Thanks - that's good to know. At least we can communicate on the level of Classical Physics. But I'm still baffled by your seeming to consider waves on water to be the same thing as radio waves and that all matter is just waves of nothing..
It's one thing for you to present to me an idea which is in a realm where I have no understanding. But when you seem to be equating (that is to say, pretending that they are equal in all regards) waves in water and radio waves, two areas where I have at least a reasonable understanding, and where I know they are different realms, is very troubling.
As to QM, I have a minimal introductory understanding of QM -- or at least I understand the concept of electrons, for example, the oil drop experiment demonstrated that there was no such thing as a half an electron. Another example of QM that I'm familiar with is that electrons, when falling to a lower orbit, always fall a specific quantity - or at least they emit specific wavelengths which are related to the orbits they fell.
As to spacetime warp, I have not grasped it. I have a very hard time understanding something that I cannot understand intuitively. Said mrjesse: Ahh, I may just have got a glimmer into your mindset. Does it go like this "Waves of water is when energy is moving through the water being carried by the kinetic motion of the water molecules and that is why we call it waves of water. Likewise, radio waves, which have a medium of nothing, are therefore waves of nothing just like water waves are waves of water?"
Yes, that is it on a gross level : )
What do you mean "on a gross level?" Either it is or it isn't :-) But doesn't your assumption require then that radiowaves do require a medium?
I am purposely silent about my background, perhaps unnecessarily, but so be it : ) I have never been a believer in appeals to authority. My background is not QM or relativity, I am generally just referring to undergrad studies, although I have a couple of patents that utilize principles from those fields (there is that word again : ) )
Appealing to authority is one thing. But saying "Here's what I've done, here's what I've observed" can be a real help when you're trying to explain something to someone. That's also why I kept asking how you arrived at your conclusion that matter is waves of nothing. Was it something a professor told you 20 years ago? was it something you read in a book? Is it your own idea? Etc. When presenting an idea it works best to cover all the bases "I saw this, I read this, I reasoned thus, etc."
So I guess my question still stands -- How did you come by the idea that all matter is waves of nothing? Obviously you didn't measure everything and determine that it was all waves of nothing. Did Feynman say it? Did your professor say it? or is it your own idea, based on Feynman's and other's work? In science it is common and good for the teller of an idea to say "Here's how I came to the conclusion.."
Now it may well be that you would have to just say to me "Sorry, Jesse, you'll have to read the same books I read then I'm sure it will all make sense. It just requires far more knowledge then you seem to have and I can't even converse with you on the topic as a result."
The reason I suggested the reading material is that your background seems to be full of holes. It is important to have a broad familiarity with all of the areas because it makes understanding much easier. The Feynman material is the best, most comprehensive, material I have ever seen and he takes you seamlessly from classical physics to the present. One of the important concepts that is discussed in the very first section is electric fields : )
By the way, I was wondering - have you read all four of the volumes entirely, that you recommended to me?
Also, you never (at least directly) answered my request to tell me what "field" means to you. I've just been using the dictionary definition - but it seems to have a meaning to you beyond that, which I can't figure out.
Thanks,
-Jesse
That is my point, there is no medium. Gross means in big broad general terms.
So I guess my question still stands -- How did you come by the idea that all matter is waves of nothing? Obviously you didn't measure everything and determine that it was all waves of nothing. Did Feynman say it? Did your professor say it? or is it your own idea, based on Feynman's and other's work? In science it is common and good for the teller of an idea to say "Here's how I came to the conclusion.."
As I told you before, I believe I picked up the term 'waves of nothing' from Laughlin or at least Laughlin produced the ahah factor with me. I think he also explained the emergent properties concept to the point that I understood it too.
By the way, I was wondering - have you read all four of the volumes entirely, that you recommended to me?
Not only that, I have worked out a lot of the math in the 3 Feynman volumes. You will understand what I just said if you ever read them : )
Also, you never (at least directly) answered my request to tell me what "field" means to you. I've just been using the dictionary definition - but it seems to have a meaning to you beyond that, which I can't figure out.
The short answer is that there is simply no quick and dirty answer to what a field is other than it doesn't exist, but it is observable and measurable : ) Is that a contradiction? Well not really, because you don't actually measure and observe the field.
Let me give you something else to think about : ) When you create a field it propagates at the speed of light to infinity. Once the field has been stabilized how fast are the changes in the field? In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point? At the sun you see or 7 minutes ahead of the sun you see? The answer will help you understand what a field is, it is not a simple concept.
To answer your main question, where did I learn this stuff? Mostly reading and studying, lots of reading and studying, and a few observations and experiments. I know my way around a lab pretty well. I am not someone to take things on faith so I have tried to repeat and get the same same results that are reported. In short, I am a blind man stumbling around trying to figure out where I am.