I previously had 3 articles on my blog about this, and have now made 2 videos (more to come) on YouTube. The videos might help to make some of the concepts clearer, but the web pages are there as a backup.

It seems appropriate to put this in ATM at this time, as the third part of how to make a universe will be about Harmonics Theory which has already had its day in the ATM Sun. In the first two parts I deal with the history of physics and where I think subtle errors (usually of discoveries being in an inconvenient order) were incorporated into physics and cosmology thinking.

The links to the videos are given and in each case the video links on to my blog where you may study the diagrams in more detail or see the names of people and so do web searches on the facts more easily.

I was going to leave out the idea of WSM (Wave Structure of Matter) until another time, but will be guided by forum organisers as to whether they see it as impossible to separate that idea from what is presented here. I give the link anyway for my own video on that as well as one which is an interview with physicist, Milo Wolff who has demonstrated that a standing wave model of the electron will satisfy all its properties. Nucleons are another matter as the standing wave form is not yet known.

How to make a Universe - Part 1

How to make a Universe - Part 2

These are additional background which I would prefer to do as a separate ATM thread later but will be guided by the forum organizers as to whether they should be included now.

WSM = Wave Structure of Matter

Dr Wolff Philosophy Physics Video: Wave Structure of Matter

Some of the key points that I consider are to be made are:

1. Implicit in Maxwell's equations are solutions for spherical standing waves which would logically be taken to be the solutions for matter.

2. Therefore matter is the same stuff as light, just standing waves, not traveling waves. The frequency of a particle's standing wave is the Compton frequency of that particle. The wavelength is the Compton wavelength. For a nucleons the wavelength is very similar to the standard radii of the particles, about 1.3 fm.

3. The idea of an aether was abandoned because of SR and the fact that the wave nature of matter as advanced by de Broglie was unknown at that time but the M-M (Michelson-Morley) experiment got a null result. If people had understood that matter was standing waves of e/m then the null result for M-M experiment is expected. Actually Lorentz, Michelson, Morley, Einstein, Dirac all believed in an aether.

4. I am not saying that SR or GR are wrong. I am saying that modern interpretation has lost the true meaning of them. The meaning of SR is that even when there is an aether, because of the wave equation and Lorentz transforms we cannot determine the rest frame by any means depending on e/m. LET = Lorentz Ether Theory is an established method of arriving at relativity.

5. This isn't really about aether but the fact that even from a simply e/m point of view, matter fits into the equations. However it is necessary to understand that near the centre of particles the energy concentration (or flux) is much higher than elsewhere and so the speed of light is different. In GR this is dealt with as the distortion of space near a massive object, but I argue that it is equivalent, and much easier for simple minds, to have a variable c than to have space-time distortions.

6. When the natural non-linearity of all physics laws is recognized and particles are seen as standing waves, then it can also be understood that particles are not 100% stable over vast eons of time. Rather, the non-linearity leads to energy leaking to other frequencies (being harmonics of the basic particle frequency).

7. It is this leakage of energy that is responsible for both gravity and red shift. Gravity, because the outgoing wave is weaker than the incoming wave by about 1 part in 10^40 so making gravity that much weaker than the strong force. This is consistent with Le Sage Gravity.

8. The same rate leads to the observed red shift because the leakage of the wave energy results in adding mass to nucleons and leads to a blue shift of all wave lengths over time without any motion. Because we see distant matter as it was long ago we see it red shifted in proportion to its age or distance. This is consistent with Narlikar's variable mass theory.

9. The study of Cymatics (and perhaps oscillons) has much to recommend it to those who would understand particle physics. It shows the possibilities in how particles are non other than standing waves and how the incoming wave of a particle pases through the centre of the particle and becomes the outgoing wave. These two make the standing wave which is the particle. The outgoing wave then becomes the incoming wave of other particles throughout the universe. Through this means all particles are continuing to be recreated every moment. The true interconnectedness of things is understandable as basic physics.

10. Feynman and Wheeler almost arrived at this with their advanced and retarded waves, but didn't make the final step from the waves being something that happened to the electron rather than them actually being the electron. The confusion is that the advanced wave is seen as backwards in time rather than just arriving there.

11. Cymatics videos show clearly things that we cannot work out by intuition. That is why physics based on intuitive reasoning has gone astray. It has missed this wonderful opportunity to understand nature better.

