Galt's Gulch

Pure Newtonian

Posted by Wonky 11 years, 3 months ago to Science
12 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Anyone ever heard of Gabriel LaFreniere? As a CIO and programmer, I did quite a bit of computer modelling back in the day attempting to create visualizations demonstrating that electrons were nothing more than wave interference patterns. I discovered LaFreniere several years ago before he died, and I found his theories and his computer models quite intriguing. He postulated that it is actually electrons that are standing waves and that all other subatomic particles are either combinations of, or interference patterns originating from electrons.

The site is still available at archive.org:

http://web.archive.org/web/2011071109564...

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Wonky 11 years, 3 months ago
    My introduction was rather lacking here. LaFreniere was one of a number of folks who had/have working theories demonstrating that relativistic and quantum effects that can be explained with "plain old vanilla" Newtonian physics. I intend to post more on that topic as time permits. Feel free to chime in or post links if the topic interests you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Wonky 11 years, 3 months ago
    Don't get me wrong here, I'm a pretty hardcore believer in Objectivist epistemology... Existence exists, primacy of existence, cause and effect, push a ball and it rolls and all that (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existe...), but I love the fantasy of John Galt's static electricity motor and Dr. Stadler's Project X. Relativity and Quantum Physics still annoy me - time travel and entangled particles - where are the practical applications, and do the theories actually explain anything, or do they just predict various phenomena mathematically? For that matter, did Newton's F=MA invent mass, or is MA a singular entity observable only by means of the relative weights (forces) of objects where A is cancelled out by the gravitational acceleration at the location of the scale measuring the weights?

    Clearly we have equations that work at predicting the effects of various causes, but what do we really know (epistemelogically speaking) about the nature of subatomic matter?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 3 months ago
      What does this mean? "For that matter, did Newton's F=MA invent mass, or is MA a singular entity observable only by means of the relative weights (forces) of objects where A is cancelled out by the gravitational acceleration at the location of the scale measuring the weights? "
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Wonky 11 years, 3 months ago
        Weight is a relative perception though (i.e. this is heavier than that). I believe that current conventional wisdom is that neither relativistic mass nor weight are intrinsic properties of matter independent of velocity or acceleration (matter is said to have more relativistic mass at higher speeds and more weight at higher acceleration). It takes 2 or more bodies of matter attracting one another or colliding with one another to create the perception of weight/force.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by Wonky 11 years, 3 months ago
        Force = Mass X Acceleration. I can't help but wonder whether Ayn Rand would accept mass as a valid concept given that it cannot be traced back to perceptual reality. Weight can certainly be perceived, but how does one perceive mass? It's a conundrum for me. I thought it might be an interesting talking point.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by j_IR1776wg 11 years, 3 months ago
          Your sense of touch exists and is sufficient to validate (perceive) mass for your brain. Like getting hit by a two X four.upside the head.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Wonky 11 years, 3 months ago
            I can perceive the force... Still not convinced I can perceive the mass. Hit me with a hollow metal pipe vs. an apparently identical (but much more "massive") solid metal dowel rod, and I'll be knocked silly... I just won't know how silly until I feel the force.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 3 months ago
          The equation applies to all forces, not just the case when the acceleration is due to gravity. Can't we understand mass simply by exerting a force other than gravity and seeing that F = ma?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Wonky 11 years, 3 months ago
            I might be wrong, but gravity is one of only 4 forces, all of which have the same basic formulation and require 2 or more bodies. The formulation is that the force is proportional or inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies multiplied by a normalizing constant. As far as I know only gravity and electromagnetism can be directly perceived, but only in a relative way in relation to 2 or more bits of matter.

            I think you're at least partly right though - when you accelerate in a car, you do, in fact, perceive the electromagnetic force preventing your body from pushing back through your seat... That's really applying a different kind of acceleration though, not a different force, and it still requires multiple bodies undergoing equal and opposite reactions.

            It is tempting to say that because we can perceive the force and know that it increases proportionally to the acceleration that something must exist to explain why bodies with more protons, neutrons, and electrons react more violently than bodies with fewer protons, neutrons, and electrons under the same acceleration... Still, this doesn't mean that we can directly perceive mass.

            If two empty trucks are about to collide and two identical, but full trucks are about to collide at the same speed, I know that there will be lots of of violence, noise, and debris, but I wouldn't perceive any particular difference before the collisions.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • -1
    Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 3 months ago
    Interesting... I performed public demonstrations in chemistry at the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum for a year. In the exhibit hall, they had a couple of metal plates on long pins. You sprinkled sand on the plates and drew a horsehair bow over them and watched the grains dance into standing wave patterns.

    In my shows, I made fireworks from common household salts. I said that the grownups know science books that show the electrons as little balls with minus signs. But really, they are standing waves like the metal plates out in the exhibit hall and their wave patterns are what we see as red, green, etc.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo