Location in Space


In Quantum Physics, we are looking at an area where observation without bias means more than any education. We should be willing to question earlier assumptions, when they become obvious.

Our concept of space comes from dimensions of matter. Does the same concept of dimension apply to field? Suppose there is no matter but only field. How will we conceive of dimensions then?

Does an electromagnetic disturbance travel in space? Or is it a varying condition of space itself. Is “c” really the “speed” of light in “space”, or is it a constant relationship between space and time as represented by constant ratio of wavelength to period of electromagnetic disturbance?

If the frequency associated with electromagnetic disturbance is that of space itself vibrating, then we cannot look at the amplitude as some “distance”. With this kind of questioning I have upset people with traditional thinking who have accused me of keeping company of crackpots. But I do not believe traditional thinking is so sacred that it cannot be questioned.

I believe that truth lies in logical consistency. The Heisenberg Principle to me presents a logical inconsistency as it did to Einstein. It assumes that a location in a field could be approximated by a Euclidean point. I believe that to be logically inconsistent. A location in a field has dimension of the “wavelength” of the disturbance that makes up that field.


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Chris Thompson  On December 3, 2015 at 10:09 PM

    Reblogged this on Chris Thompson.

  • 2ndxmr  On December 3, 2015 at 11:22 PM

    V:”Suppose there is no matter but only field. How will we conceive of dimensions then?”

    When you get the idea that a field need be nothing more than a geometric configuration (like a helix, or a spiral, or a line) of even something more basic, then it will make more sense.

    The idea that there is one field per elementary particle should set off the alarm bells that such a physical universe could only be an engineered universe. Once those bells go off, then the elephant in the room becomes “What, or who, was/were the engineer(s)?”

    At that point you have a causal chain and reverse engineering It should become simpler.

    • vinaire  On December 4, 2015 at 5:02 AM

      2nd: “When you get the idea that a field need be nothing more than a geometric configuration (like a helix, or a spiral, or a line) of even something more basic, then it will make more sense.”

      So, you think that field can be approximated by Euclidean geometry!


      • 2ndxmr  On December 5, 2015 at 1:11 AM

        Some fields are approximated by a scalar!!

        • vinaire  On December 5, 2015 at 5:48 AM


        • 2ndxmr  On December 5, 2015 at 11:28 PM

          If you’re not yet familiar with it, the Higgs field is a scalar field: uniform at all points with no vector of directional intensity.

        • 2ndxmr  On December 5, 2015 at 11:30 PM

          But, if you object to fields being associated with Euclidean geometry, then you’d better find a new way of expressing the sine wave.

        • vinaire  On December 6, 2015 at 5:07 AM

          I see Higg’s field as “undisturbed space”. Space splits into electrical and magnetic field when it is disturbed.

          Location in a field cannot be approximated by a Euclidean point. That approximation is valid only for mass. That is where sine wave may be used.

  • vinaire  On December 5, 2015 at 5:52 AM

    In my view, mass is the common property of all kind of matter. Similarly, frequency is the common property of all kind of fields.

    • 2ndxmr  On December 7, 2015 at 1:08 AM

      V:” Similarly, frequency is the common property of all kind of fields.”

      Are you now saying that matter can’t have frequency or just that you think fields would only be frequency based?

      At other times you’ve said you thought matter was simply very high frequencies that collapsed the wave function into a particle.

      Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has been shown to work very well at explaining and predicting particles and their properties. It does not, however, make any predictions about the structure of fields. In that sense it is proffered in a similar manner to the way Newton proffered the idea of gravity: Newton said (basically) “This is what happens, but I’ll leave it to other theorists to figure out why it happens.”

      In a similar manner to the way Newton’s idea of gravity begins to fail as we approach relativistic speeds, QFT begins to fail when it tries to predict gravity and the cosmological constant.

      So, basically, fields are structures that are more complex than can be described with simple notions of frequency. If they were that simple they most likely would already have been figured out by the “really guys”.

      • vinaire  On December 7, 2015 at 5:47 AM

        I still think that what appears as mass is very high frequency disturbance condensed in some manner. The current statement is not logically inconsistent with it. It is actually setting up the ground for it.

        The direct relationship between frequency and mass is just a conjecture at this stage. It is yet to be fully fleshed out and confirmed through experimentation.

      • vinaire  On December 7, 2015 at 5:52 AM

        My thoughts on Quantum Field Theory are expressed here.


  • vinaire  On December 5, 2015 at 9:09 AM

    Our idea of space comes from the dimensions of matter. Our idea of time comes from changes in matter. Our idea of space-time is therefore matter-centric. Thus, our idea of space-time is limited to the consideration of matter. Einstein had realized this near the end of his life. The following essay that he wrote in 1952 is most enlightening.


