Quantum Physics or Wave Physics
The Hyperspace Debate

A Prelude to Wave Dynamic Theory
As of December 5, 1997 Created by Tony Bondhus

When people write about scientific theories and such, what they write often becomes hopelessly complicated. Often so complicated that even the writer doesn't understand what was written. It is never necessary to write complicated, as all things can be understood by virtually anyone. Sometimes it is difficult to explain to the common person though. More often though, the reason things are written in a complicated manner is that the writer doesn't truly understand what they are writing. It's hard to explain something when you don't understand it yourself.

The following is an examination of two viewpoints. One, the famous and almost universally accepted Quantum Physics. The other, it's predecessor, Wave Physics (I call it, for lack of a better term). Quantum Physics, for those of you who don't know, is the belief that all matter and energy in the universe can be broken down into a smallest form or Quanta. In Quantum Physics, even light has a minimum quantity or Quanta. This Quanta is represented as a photon.

In the evolution into Quantum Physics, an idea came up that all matter is energy in a different form. From this came the logical conclusion that somehow matter could be converted into energy. The result, perhaps the greatest hope to the environment and also it's greatest threat, was nuclear energy. Nuclear fission was discovered in 1938 in Germany by Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch.

Eventually, someone started thinking about space travel in the future, wondering if it is possible to go faster than the speed of light. Another assumption was made that kinetic energy has mass. Which made sense, 'cause if matter is energy, then kinetic energy should also have mass. This assumption led to the development of another formula for the increase in mass as an object increases speed. The formula which they came up with is below. MV=M/(1-(V2/C2))2

Called the relativistic mass formula, I suspect it was Einstein who came up with it. You will note the C in the formula, representing the speed of light, which indicates that the assumption E=MC2 was made for this formula. This is the formula which supposedly makes it impossible to go faster than he speed of light. Formula graphed

Physicists will swear up and down that this formula has been proven in accelerators. Again, based on assumptions. If one were to keep an open mind, they could just as easily believe that these formulas are nothing more than an efficiency formula for a particle accelerator.

Even if all of these assumptions are correct, it doesn't say that an object can not travel faster than the speed of light. These formulas only come into play during the acceleration or deceleration phase.

At any speed, the object's mass relative to it's self is the same as it is when its standing still. Remember, that is its mass relative to itself. For the sake of acceleration or deceleration, the mass is calculated with the formulas above, and the velocity is relative to what is being pushed off of.

When you are in your car and you step on the gas, your acceleration is relative to the ground. It doesn't matter if you are traveling in the same direction of the earth's rotation or in the opposite direction. Your acceleration is the same going either direction, 'cause it is relative to the ground.

Let's say for example, that a space craft accelerates to over half the speed of light. It's mass (for the sake of acceleration) is calculated relative to what it is pushing off of. Once it achieves the desired speed, the space craft fires a projectile weapon, which propels a bullet to half the speed of light relative to the space craft. Since the bullet's mass is calculated relative to the space craft which is propelling it, this is possible. We now have an object traveling faster than the speed of light.

According to those earlier assumptions, an object which is already traveling faster than light it will continue to do so and nothing can stop it. Even the tiniest of particles would release an infinite supply of energy if it collided with another object, and that would destroy the entire universe.

To prevent our destruction, another assumption must be made. That assumption is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. This helped prevent our destruction, but we still were conflicting with the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.

To fix that we now have to add to this assumption... the speed of light is a constant. It just would not be acceptable if it were possible for an object traveling almost the speed of light in one area of space to move to another area where the speed of light is half as fast. This assumption is an integral part of the other assumption and can not be separated. It had to be made. Even though we have evidence supporting the belief that the speed of light is not a constant, the assumption was made to back up all of the other assumptions that we've been making.

Of course that doesn't help in this example: If two objects, each traveling over half the speed of light, collided with each other their relative speeds would be faster than the speed of light. The resulting release of infinite energy would destroy the entire universe.

Another integral or inseparable assumption must now be made that somewhere in deep space there is a reference point that all speeds are calculated from. You can't have the speed of light as a constant unless you have a reference point somewhere that all light in the universe is relative to. Perhaps there's an invisible string that attaches all photons and other particles to this reference point in deep space. Or perhaps we could assume that there is an unknown solid and unmoving substance filling the entire universe and forcing all within to not exceed the speed limit. This makes little or no sense at all, and yet it must be accepted.

As you can see, there's been assumption, on top of assumption, on top of assumption, and they just keep piling it on.

At first, the assumptions made a certain amount of sense and were even believable. It wasn't until the assumption that kinetic energy has mass, that everything got all out of wack. I'm not saying that this assumption was incorrect, in fact I believe it was a valid assumption.

The mistake was incorporating this assumption into the formula for acceleration and decelleration. The mass gained from kinetic energy does not add to the kinetic energy. It adds to the gravitation of the moving object, but not to it's kinetic energy. The reason for this is that the mass of the object is relative to itself.