I have mentioned Le Sage gravity and Narlikar's variable mass theory, but do not intend to argue them in this thread, simply to say that these ideas easily explain why those two ideas are correct.

Perhaps the only other area to be addressed is to say that it seems to me that all physical laws must be non-linear and that the consequences of this has not been sufficiently addressed in present theories.

Ray Tomes

One way to make a universe is to clash two hypothetical magnetic monolpoles off each other so that they release a massive amount of energy. One monopole contains a massive amount of false energy, and this will create an unstable area in spacetime. It will drop a fabric of spacetime off our own spacetime vector, and to us, this newly created universe will look analogous to a black hole. This was an idea created by Prof. Sakai.

Occam's Ghost, your comment has nothing to do with my proposal.

I tried to edit to add a link but edit doesn't work. Anyway Michelson-Morley experiment.

Wow, 100+ reads and no-one disagreed with anything. That must be a first in ATM. ;-)

I take it you are saying that all photons are non-linear and the change in shape is a change in frequency and wave length?

To make sure I understand, you are saying that the energy of the original photon is conserved and the lost energy of the main wave becomes a harmonic wave? Is the harmonic wave detectible? Does it travel through space with the original photon? Is it composed of a discrete packet of energy like the original photon?

If this developing and changing shape is an explanation of the red shift, what portion of the red shift does it explain? Are you saying it explains all of the red shift?

I thought that science had put this issue to bed and that the universe is expanding as the galaxies and groups of galaxies move away from each other. The red shift is primarily a change in wave length caused by the Doppler Effect.

I can see how the frequency and wave length would be affected by gravity and cosmic dust but by far the greater effect has been attributed to expansion hasn’t it.

Can you give me the next increment of your idea without refering to in-depth concepts developed elsewhere that I will never find time to track down and reason out .

There will be effects on photons, but they will be exceedingly small and undetectable and may be ignored for our purpose. What I am referring to is not traveling waves (photons) but standing waves (particles of matter). It is only near the centre of particles where the energy flux is most concentrated (it has a 1/r^2 relationship, except very near the centre) that the non-linearity is sufficient to make noticeable effects. Even then the effects on a nucleon (proton or neutron) are small, changing the frequency of the particle by only 1 part in 14 billion per year.

So what we call a red shift with distance is really a blue shift with time. Matter frequencies increase over time. That means that when we look at a galaxy that is a billion light years ago we see it as it was a billion years ago when all galaxies had lower frequencies. Therefore it looks red shifted compared to our laboratory specimens which we are a=observing as they are now.

Although I came up with this idea myself, I subsequently discovered that Arp and Narlikar and others had already had the same idea. Other parts of the proposal are original however.

My answer to Bogie is incomplete. Not only particles of matter are standing waves, but all structures are based on standing waves. There are atomic sized, planetary distance scale, stellar distance scale and galactic distance scale standing waves. These might account for the missing mass which does increase with scale in the universe.

I would love to know how you want to construct spherical standing waves.
IIRC in your last thread it did not seem you understood how standing waves are created.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

If I understand this ATM idea, it requires consistency among all of the following^, at least in the relevant limits of the physical observables:

* Le Sage gravity

* the VMH (Arp-Narlikar)

* LET

* QED, QCD, electro-weak theory, and quantum mechanics/QFT in general.

To what extent are you able to show such consistency, RT?

^and maybe others

Hi Nereid

Yes, I entirely agree that this is what is required.

The recognition that the fundamental laws of physics must be non-linear is the starting point. This must be so or we could never observe anything as observation results from interaction which only happens in a non-linear system.

From non-linearity it follows that all standing waves must evolve with time. Any repeating wave in the universe that evolves must do this by developing harmonics which are exact frequency multiples of itself. That means that they are smaller waves. That leads directly to the larger waves losing energy, at a very gradual rate (the Hubble rate). That is the VMH (Arp-Narlikar).

That is the precondition for Le Sage gravity. If a standing wave is losing energy then the incoming part of the wave is stronger than the outgoing part. That imbalance is the push force. For those that do not know, you can only achieve Le Sage gravity through shadows caused by reduction in the flux that pushes other particles.

The rate of evolution of particles required for VMH is the same rate that causes gravity to work properly by Le Sage theory, so these two are naturally united by this means.

Because the starting point of my whole argument is a tensile aether that obeys the wave equation, the theory is in fact a LET with the recognition that c is a variable due to variations in the tension of the aether. For those that prefer to think in non-aether terms, this means that where the flux of the e/m field is greater, the speed of light is also higher. This is true in natural systems that we study, that increased tension causes increased wave speed propagation.