    For a long time we had considered matter as the basic substance, but field appears to be a substance more basic than matter. How does that affect our concept of space-time?

    I believe that if Einstein had lived a bit longer he would have made another breakthrough by answering this question. We need to understand “space-time” first before we worry about “outside of space-time.” In most arguments one is using a limited matter-centric view of space-time.

  • vinaire  On December 5, 2015 at 4:48 PM

    Classical Mechanics is characterized by matter (Disturbance Level of about 80 and above)

    Quantum Mechanics is characterized by field (Disturbance Level of less than 80)

    • vinaire  On December 5, 2015 at 4:50 PM

      Newton is looking at the disturbance levels greater than 100 acting in the background of disturbance level 0. This is a wide enough difference for Newtonian mechanics to work.

      Newtonian mechanics depends on Euclidean Geometry that uses the notions of absolute space and absolute time.

  • vinaire  On December 5, 2015 at 6:05 PM

    Is electric field a result of electric charges, or is it the other way around?

    I believe that an electron somehow gets generated within an electromagnetic field. The electron has electromagnetic nature.

    • 2ndxmr  On December 6, 2015 at 2:48 AM

      V:”Is electric field a result of electric charges, or is it the other way around?”

      The idea of fields is that they are all around us in some uniform fashion that enables their effects to be balanced – and therefore invisible to measurement – until there is some perturbation that condenses the field into a particle.

  • bacreator  On January 12, 2016 at 3:51 PM

    🙂 Sooner is better than latter. I am more confident that your theory is virtually identical to the one I discovered a few years ago. Be patient and consider this:

    Field is space. Pitch space not field(electric). E=f or if you like E/f=1 and we get rid of the ambiguous mathematics and Einstein was at the doorway. Field is space but space is where nothing is …so get rid of the Euclidian idea. Pitch space leave it to nothingness it will not be missed. In fact it is going to disappear eventually from Physics text books.

    Time is energy as indicated above. A time clock is simply objects which are bound together and rotate. Mother nature must work the same for every event. Then there is no magnetic field until you move to measure it. The forces that are measureable are electric and energy (synonymous with time) but they are not from the present they are from the pasted by counting the rotational completions. They appears because of the rotational field in both gravitational and electrical measurements using charge as the measuring tool. The equation Einstein was looking for is the same one Newton was looking for. Which is then given precisely by the equation Newton should have written in the new mathematics as : Newtons equation with energy instead of mass without any dimensional constants required. My editor isn’t working in this application. I will have to supplement this when I get it working. Maxwell’s equations are identical to Newton’s in fact it is the only equation nature has to execute.

    The Gauss concept has to be applied and the extra coriolis and Euler forces show up in rotating frames for both electric and gravitation. Maxwell’s equations are in error. They do not include the ingredient Gauss said had to be understood to make any progress on electrodynamics. That is, allowance for the fact the force has to be from the past. Contrary to what one might imagine the equation reduces to one simpler than Newton’s. It has only dimensions of charge and rotation. The experiment necessary to confirm this has been in progress for many years and according to my calculations the theory predicts far beyond the precision instruments that were used to measure the pioneers anomalies.

    I also highly suspect that the statistical nature of QM stems from E/f=1 equation and can be expanded to provide causal implications which translate to statistical necessity on measurement.

    • vinaire  On January 12, 2016 at 6:40 PM

      Here is how I see it:

      (1) The concept of space lies at the foundation of physics.

      (2) Time enters as disturbance of space.

      (3) Disturbed space appears as energy.

      (4) Condensed energy appears as matter.

      (5) Space, time, energy and matter cannot be defined independently of each other.

      (6) Energy appears as the electromagnetic field containing the whole spectrum of frequencies.

      (7) Theoretically, space is “electromagnetic field” of zero frequency.

      (8) Space provides the description of the foundation of the electromagnetic field.

      (9) Space defines the fundamental reality as continuous. Discreteness appears as frequency when space is disturbed.

      (10) Space has no motion. Motion comes about when space is disturbed.

      (11) Space at zero frequency acts as reference point for all motion.

      (12) All motion occurs within space.

      (13) The motion (disturbance) at first appears as electrical and magnetic fields.

      (14) Space is like undisturbed surface of a lake. When space is disturbed there are ripples that propagate in all directions. These ripples are made of electric and magnetic fields Instead of peaks and valleys.

      (15) Thus, the electromagnetic field is formed like the disturbed surface of a lake.

  • bacreator  On January 12, 2016 at 4:01 PM

    It is most convenient to think in spherical coordinates for time can be parametrically linked to a rotation, if you are inclined or attached to not having a definition of time. I suspect this is how nature calculates.

    • vinaire  On January 12, 2016 at 6:41 PM

      For me “time” translates as “order” or “sequence”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: