[AntonioLao]

The physical truth of quantum mechanics is based on the following postulate:
1.The postulate of wave and particle duality. Or the principle of complementarity, which states that everything in nature is at the same time a wave and a particle.

The physical truth of special relativity is based on two postulates:

1. The postulate that laws of physics are the same in all equivalent inertial frames moving with uniform velocities.

2. The postulate that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of its source.

The physical truth of general relativity is based on two postulates:

1. The postulate that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of its source.

2. The postulate that laws of physics are the same in all equivalent inertial frames moving with uniform accelerations.

These physical truths have all been supported by experimentations and also have been applied toward the advancements of science and technology.

[dleviwing]

Hi Antonio;
I believe eventually science will find that the wave particle duality notion is false. Of course it will probably take a real TOE to help prove it. I'm not sure I would refer to it as a physical truth, only a hypothesis. If it were a physical truth it would be axiomatic or determined with other axioms. I prefer the concepts of probability and uncertainty as being the foundation for QM along with the work of Planck.
Relativity I view as a purely mathematical gauge theory. It needs a real physical translation to be a physical truth; maybe something like "radiant energy travels through the same quantity of space for any given time increment". This is like saying that the spatial density of glass is higher than that of a vacuum and thus radiant energy slows down when entering this medium.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Of course it will probably take a real TOE to help prove it.

I gathered you mean a TOE as an absolute physical truth? The ones I mentioned are all relative physical truths within their respective physical theories. I am wondering is there a degree to absoluteness? Could one theory be closer to the absolute truth than another? QM seems to apply to the microworld (local - many particles) and relativities seem to apply to the macroworld (global - one universe). But quantum uncertainties describe nonlocality (Bell's theorem), while relativities describe local BB singularity, which are both oppositely contradicting their respective nature of expertise.

see more about Bell's theorem at

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ke...pers/bell.html

[dleviwing]

When an experiment dose not render the expected results, we believe it is necessary to change our perception. This should not be extended to mean have faith or start believing in non-physical actions or entities.

We measure the electrical and magnetic nature of radiant energy an proclaim it proves that it is a transverse wave. Only the measured properties are transverse in nature; the physical wave is a change in the spatial density and thus it is a longitudinal wave just like sound.

Why should we accept the speed of light as an absolute limit? QM shows quite profoundly that it is not. There is an absolute motion quality to all physical systems that mathematically appear in both QM and Relativity. With Relativity the quantity is defined as 2c; QM is more practical in defining this quantity as 6.5x10^11 c (initial BB expansion). What is spooky about something occurring faster than we can measure or detect?

I have yet to see an experiment that can exclude all physical influences. Should we ever devise a perfect void, we will realize the vacuum is but another physical object of nature.

How would you conserve mass and energy if not by conserving motion as a fixed quantity of physical systems.

Mass relates to the uniform motion quality of the physical objects while random wave vibrations account for the energy state quality of a physical system. If a system increases its mass, it dose not mean it has a greater quantity of matter, it implies that the wave function motion has been converted to uniform motion. Particles accelerated near light speeds increase in mass only due to the fact that linear velocity is uniform motion and the particle is sacrificing its random motion to achieve the uniform motion. Why should we believe that the term "Rest Mass" represents a true quantitative measure if uniform motion affects the value of "m". Why should we believe that Relative mass and Rest mass represent different aspects of matter or measurement?

The TOE solution is not mathematical - it is a perceptual. You know as well as I that there is nothing wrong with the math; the problem is the perceptual interpretation of the math.

Sorry Antonio, I didn't intend to be so long winded.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

When an experiment dose not render the expected results,

could you be more specific about which experiments you have in mind?

the transverse nature of electromagnetic waves is a consequence of the poynting vectors. see
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ingVector.html

the speed of light is the inverse square root of the product of permittivity and permeability of the vacuum.

the absolute motion that i'm aware of is with respect to the aether frame, but the aether cannot be detected by experiment.

momentum is more fundamental than mass and the 1st power of energy. It is traditionally defined as the rate of change of force with respect to time. But mass and energy are both detectable by experiments as the ratios to units of mass and Planck's constant. Planck's constant is the ratio of units of energy over the speed of light.

The principle of equivalence asserts that gravitational mass and inertial are the same. But the mass energy equivalence is derived from the physical fact that mass is related to velocity. For rest mass means that the velocity is zero with respect to an inertial frame at rest. But measured from a different frame, the mass is related to the velocity of the frame and the mass is called relativistic mass in the moving frame. But the maximum velocity of all inertial frames is the speed of light. The speed of expansion of space can be greater than speed of light since space has no mass.

[dleviwing]

There is no theory that adequately explains these numbers. This statement of Richard Feynman is one I strongly agree with. Not only as it applies to the term mass but to most of the abstract mathematical terms that define measured dimensions other than pure physical dimensions. Stating that something is equal to the inverse square of something else dose not explain what it is, only what it seems to do to affect the value of another measured dimension.

I find it unusual that you say "momentum is more fundamental than mass" since momentum is the product of mass and velocity. If you meant to say "motion is more fundamental than mass" then I absolutely agree.

My goal is to express the physical actions (perceptual theory) that explain the mathematical terms with a sense of pure reality and not the illusions of magic and supernatural phenomena so often hyped by both Relativity and QM promoters. Once the physical mechanism is realized there will no longer be such mysticisms in these mathematical gauge theories. The only drawback I see is the possibility of "no more mystery".

Though space may be without a measurable mass value, it is a physical entity of fundamental matter just as subatomic particles are also the same fundamental substance.

One point I've been attempting to make is that we cannot alter the quantity of motion of any physical system. We can only change how it is distributed in that system. Every particle has exactly the same quantity of motion. How this motion is distributed between random vibration wave motion and uniform motion is what defines the fundamental characteristics of the particle and how it interacts with all other physical entities.

Physics is not a tool used by mathematics, mathematics is a tool used by physics.
Reality is already defined; we need to find that definition and not redefine reality to match our knowledge.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Stating that something is equal to the inverse square of something else dose not explain what it is

it is the solution when solving the partial differential wave equation. This wave equation is a general equation applicable for all wave phenomena, which include light, sound, earthquake, matter waves, etc.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

I find it unusual that you say "momentum is more fundamental than mass"

momentum from energy not from mass.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

since momentum is the product of mass and velocity

this is a classical definition. The more fundamental definition is that momentum is the rate of change of force with respect to time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave,

In my research, I'm defining momentum as the ratio of quantized space over continuous space. But this requires a factor of time squared in the denominator in order to dimensionally agrees with the time-rate-of-change-of-force definition.

[AntonioLao]

Dave,

On the other hand I could also define the ratio of quantized space over continuous space as the double time integral of momentum



but I still would have problem explaining the vector nature of momentum when integrated with scalar time unless I could redefine time as a vector and use inner product to change the double integrals into a scalar.

[AntonioLao]

Dave,

the ratio of quantized space over continuous space is really just the time integral of a force.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Dave,

the ratio of quantized space over continuous space is really just the time integral of a force.

Please, can you repeat the 4 formulas you gave in a post a long time ago? I lost them in my memory, but I really want to find out about it.