. I mean, the physics have definitly reached to a wall and every serious thinker realizes it. So, the deeper revision just is inevitable!

George

Indeed so. The basic logic is very easy to discern (especially if one does not have all the 'baggage'). But then it gets more difficult(!), ie just what can constitute a pysically existent state, which is my phrase to denote that which exists as at any given point in time. We know it is a sequence, because 'it' exists and there is alteration, but what constitutes the 'it'. While that can be generically established (probably with more knowledge), I doubt if we would ever be able to detect it in any given circumstance, because of the speed at which alteration occurs, and the complexity involved in any given circumstance. That is, it is probably impossible to differentiate physical reality to the point where we could defined what occurred as at a point in time, ie the point where there no form of alteration occurred. But that inability should not result in the ditching/overriding of the principles which define how physical reality occurs.

Paul

Your judgment is nice! I would like only remembering you about ,,hiding parameters,, (Einstein, Rosen etc.) We must care that there are natural limits for ours measuring/controlling capability (due to any measuring process assumes transformation some of minimal quantity of energy restricted by nature. The same for sizes) Thus, the ,,material point,, and ,,exactly location,, become here the idealized categories. We just must be ready that in the ,,border,, we will lose any possibility to make real experiments. What we can do then? I suggest building the mental descriptions, by using imaginary objects/actions and causal=logical universal laws (on example of process absorption/radiation of photons in mine work). We will believe that ours models are right (somewhat) if ours conclusions will corresponding with reality (for example, I get the right energy values and closely action times). Moreover, if this system becomes universal and it works in other cases as well (on elementary particles description etc), then we can say that we have understood what is going on actually.

Dear George,

Thanks for your essay, I agree fully with the part 1. Here is a reference about spin of electron in the book The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. I red your article in vixra.org and agree that < interpretation clarifies the physical meaning of de Broglies wave as Doppler Effect arising from movement of Comptons standing wave (elementary particle).> The same is in my book Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. Perm, 1999, 544 pages. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1. You can see also my description of photon model in Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Sergey!

Thank you for Responce.

I have open yours articles in VIXRA and I find these intrseting for me.

I fill that we are on the same way. (There are some peuple thinking on the same direction). I will read your works slowly as per find time.

Ya oceniwayu vash trud. Unfortunatelly we are in minority. I hope we will continue talks after.

Best whishes