This is a short essay on why the most simple science theory of reality was never considered until now.
(Deducing the Most Simple Science Theory of Reality)
It is a significant fact that no one ever asked the question;
What is the most simple science theory of reality?
You can confirm this by searching Google for the most simple science theory of reality - no other website on the internet considers this - which is strange given Occam's Razor (principle of simplicity) and Metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality) are both fundamental to science.
If you abide by the rules of science (logic from principles = knowledge
from senses) you can deduce this for yourselves as there is only one solution,
the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space.
And from this most simple theoretical foundation (of only one thing existing,
Space, with the properties of a wave medium) you can then deduce the fundamentals
of modern physics, and also explain and solve the central problems of philosophy
and metaphysics (which all relate to necessary connection). There is no
opinion involved - it shows that science does work - we just needed the
correct (most simple) foundations.
Thus it was premature to claim science does not really work (the logical positivist / social construct view of postmodern science - see Feynman quote below) without having considered this most simple solution.
There is an interesting quote from Albert Einstein on this relationship between physics and philosophy.
It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then, should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt cannot reach them; but, it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. (Albert Einstein, 1936)
It must be said though, that mathematical physics has failed in the last
seventy years, since Einstein wrote this, to solve the problematic contradictions
that had arisen.
It seems likely, that by be being taught mathematical physics, physicists
are somehow passing on beliefs and particular ways of thinking to successive
generations which prevent them from solving these contradictions. This
possibility must be considered, and if it is true, it is something that
the more isolated philosopher will likely avoid.
Albert Einstein was actually a very good philosopher / metaphysicist as well as being a mathematical physicist (part of the reason for his greatness I think). Thus the following two quotes are very very important (all scientists should read them!)
I
fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology
as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and
even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands
of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical
background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation
from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical
insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan
or specialist and a real seeker after truth.
(Albert Einstein to
Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944)
How
does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern
himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty?
I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that
they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have
proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us
that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens.
Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori
givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for
a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle
game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts
and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness
depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience.
By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. (Albert
Einstein. 'Ernst Mach.' Physikalische Zeitschrift 17 (1916): 101,
102 - A memorial notice for the philosopher, Ernst Mach.)
Evolutionary philosophy tells us that evolving systems have a tendency
to become more complex over time. Therefore we would expect that since 1915
mathematical physics has evolved into a much more diverse, complex, specialized
field of knowledge.
There are some interesting consequences of this natural evolution of complexity.
As we are producing more and more mathematical relationships, further
and further removed from experience, it becomes increasingly difficult to
determine which relationships are only mathematically true, and which are
also physically true. Hence mathematical physics becomes very difficult
to understand, and relate to the physically real world around us (of matter
existing in Space).
Further to this, the individual who now studies mathematical physics, must
specialize to a much greater degree than they have in the past, to learn
one small field of knowledge satisfactorily. This then has the danger,
of producing individuals with a narrow focus, and a lack of perspective
and understanding about the world in general.
Russell makes note of this in this criticism of Platonists.
It is noteworthy that modern Platonists, with few exceptions, are ignorant of mathematics, in spite of the immense importance that Plato attached to arithmetic and geometry, and the immense influence they had on his philosophy. This is an example of the evils of Specialization: a man must not write on Plato unless he has spent so much of his youth on Greek as to have had no time for the things that Plato thought important. (Bertrand Russell)
It is logical, that this danger of Specialization applies more to the mathematical physicist, than to the natural philosopher, who studies truth wherever it may lead, and is thus naturally a generalist.
I think there are three strong self fulfilling prophecies in physics that are causing great harm.
a) Mathematical physics is too complex for a simple model to explain.
... and you think I'm going to explain it to you so you can understand it? No, you're not going to be able to understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does. ... as I explained in the first lecture, the way we have to describe Nature is generally incomprehensible to us. ... the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that. (Richard P. Feynman)
It is obvious that if physicists think this way then they will never discover a new model for the universe. Their evolution of describing light, matter, and the universe, will be limited to the stumbling upon of mathematical relationships which correctly fit experiment. This is not meant to be harsh. The mathematical modeling of the universe is an awesome human achievement, and is the result of many thousands of wonderfully intelligent humans devoting their lives to developing mathematical relationships. It has been a process of evolution, where the survival of a mathematical relationships depends ultimately upon their agreement with experiment. The end result though, is just chaos and confusion - the exact opposite of the true aims of science.
b) Any simple model would have been found by one of the great minds of physics.