Milo Wolff has shown that the WSM (Wave Structure of Matter) idea will explain electron behaviour. There has been no demonstration of the rest of quantum mechanics. Clearly there is a lot to be done there, but there are some very interesting clues:

1. The cymatics experiments show a clear realistic basis for charge.

2. The mode of electron oscillation shows a basis for spin (and how spin half works).

3. Other particle properties are hinted at because there are a variety of other oscillation modes clearly available in standing wave structures which can provide a basis for other particle properties, e.g. it is possible to have the phase of the incoming wave vary around "equator" of the particle a number of times. I suspect that this number is 0=gauge particles, 1=lepton, 2=meson, 3=baryon. This will explain the disintegration modes of particles.

One of my objectives in putting these ideas forward is to interest young people in taking these ideas up and testing them. I think that there is the possibility of testing these ideas through computer simulation of standing waves of various forms. Human intuition cannot solve non-linear equations as was amply demonstrated with the Mandelbrot set. The means exists to fully test these ideas by computer simulation and see what forms are actually generated and how they behave. This affords a possible way to explain all quantum behaviour with principles that are vastly simpler than present ones, and truly fundamental.

These ideas do lead to a way of thinking about physics that is natural and free from mystical thinking that has entered the field in recent decades.

Ray

I understand perfectly well how standing waves work. A standing wave is the sum of two traveling waves moving in opposite direction.

It is also interesting that it has been proven that a spherical standing wave is equivalent to a large number of plane waves traveling through a point (with common phase). I think that this has been a stumbling block even to intelligent physicists who have not visualized how waves can be continually re-formed. Feynman and Wheeler got close to recognizing the electron as a standing wave and nothing else with their advanced and retarded waves. But they couldn't see the advanced wave as natural and talked about it going backwards in time. No such thinking is needed, it is a natural convergence of the waves as the cymatics experiments show.

This is demonstrated in 2D in the cymatics example in my 2nd video where all the waves support each other in correct phase and also support radial wave trains that bounced off the edges. In a larger space, these additional wave trains can be used to tile the plane making an infinite set of mutually supporting waves if desired, or in 3D space filling options exist, including cubic, rhombic dodecahedra and others.

Would it be a fair summary to say that the answer to my question* is "Some pair-wise, qualitative consistencies might be possible, over limited ranges of physical domains; however, the prospect of a general, quantitative consistency seems entirely elusive today"?

* paraphrased: To what extent can consistency be shown among all the 4+ ideas, at least at the level of potential physical observables?

Would it be correct to say that this ATM idea intends to be some kind of theory of everything? That it postulates that all physical phenomena are, in principle, within its domain of applicability? That other postulates include a small number of mutually consistent concepts, and such concepts are quantifiable, in terms of a mathematical framework in which 'non-linear' is rigorously defined (in principle)?From this it seems that the ATM idea already incorporates several concepts from classical physics - time and energy, for example.

Is that so?

Does the idea include postulates, or definitions, of what the waves are of (or in)?

No. The wave view leads to a realistic model that produces directly the GR equations and de Broglie equations exactly and in a clear and easy to understand way. For example http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=8BTcmuGdLCU shows the actual de Broglie waves as being phase modulation of the standing waves. Several different people have independently found that the WSM leads to all de Broglie's equations. I strongly suspect that de Broglie was fully aware of all of this himself, as he felt that much of his understanding was never picked up by the physics community. Probably this is a language problem.

Only one unknown parameter is needed to get both the red shift and gravity, so one of these can be used to determine the other.

The only area where there is no quantitative results established is particle physics beyond the electron. However there is a very clear method that is available to anyone to test that and it is far easier to do so than to work with trying to improve present particle physics. If successful it would be orders of magnitude more easy to work with and make things clear at a much more fundamental level. The important thing is that there is no evidence against the proposal which makes it attractive to investigate further.

It is much more attractive than something like string theory because Maxwell's equations are well established already. A famous physicist (I forget which one) once said that whatever is permitted by the laws of physics is compulsory. There are certainly spherical standing wave solutions to e/m equations. If these solutions are not actually particles, then where are they and what are they? It makes eminent sense as Clifford realized well over a century ago.

Yes. The essence of the proposal is long established, accepted and working physics. That is, Maxwell's equations. I personally prefer to see these as the equations of a tensile aether. It is easier to make realistic models in your head in that way. Then you understand that a magnetic field, for example, is the local rate of rotation of the aether. That is why the vector function is called "curl". All the various fields in Maxwell are understandable as aether motion, because that is what people believed in at that time. The only thing that went wrong is that the idea that matter fitted into the scheme (as spherical standing waves) as well did not catch on.
Well non-linear is rigorously defined. Although originally Maxwell's equations were taken as linear, since GR they are accepted as non-linear because of the effects of energy on the metric. However it seems to me that two phenomena which are very similar have not been recognized as such:

1. In GR the metric is distorted by matter which effectively varies the speed of light (although stated as varying the amount of space) to account for gravitation.

2. In optics the refractive index is a measure of the variation of the speed of light due to matter up close, where electromagnetic forces are at work (charge).

That these two are treated differently makes combining the phyics laws difficult. They are two aspects of the same thing, one related to gravity and the other to charge. Both cause variations in the effective speed of light. In my view the charge component does it by local fluctuations in the tension of the aether (which average out over a few wavelengths), and gravity does it by a somewhat co-ordinated set transverse of transverse waves, these being the total effect of a lot of matter in one place. This tangential motion has a centrifugal force that makes a region near matter have a slightly higher average tension.
Yes, it is very classical physics. The one variation is to recognize that the speed of light is a variable (due to fluctuations in local energy density) and matter as standing waves. I prefer to think in aether terms, but some may feel uncomfortable with that (because they have wrongly been told that the aether was disproved by M-M - not true of LET) and so they can work equally well with Maxwell's equations. GR has the necessary conditions to effectively vary c due to gravity effects, but a similar recognition is needed for charge. These effects quite naturally happen if the equations of an aether are used with recognition that tension affects wave velocity propagation and no additions are needed beyond that. When particles are understood as spherical transverse standing waves then the properties of matter as regards gravity follow automatically and quantitatively.

I'm quite confused; let's try going through this a little more slowly, shall we?

Let's look at the following pairs:

1) Le Sage gravity (LSG) and LET

2) LSG and QED (QFT, in general)

3) LET and QFT.

For each of these three pairs, what are:

a) the physical domains over which qualitative consistency has already been clearly demonstrated?

b) those which such consistency might be possible?
Is the electron the only particle whose physics has been quantitatively established, using these ideas? What about the positron? the photon?

Does this idea claim a fully quantitative description of the physics of the electron in all potentially physically observable regimes?

Just so that I do not misunderstand ...

You are claiming that this idea can be shown to provide a consistent explanation of the various experiments on the EPR paradox, QM's completeness, the Bell inequality, etc ... already?

You are also claiming that this idea can be shown to provide (in principle) consistent, paradox-free, quantitative, Planck regime physics?

I looked partly to vid 2 and it seems you want to use the water dish on a loudspeaker for your spherical standing waves. That is all good and well, but the standing waves that occur there are caused by reflection on the sides of the water dish. I wonder how you are creating all these "standing waves" in the universe, because the condition for a standing wave is rather strict.

Well, to some point you can reduce all waves to plane waves, but I would like to see some reference for your claim. I am a not so intelligent physicist, so I need some help.

So, now you want to use the retarded (and advanced) wave of a moving electron as the building blocks of the electron, when the retarded wave just describes the emitted electromagnetic radiation by the moving electron. Although you might want to look at J.D. Jackson Classical Electrodynamics Section 6.6 "Green functions for the wave equation" to refresh your knowledge about what these advanced and retarded solutions mean

If these waves are not created by the electron, but the electron is created by some strange interference of the retarded and advanced wave solution, then what is creating these waves in the first place?

So, what is creating the waves and what is reflecting the waves that they may create standing waves. And if a bunch of particles is moving in different directions with different speeds, how do you visualize that the standing waves are working?

It seems you make more trouble for yourself than is necessary.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Actually, if you have any finite system that supports waves then it will automatically have a whole set of eigenstates which are standing wave solutions. In an infinite system there may still be such solutions as long as there are potential wells, which are provided by larger standing waves.
The waves are the natural oscillation modes of the system. It is most easy to understand with something like a musical instrument where multiple different modes of oscillation exist. Also, you may think of a gong or any large metallic object which when struck will have a series of oscillation modes. These are all standing waves. That is the starting point (more below).
Of course the water dish has some differences to the universe. It is continually being fed new energy that naturally makes circular waves. However that is necessary because there are losses of energy from the water due to friction.

In the universe there are no losses of energy. Any loss of energy from one wave must appear in another. For repeating standing waves, that energy will always appear in harmonically related standing waves.

Also, in the universe the standing waves last for much longer than in a dish of water. The losses are at a rate of only 1 part in 10^10 per year on average.

As regards the boundary problem, once you have a set of large standing waves, they become potential wells for smaller waves. This is because of the non-linearity which means that all waves create distortions to the metric. Therefore smaller waves naturally form that have symmetry in relation to the larger waves. The little ladder like waves in the cymatics example will not be fully reflected in the real universe, but they will support other wave trains in adjacent cells which are within adjacent larger standing waves. You have to imagine the entires universe filled (tiled in 3D) with cells at any scale. These cells may be cubic or other shapes such as rhombic dodecahedra (the shape you get when you stack ranges and then squeeze them together.
There is no trouble, there is just the need for people to see something that they have not thought about deeply before. It takes time and questions and adjustment.

Hi Nereid

I think that I have already answered most these questions. I think that dwelling on the parts that this proposal does not claim to do fully is pointless. It does not make the proposal of no value to have such parts. It is more use to look at what the proposal does do than what it does not.

To make a fair comparison, does QED give any reason for why there are regularly spaced galactic super-clusters? Does it explain why the universe divides into galaxies, stars, planets, moons ... at scale ratios of about 10^4.5? Does it say what spherical standing waves of electromagnetism would look like? Would they be particles?

In the US standard University physics text (Thorne, Misner, Wheeler I think or something like that) they actually give the situation of spherical rotation as an example of spin half to show what it might mean. Spherical rotation is quite different to the normal cylindrical rotation, and can be imagined by a medium such as jelly having a spherical part distorted by a rotation of 180 degrees with all the surrounding part distorting as a result. The spherical part is then rotated rapidly about an axis that is at 180 degrees to this original one and it continues to do so without creating ruptures or build up of twists. The distorted material passes over and under the centre of the particle on alternate rotations, which is why it is spin half. This is the correct model for an electron in my view when Maxwell's equations are understood as a tensile aether theory.

I explain all this because it is useful to know that standard ideas have flirted with this. According to one text that I have seen there are four different possible version of this oscillation and not two as people normally think. Actually I can only find one. As far as I can tell all versions are rotationally the same, not even mirror images. If there were two then I would say the other was a positron. Maybe I miss something? Can you find two or four? If so I would love to know about it.

One person who has looked at this a lot is Martin Kokus http://www.springerlink.com/content/m14q51mr6564150k/
This search shows other papers on the subject http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=sph...on+cylindrical

In my view photons are not particles. They are only quantized at the moment of emission and absorption and do not exist separately as "photons in flight" but are just part of a continuous e/m field.

More about this in answer to your other post.

Actually I think that these things can be explained fully whether or not my proposal is accepted, so I wouldn't claim it as a result. However having a realistic model does help to dispel the confusion around the EPR paradox. There really isn't a paradox at all.

It is generally agreed by experts that you cannot send information faster than light by the Aspect experiment (i.e the experiment to test Bell's inequality or the EPR paradox). This should already sound big warning bells. If you cannot send information, then exactly what is the paradox supposed to be? The answer is that the entire thing is simply the result of failure to fully explain the difference between a sample and a subsample in statistics. If the sample is all photons detected and the subsample is all photon pairs simultaneously detected at two different detectors, then that subsample is biased at one detector by the probability of detection at the other detector. So of course you get the Bell's inequality. I have done the correct calculation for this based on a simple realistic classical model and the result agrees with the experiments. This was best explained by David Elm who used a simple chance experiment to show that it is all in the data treatment (dropping of cases only detected once): http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/physics/elm.html

This little talk that I gave may also provide some insight into the matter http://www.geocities.com/fsmn_nz/RayTomes_WSM.html

I wasn't really intending this to be part of my proposal, but think it was worth going into that.
It is difficult to answer this fully without going in to Harmonics Theory which is not the subject of this ATM and is now closed in BAUT. However suffice it to say that the non-linearity of fundamental physics (which I think is beyond dispute) must cause all standing waves to produce more and more harmonics and so eventually almost fill the entire spectrum at very high frequencies. This is consistent with ideas of zero point energy. However I would say that it is not a uniform distribution but does have some specific frequencies which are stronger.

Paradoxes cannot exist in nature. You cannot observe a paradox. A paradox exists only because of unclear thinking and unclear or changing definitions.

First, this thread in BAUT's ATM section is devoted to the presentation of, challenges to, questions on, and elucidation of the ATM presented in the OP; if you wish to discuss standard physics, astrophysics, cosmology, etc, please do so in the appropriate section.

Second, let's follow the chain of assertions, questions, and responses, shall we (leaving out the OP)?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
N (paraphrase): this ATM requires consistency among LSG, the Arp-Narlikar VMH, LET, and QM/QFT.

RT (paraphrase): yes.

N: Would it be a fair summary to say that the answer to my question is "Some pair-wise, qualitative consistencies might be possible, over limited ranges of physical domains; however, the prospect of a general, quantitative consistency seems entirely elusive today"?

RT (paraphrase): no; the only piece missing, qualitatively, is how "to get both the red shift and gravity, so one of these can be used to determine the other". Also, "[t]he only area where there is no quantitative results established is particle physics beyond the electron"

N (paraphrase): on the one hand you say quantitative consistency has not advanced far (post #9), yet only four posts later you claim it's all but in the bag; so I'm confused, and would like to go through your assertions step-by-step.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


It's possible that my questions were not sufficiently clear; if so, I will gladly re-state them. It's possible that some are not pertinent to the ATM idea, as presented; if so, please that out.

In the meantime, please answer the questions; here they are again:

1) Le Sage gravity (LSG) and LET

2) LSG and QED (QFT, in general)

3) LET and QFT.

For each of these three pairs, what are:

a) the physical domains over which qualitative consistency has already been clearly demonstrated?

b) the physical domains over which such consistency might be possible?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

In closing, may I say that I look forward to (fuller) answers to my other questions.

The "answer to your other post" (here) does not seem to address positrons, nor does it seem to answer the last question.

Would you please answer them?

If you require clarification, please ask for it.

I'm confused, again.

In post #14, you claimed that your ATM idea, as presented, is a theory of everything. The Aspect experiments, and others on the Bell Inequality, are most certainly part of everything. Ergo, your ATM idea should encompass them (else it is not a theory of everything).

Would you mind clarifying please?

Also, has Elm published his "explanation" in a relevant, peer-reviewed technical journal? If so, could you please provide a reference? Have you published "the correct calculation", and its agreement with the experimental results, in such a journal? If so, could you please provide a reference?

BTW, here is a 106 page 2007 review paper on the general topic. I think you'll find that many experiments subsequent to Aspect's first ones have closed the general class of "Elm" loopholes (and many more besides): Research on Hidden Variable Theories: a review of recent progresses. I acknowledge that this is almost certainly OT ... except if you confirm that your ATM idea is intended to be a theory of everything, in which case it would seem legitimate to ask whether it can account - quantitatively - for all the experiments referenced in this review paper.

I don't know what you refer to here. Of course any ATM must mesh somewhere with standard theory and / or have specified differences. I cannot see how it is possible to address an ATM without mentioning standard theory.
That does not paraphrase what I said (or certainly not what I intended to say).

There is agreement between red shift and gravity results.
Perhaps a quote would help as I don't know what you refer to here.
Likewise.
When it is understood that in a LET theory with non-linear equations a particle standing wave must change over time, a LSG situation is the natural result. The rate of change of particles due to the non-linearity can be determined from the red shift (fitting with NVM theory) and this same rate with give the correct strength for gravity in LSG.
I already stated that beyond the electron there are no proofs. I did however give an idea of a methodology for establishing whether or not the theory works there by computer simulation.

I think I already made that answer clear. Also, I think that I know what domains I am making claims in. You consistently with ATM proposals attempt to drag the discussion away from the stated domains into other ones. This is actually a technique for trying to discredit something without actually looking at the substantive issues. A sort of torture by nit-picking. I don't mind answering questions and will always admit where results are not yet obtained or not able to be obtained, so I find this type of method somewhat offensive.

Perhaps you would answer a couple of questions for me.

1. In standard e/m theory, do you agree that there are spherical wave solutions?

2. If so, what would these look like if the had very short wavelengths (of the order of particle Compton wavelength)?

If you believe in standard electromagnetic theory then these are reasonable questions to ask. The answers are likely to provide insights into the common nature of light and matter.

The positron question was addressed in post 19, not post 20.

I answered Yes to the question that "it postulates that all physical phenomena are, in principle, within its domain of applicability?"

In principle and proven every detail are two different things. The domain is much larger than the details. However the methodology is there to test the details. This is the idea of advancing it, so that others may consider the merits and perhaps try to test it out in various ways. The fact that many previously isolated areas of interest (as you originally listed) are linked in a meaningful way is valuable for understanding the universe and suggests further ways to test things.
No, AFAIK he has not. David Elm discussed his ideas at great length with physicists for some time in sci.physics about 1994, and put information on his web pages. He has vanished now as far as I can tell (email does not work) and so I have put his material on CRI so that it will not be lost. I have never submitted any papers to a peer review journal on anything. (Might save future questions).
This is the claim. However they do not address the relevant issue of statistical subsamples. Caroline Thompson has published in peer review journal on this, criticizing papers and the authors have acknowledged her as being correct. However when subsequent papers with the same mistakes are made she was refused a reply on the basis that she had already published that information. So the errors persist. I personally prefer the Elm explanation to the Thompson one, but as you want a reference, here is her site which includes her published paper(s) http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ (Note that Caroline died recently).

I note that Caroline Thompson was a statistician, David Elm's argument was totally statistical and that I used to work as a statistician. It took me a while to realize that physicists just didn't understand the statistics involved - I was amazed after David debated for many months with physicists, when he put on his site that I was the first person that understood his argument.

True, finite systems will have eigen modes.
An infinite system will have difficulties to create eigen modes. If you want to create them between potential wells, okay, but then you are not looking at an eigen mode of the infinite system, but a change occurrence of an eigen mode in a limited part of the system. Also, you will have difficulties finding these "local eigen modes", I have serious doubts that they exist.

And a musical instrument is THE example of a bounded finite system which CAN create eigen modes, an infinite system without a characteristic length scale cannot create preferred lengths.

Also, this totally does not answer my question about the spherical standing waves, which I still do not see how they will be created and the plane waves going through a point. I asked for a reference and I get a musical instrument.

Then also you nicely skip the part about the retarded and advanced Green's functions, I noticed, and how you interchange cause and effect.

And you calculated this loss rate from what? And what are repeating standing waves? And how does the energy go from one standing wave to another. and what is the description, function of a standing spherical wave?

But if the system is infinite with no boundaries there is no way of creating a standing wave.

Where does suddenly non linearity come frome?

Ah cells, and what creates these cells, your initial standing wave I suspect. Travelling waves in adjacent larger standing waves. I think I am getting sea sick.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Why not start a thread in BAUT's Q&A section on this? As your questions seem to be solely about standard physics, I myself don't see why they should be in the ATM section.

You may also consider going to an internet discussion forum with greater depth in standard physics than BAUT has, such as Physics Forums.

(my emphasis)

Thanks; that's part of what I expected to read, in response to my earlier questions ... an ATM idea has been presented that has universal applicability (a 'theory of everything'), but it's more of a research program than a theory.

Further, it seems that the ATM claim is, intellectually, equivalent to the promise of string theory/M theory, and even bolder and broader than LQG. Is that so?

Back to the express purpose of this ATM section of BAUT, questioning and challenging the ATM idea, as presented.I would like to be clear on this: which of the 'meaningful' links (that you claim) between which of the 'previously isolated areas of interest' (that you claim) are you prepared to answer questions on, and challenges to, in this ATM thread?

I am also keen to know the extent of the quantitative results pertinent to the phenomenology of the electron^ that you are prepared to answer questions on, and challenges to, in this ATM thread; would you please elaborate?

^ "The only area where there is no quantitative results established is particle physics beyond the electron."

I think there are two, quite separate, paths that can be taken wrt questioning and challenging the ATM ideas presented here:

> the extent to which the ATM ideas presented in the OP constitute, or include as critical elements, or rely heavily upon, hidden variable theories

> the extent to which the more than 500 references cited in the 2007 review paper falsify hidden value theories (in the pertinent domains).

In terms of ATM ideas presented in this thread, both paths are pertinent. However, unless RT asserts that HVTs are not critical elements in the ATM ideas presented (and such assertions survive questioning and challenges), addressing the second question is unavoidable.

Are you prepared to answer questions on, and address challenges to, the ATM ideas re EPR/HVT tests (as presented in the post I am quoting)?