This mistake went unnoticed. As problems came up, physists had too much invested (emotionally, finacially, and/or in time investment), to accept the possiblity that there is a problem. Perhaps there was a bit too much hero worship going on. Perhaps it shows a flaw in our education system that makes people hold so strongly to what they were taught, because of the enormous investment in time and money.

I have never been a big fan of Quantum Physics, as it didn't make much sence to me. I much prefer it's predecessor which is Wave Physics. Wave behavior and light behavior are too similar to dismiss the connection. Almost all aspects of the behavior of light were known to be exactly that of a wave.

From all that I know about the behavior of light, which is a lot, there is only one reason to believe that light is not a wave. That reason is that light travels thru a vacuum. It is well known, that all waves travel thru a medium. Where there is no medium, a wave can not travel, for example, sound doesnít travel thru a vacuum.

The proper scientific path would be to continue with the idea that light is a wave, and start looking for some kind of medium (known or unknown) in the vacuum for the wave to travel through.

For some reason, the possibility that light is a wave has been excluded with almost no thought and the less likely possibility that light is particle (Photon) has been accepted almost exclusively, and with almost no supporting evidence.

With the exception of a wave, there is nothing known that behaves remotely similar to the behavior of light, and without something to compare it too, it is virtually impossible to disprove. It's physical properties must be solidly referenced to objects in the real world with known properties. We need something to compare it too, or we have nothing but a fantasy.

Science is not about pure imagination. Science is about building on the known. Expanding on our knowledge and creating new knowledge from the old. We take facts and expand on them. We don't sail off into the deep blue ocean without a map or a reference point to navigate from.

As we examine and compare Quantum Theory and Wave Dynamics, I've adopted this system to help you keep track of changing thought patterns. In front of what's written, I put the words Quantum Theory or Wave Dynamics to indicated that Iím entertaining one of the two thought patterns. Quantum Theory means that the assumptions are that light is a particle. Wave Dynamics means the assumptions are that light is a wave and the speed of light is not constant. This is an experiment to see if it will make it easier for you. Also to prevent you from getting lost, when you see a horizontal line, that means that itís a new subject.

When an object traveling in space passes by a planet, the path of that object is bent by the gravitational pull of the planet. This also happens with light.

Quantum
Theory

If photons behave as known particles, the speed of light could easily be measured by measuring how much it bends when it goes by a planet or something. It doesnít matter how much the particle weighs, the effect of gravity will bend it a certain amount when its traveling at a specific speed. A grain of sand and a large meteor traveling near a planet will have their courses altered the same amount providing they are traveling the same speed and course.

Light waves of different frequencies bend different amounts when they travel by a planet. AM radio waves pretty much follow the curve of the earth, where higher frequency radio waves do not.

Wave
Dynamics

It is a well known fact that low frequency waves bend more than high frequency waves, just like light does when it travels by a planet. This indicates that the speed of light near the planet is slightly higher than the speed of light farther away.

Quantum
Theory

Could photons of different frequencies be traveling at different speeds?

I have always heard that light acts both as a particle and a wave. It was said to act like a wave when it gets into our atmosphere, but when it's traveling through space it was a particle, 'cause a wave can not travel through space. This however doesn't help to explain how it can bend around a planet.

If the bending of lightís path is determined to wave like behavior, and not particle like behavior as previously thought, that proves the existence of a medium. It is the medium which causes waves to bend by changing their speed. (Note the change of speed problem with the particle assumptions)

Quantum
Theory

If photons act as a wave in the vacuum of outer space, when do they act as a partical? Perhaps a photon is a pure wave which has a minimum quantity of energy. In Quantum Theory all matter and energy has a minimum quantity, this doesn't mean that one of the "quantums" could not by a pure wave.

Wave
Dynamics

Knowing that waves bend around planets, tells us that what ever the medium that waves travel thru, it is affected by gravity. Most likely, the medium is compressible, but there are other possibilities. What is known, is that light travels faster in the medium which is closer to the gravity source than it does in the medium farther away.

Properties of the unknown medium

The speed of a wave is determined by two things, the mass and the elasticity of the medium. The speed of sound for example is determined by compression force and mass of each molecule. The mass of the molecules remain the same mass, but the compression force is determined by air pressure. Air close to the ground has more pressure, therefore sound travels faster close to the ground and slower at high attitudes.

One possible medium might be hydrogen, since we know there is hydrogen in outer space. I do not personally believe that it is the medium, but until someone actually calculates how fast light would travel in hydrogen gas at whatever concentration is out there. Keep in mind that a hydrogen atom in outer space may be as big as a grain of sand or even bigger. The actual force between the electron and proton is one of the main determining factors, and with an atom that large, that force would be pretty small. To make matters worse, the other determining factor is the mass of the hydrogen atom. According to my Wave Dynamic Theory, the weight of the hydrogen atom in deep space is much lighter than it is here on Earth. I would calculate it myself, but I'm not that good at math.