Surely all reasonable models for light and matter have been considered?
Certainly Einstein and all the other great physicists of the last century
considered all possible models!
And yet is this a valid and logical way to think? History actually shows
that it is not. We humans have thousands of beliefs, and some of these
are insidious and deceptive, and hinder scientific inquiry. It is very
hard to identify these beliefs, because they form the very fabric of how
we relate and think.
What we can say with certainty is that ideas come from individual minds,
from people. These people are not geniuses who divinely know all things,
they are people who study and think. It is the many who create the fame
and myth about the few who are famous. Once we discount the myth and follow
the evolution of ideas, we see more clearly why individuals thought the
way they did, and discovered what they have. We see more clearly the beliefs
and biases of their time, and how these things affected the way they thought.
It is true that my physics book contains far more knowledge than Einstein
ever had access to, and hence I have this great advantage of knowledge
over my predecessors. It is important to appreciate this knowledge, while
being aware of the many associated beliefs. To me, as a natural philosopher,
this is a major advantage.
Mathematics is the Only Language for Describing Reality
This self fulfilling prophecy applies to the idea that maths is the only language for describing reality, as the following quotes show;
It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme - the quantum theory - which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes; for visualization, however, we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies - the wave picture and the corpuscular picture." (Werner Heisenberg, 1930)
... the progress of science has itself shown that there can be no pictorial representation of the workings of nature of a kind that would be intelligible to our limited minds. The study of physics has driven us to the positivist conception of physics. We can never understand what events are, but must limit ourselves to describing the pattern of events in mathematical terms: no other aim is possible .... the final harvest will always be a sheaf of mathematical formulae. These will never describe nature itself, but only our observations on nature. (Sir James Jeans, 1942)
Mathematics is the only good metaphysics. (William Thomson Baron Kelvin)
I think Einstein had the correct view.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. (Albert Einstein)
And William Blake states this view rather nicely!
God forbid that Truth should be confined to Mathematical Demonstration! (Blake)
Conclusion: We should always look for the most simple
and obvious solution first! None of these arguments against a simple
sensible language for describing reality are valid - the quotes are really
just opinions without any source of truth.
Similar arguments were expressed about the complexity of life and the existence
of ourselves, as proof of divine creation, only to find that Darwin's
theory of evolution (a very simple idea) logically explained life in
complete satisfaction of scientific principles.
Why is it that the same human could equally become, a tribal savage, a bank manager, the executioner of other humans in the name of war, an artist, a mathematical physicist, a philosopher, ...?
The answer lies with understanding how our brain functions, and how we
think.
As a relationship machine, our brain is taught to relate various things.
Our nature of thinking, and how we behave, depends largely upon how this
thinking machine is taught / programmed.
We can only think about things if we have relationships in the brain which
can be accessed and give rise to ideas. If we isolate our brain from a diversity
of relationships, if we spend all our time thinking about the same few things,
then we find that we become limited in how we think.
The catch is, that we are unable to notice this lack of diversity of thinking,
as we do not notice what we do not have.
This is why this wide perspective of natural philosophy is extremely important. That in simply studying mathematics it becomes more true than the things which do actually exist in the space about us. Meaning appears in the mathematics itself, and hence the mathematical physicist’s perception of reality becomes somehow altered to the philosophers. To what degree, and how significant this is, I cannot say, but there is a certain logic to this argument which deserves consideration. The history seems to support this view, as Thomas Kuhn wrote;
Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change. ...scientific training is not well designed to produce the man who will easily discover a fresh approach. (Kuhn, 1962)
History shows that we are very easily misled by the beliefs of others, that we are rather herd like in our thinking, and those new to the herd are, initially, more likely to see things differently.
Geoff Haselhurst
Natural Philosopher
(Philosophy of Science, Theoretical Physics, Metaphysics, Evolution)
Philosophy / Metaphysics of Mathematics - I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Albert Einstein)
On the Mystical Foundations of Mathematics - Pythagoras, .. was intellectually one of the most important men that ever lived, both when he was wise, and when he was unwise. Mathematics, in the sense of demonstrative deductive argument, begins with him, and in him is intimately connected with a peculiar form of mysticism. The influence of mathematics on philosophy, partly owing to him, has, ever since his time, been both profound and unfortunate. (Bertrand Russell)
Mathematics and Music - The astronomer Galileo Galilei observed in 1623 that the entire universe "is written in the language of mathematics", and indeed it is remarkable the extent to which science and society are governed by mathematical ideas. It is perhaps even more surprising that music, with all its passion and emotion, is also based upon mathematical relationships. Such musical notions as octaves, chords, scales, and keys can all be demystified and understood logically using simple mathematics.
Famous Mathematics Quotes - As I work on these maths physics pages I collect mathematics / mathematical physics quotes that I think are important and add them to this page.
Covert Censorship by the Physics Preprint Archive - This page on censorship in Physics is here to show people that there are serious problems in getting new knowledge published in Journals (particularly if it contradicts current paradigm of 'particles' and 'fields', where it is just assumed that particle / wave duality is insolvable, waves are just 'probability waves', etc.). The particular example I have used relates to problems that Nobel Physics Laureate Brian Josephson had in getting articles published. But the problem is endemic and applies equally to philosophy.
Censorship at the Physics Forums http://www.physicsforums.com/ - This is a copy of a post that I replied to at http://www.physicsforums.com/. I don't think my reply was that bad given the criticism the Wave Structure of Matter received. However, when I went back to add a further comment, I found that I was BANNED for life from the physicsforums - the reason given was "crackpot" - and the post was deleted. I wrote to them asking for an explanation and have received no reply (funny about that!). And since then I have posted twice using new accounts. Each time my posts have been deleted and I have been banned. I wonder what people think of this form of censorship at the biggest physics forum on the internet? If you are like me and think this is wrong - please post at their forum and tell them so.
Mathematical
Physicist Dr Milo Wolff on the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space
I think all scientists would agree that to be certain
that the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter is true, we must demonstrate
that its Principles correctly deduce what we observe from observation and
experiment of the interconnected motion of matter in Space.
And here it is appropriate that I acknowledge the wonderful mind and pioneering
work of Mathematical Physicist Dr Milo Wolff on the Wave Structure of Matter
(1986 - 2007). His early work of applying the spherical scalar wave equations
to mathematical physics led him to deduce the fundamentals of both Einstein's
Special Relativity (mass increase) and Quantum Theory (de Broglie wavelength)
in one set of wave equations, thus both theoretically and metaphysically uniting
these two theories (metaphysics of Space and wave Motion - not Space and Time).
His work over the past 19 years has led to further deductions of the fundamental
Laws of Nature from first principles (i.e. a
priori, rather than their current a posteriori empirical / inductive foundation which is always uncertain).
Wolff: Wave Structure of Matter - Summary of the Logic and Mathematics of the Wave Structure of Matter.
Wolff: Richard Feynman's QED - From Feynman's Advanced and Retarded Spherical Vector Electromagnetic Waves (Mathematical) to Spherical Scalar Quantum Waves (real waves).
Wolff: Binary Universe - The Binary Nature of Reality (Waves form from two balanced forces, Spherical In-Waves and Out-Waves). Relates this to digital computing.
Wolff: PhD Mathematical Physics / Biography - Milo Wolff - Astronomer, Electrical Engineer, retired Professor of Mathematical Physics, first formalised the Wave Structure of Matter in 1986.
Video Interviews of Dr Milo Wolff on Physics and the Wave Structure of Matter - The following interview between Philosopher Geoff Haselhurst and Physicist Milo Wolff on the Wave Structure of Matter was filmed in 2000 on the grounds of Berkeley University in California. Milo Wolff is a fine theoretical physicist and one day he will no doubt receive a Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on the Wave Structure of Matter. I think you will find these video interviews to be interesting (at times amusing) and very informative about the problems of modern physics and how they can be solved by the Wave Structure of Matter.
Physics Book: Milo Wolff: 'Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe' - Buy Milo Wolff's Physics Book on the Wave Structure of Matter from Amazon.
Milo Wolff's Physics Website on the Wave Structure of Matter - My name is Milo Wolff and I am a physicist, astronomer, and explorer of the wondrous cosmology of the universe. I have worked for MIT, Aerospace Corporation, the United Nations, as well as taught at various universities in the USA and Asia. Join the exciting and fascinating exploration of matter, the natural laws, and the universe. You may become a famous pioneer and, at the least, you will have fun! (Milo Wolff)
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/Einstein/Talks/Wolff.pdf
- What is the Electron? Introduction:
In his later years, Einstein was asked his thoughts about the huge numbers
of short-lived heavy particles, kaons, pions, quarks, mesons, etc. found
using high-energy accelerators and enormous amounts of time and money. These
physicists thought they were finding important basic matter. They wanted
to know what Einstein thought of their work. Einstein was a careful thinker
and not given to theatrics so he was very serious when he replied, "I
would just like to know what an electron is."
This article will show, just as Einstein speculated, that the electron is indeed
the leading player in the universe and is intimately involved with light, matter,
the laws of nature, and our lives. The path to the answer, is simple: Reject
the discrete material electron and replace it with a wave-structured electron
as proposed by Schroedinger and Clifford - using a scalar-wave equation. The
math and the proofs are straight-forward because scalar waves are the only
possible choice. Only two principles underlie all results. Despite this simplicity
the WSM explains the origin of the natural laws, new applications in micro-physics
and chips, understanding light energy exchange and lasers, plus the answers
to most current paradoxes of physics. It is breathtaking to find so many results
together – simply by answering Einstein’s question "What
is the Electron". (Milo Wolff, Geoff Haselhurst)
http://quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_point.html - The Wave Center forms the 'Point Particle' Effect. The dual particle/wave nature of the electron has long been a paradox in physics. It is now seen that the electron consists entirely of a structure of spherical waves whose behavior creates their particle-like appearance. The correctness of this structure is supported by the physical laws which originate from this wave structure, including quantum theory, special relativity, electric force, gravity, and magnetism. (Milo Wolff)
http://www.signaldisplay.com/Unified_Field_Theory.pdf
- The Derivation of a Unified Field Theory From a Model of Spherical
Quantum Waves.
Abstract: It is shown that if space is modeled as an elastic medium that propagates
spherical, scalar quantum-waves, then the ratio of the square of the wave velocity
to c2 reveals
the same results as the familiar time dilation formula that is produced from
the Schwarzchild G44 component. The Schwarzchild radius derived from the scalar-wave
model is shown to be equal to the radius of the observable universe, implying
that there are no gravitational singularities present within the observable
universe. The spherical wave model also produces a formula that calculates
the mass of a vector particle associated with each of the four forces and its
associated range. (Michael Harney)
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V13NO2PDF/V13N2HAR.pdf - The Cosmological-Redshift Explained by the Intersection of Hubble Spheres (Observable Universe). The cosmological redshift is described by the intersection of two Hubble spheres, where a Hubble sphere is defined as a range over which spherical, quantum-waves interact, specifically Ru = 1.9 × 1026 m. (Michael Harney)
Deducing Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - Three short deductions of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle from Wave theorists, Mike Harney, Milo Wolff, and Chris Hawkings. The significant point is that by removing the 'particle' conception of matter and replacing this with the Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter we can deduce the Uncertainty Principle due to the spatially extended wave nature of matter. The confusion and paradox of Quantum Theory clearly results from the incorrect discrete 'particle' conception of matter. i.e. There is no discrete particle thus it is impossible to locate the exact position of something that does not exist (the continuous motion of a 'particle'!). In reality there is a discrete re-positioning of the wave center with each spherical in and out wave which gives the appearance of a continuously moving 'particle'.
http://www.ontostat.com/anglais/revisited_physics_gb.htm
- In this section on Physics, I would like to feed the debate on a certain
number of points, perhaps definitely established for physicists, but which
seem to me still fragile. Tackling with general questions, the first pages
(3.1 to 3.5) prepare the reader to this idea, matter is made of waves. From
the sixth (3.6) which present an undulatory model of particle, we really
enter into the subject.
The following pages display the basis of the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM)
Theory that I treat from the particle model I have conceived. Other authors
after Louis de Broglie, Milo Wolff, Gabriel LaFrenière,
Geoff Haselhurst, Chris Hawkings, Serge Cabala, have developed this theory,
broadly similar, but with differences in details. Nevertheless, the main difference
goes beyond this physical theory, it shows through the whole of ideas and facts
displayed on this site and is what leads the reader to this amazing finding:
a unique thing as simple as a wave, is likely to explain the entire Universe,
as well as the masse, the behaviour and the functioning of the objects it contains.
(Denys Lepinard)
Chris Hawkings - Could Matter and Matter Waves be Derivable? - 'The similarity in behaviour between matter and radiation suggests that matter may have an electromagnetic (wave) origin. It is shown that two light-speed waves with opposite directions of propagation yield a formalism which is identical to that describing the properties of matter. For spherical waves, particle localisation is also obtained and phase waves are generated, the properties of which match identically with matter wave properties.' Note: We do not agree with Chris in his use of vector electromagnetic waves (mathematical constructs which have no spherical solutions). We must instead work with scalar waves / real waves in Space.
Wave Structure of Matter Theorists Websites - Links to websites of people working on the Wave Structure of Matter. Physicist Dr Milo Wolff, Denys Lepinard, Mike Harney, Mike Weber, Ray Tomes (Harmonics), Serge Cabala, Gabriel LaFreniere.
Mathematical
Logic Philosophy Maths
Mysticism,
Maths
Maths
Waves & Musical Universe
Mathematics
Famous Quotes
Truth Uncertainty Principle Deduced
Milo
Wolff
Milo
Wolff QED Richard Feynman
Chris
Hawkings
Wave
Structure Matter Theorists
Censorship
of Science & Society
Internet
Physics Forum Censorship
Truth
Reality (Home)
Simple
Metaphysics
Mathematical
Einstein
Quantum Physics
Cosmology
Philosophy
Theology
Evolution
Health
Education
Politics
Share
Facebook
Connect
Google
Friends
Twitter
Tweets
Comment
Philosophy
Shop
Free
Postcards
RSS
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
(Mohandas Gandhi)
The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. ... We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. ...
Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!" (Albert Einstein)
This is the profound new way of thinking that Einstein realised, that we exist as spatially extended structures of the universe - the discrete and separate body an illusion. This simply confirms the intuitions of the ancient philosophers and mystics.
Given the current censorship in physics / philosophy of science journals (based on the standard model of particle physics / big bang cosmology) the internet is the best hope for getting new knowledge known to the world. But that depends on you, the people who care about science and society, realise the importance of truth and reality.
It is easy to help - just click on the social network sites (below) or grab a nice image / quote you like and add it to your favourite blog, wiki or forum. We are listed as one of the top philosophy sites on the Internet (300,000 page views / week) and have a wonderful collection of knowledge from the greatest minds in human history, so people will appreciate your contributions. Thanks! Geoff Haselhurst - Karene Howie - Email
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."
(Edmund Burke)
Connect with Geoffrey
Support simple sensible science that works
YouTube MySpace Facebook Twitter
NOTE (May 2009)
Facebook ConnectWe have just added (below) Facebook Connect, Google Friend and Twitter Applications.
Please feel free to add comments / questions / friendship!
We try to reply within 48 hours. Geoff
Connect in an Inter-Connected Universe!
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)
Google Friends
Making the Universe more Friendly!
"Hell is Truth Seen Too Late."
(Thomas Hobbes)
Twitter Updates
Philosophy Physics Truth Reality
Unity / Wisdom Quotes & Tweets
Send a very cool (and free) philosophy / wisdom postcard!
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical-physics/importance-philosophy-mathematics.htm
Importance of Philosophy to Mathematics / Mathematical Physics. Problems of Self Fulfilling Prophecy / Specialisation / Complexity