All atoms have a specific frequency that they vibrate easiest at. This frequency is called the resonant frequency. We often test objects on earth by heating them to see what frequecies of light they give off. We also examine the light from distant stars in the same way. If it gives off the frequencies that hydrogen gives off, we can be pretty sure there's hydrogen there.

Resonant frequency is dependant on the size of an atom as well as the mass of its components. Yet, on stars with far greater gravity than we have here on earth, these atoms seem to have the same resonant frequincies that they do here on earth.

Quantum
Theory

Since subatomic particals (electrons and protons) have a specific mass in Quantum Theory, we must assume that the size of atoms is the same on other stars as it is here on earth. Gravity has little effect on the size of atoms. The result is that the resonant frequency stays the same.

Wave
Dynamics

In my Wave Dynamic Theory, subatomic particals (electrons and protons) do not have a constant mass. Their mass is relative to gravity just as the size of the atoms are. As gravity increases, atoms shrink and the mass of subatomic particals increases. The result is that the resonant frequency stays the same.

If an atom shrinks, the attraction of the proton and electron becomes greater 'cause of the closer proximity. It would therefore be logical that the speed of the electrons in orbit would have to increase to stay in orbit. With more speed comes more energy. With more energy comes more mass. In my Wave Dynamic Theory, subatomic particals are similar to atoms in this respect.

A moving object passing by a gravitational field will accelerate as itís path is being bent. Sometimes referred to as the Sling Shot Effect.

Wave
Dynamics

Waves bend in a similar way, bending toward the faster moving waves. Venturi principal is another classic example, where air is pulled toward faster moving air. Large concentrations of energy attract other concentrations of energy. I believe this is one of the fundamental laws of nature.

Quantum
Theory

Is it possible that a fast moving particleís path is bent in this same manner, without increasing speed? (remember the sling shot effect)

Einsteinís Theory of Relativity pointed out the need for a reference point. The speed of a projectile is obviously relative to the gun, we know this Ďcause when a jet airplane fires its guns, the bullets actually leave the barrel. Walking forward on a jet airplane at high speed takes the same amount of energy as it would if the plane were standing still, 'cause the your walking speed is relative to the plane. If energy required to walk was not relative to the plane it would take 1200 times as much energy to walk on a plane traveling 600 miles per hour (calculations).

Quantum
Theory

Letís say we have a star traveling at half the speed of light. If photons act like a projectile the light the star gives off would be traveling at 1 1/2 times the speed of light relative to space. Since I already showed that faster than light is posible, this is not a problem. This light would continue traveling at this accelerated speed, and would bend differently than other light.

It may be that photons do not act like a projectile, and instead leave the star at the speed of light relative to space. If this is so, they do not behave like any known partical. This would however require some medium that photons use for travel, otherwise there would be no reason for them traveling at this speed.

Wave
Dynamics

The speed of a wave is dependent on the medium it travels thru. Changing speed of a wave doesnít require an energy change.

We can walk forward in an airplane traveling at 600 miles per hour just as easily as we can walk on land, because or walking speed is relative to the ground. That is what my interpretation of the theory of relativity is about, that your speed is referenced to the ground you are standing in.

In my Wave Dynamic Theory it is also assumed that all mass is energy. There is however no need to calculate mass relative to speed, because mass is not relative to speed. Mass is relative to the medium, in the same way as the speed of light is relative to the medium. The faster light travels in that medium, the greater the mass of the object, regardless of what speed the object is traveling.

To put this another way, mass is relative to itself. It always sees itself as stationary. The mass of any object therefore is always calculated as a stationary object even when it is traveling at high speeds.

In my Wave Dynamic Theory mass is considered light, stationary objects are therefore considered moving the speed of light (around in circles). Always that speed, never any other. Whether the whole object is moving or not. When the speed of light changes, the mass changes accordingly.

Energy is still assumed to have mass, however it is not included in the formula for calculating kinetic energy, 'cause it doesn't affect it. Mass is only increased for the sake of calculations of how much the path of the object is bent when traveling by a planet or something. It's of no concern to us here.

Wave
Dynamics

If Einsteinís theory E=MC2 is correct, and the speed of light was not a constant, then either the energy of an object is not constant, the mass is not constant, or the both. An object with a mass of 1, could be converted in an area where the speed of light is 1, into an energy of 1. That same object could be converted in an area where the speed of light is 2 into an energy 4 (4 times as much energy coming from the same object). This doesnít make me rule out the formula E=MC2 (possible conflict with Rule of Conservation of Mass and Energy), just gives me another thing to think about.

Actually this doesn't seem to be a conflict to me. Although it appears that way, there really isn't any energy being created. It is more like the energy is converted to a different form.

If we learn to create artificial gravity, we might find out that it takes as much energy to double the speed of light, as we would get from it. Until we know all the rules, we don't know if it is a conflict.





HomeAbout usStoreEducationScienceMembersCommunityWorkInternal


Creating the Society
of the Future

Creating the Society
of the Future

Empowering the people with equality, direct democracy, and freedom

Empowering the people with equality, direct democracy, and freedom