Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wave Structure of Matter Theory

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wave Structure of Matter Theory

• delete. This page is poorly formatted and not written as an encyclopedia style article (i.e. neutral pov, provide knowledge rather than claims). However, some of the comments below are also a little unfair, or without support. I think if someone writes for example; "complete nonsense" they must give reasons why it is complete nonsense. Again, why does it sound like a "failed university essay" or "This is neither fringe theory nor nonsense, it's just what happens when someone thinks they understand advanced physics from reading "pop" sources".

In particular, this last statement above displays an alarming ignorance of the work of Dr Milo Wolff, who has had a distinguished career as a professor of Physics. See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Wolff

It seems to me that the point of an encyclopedia is to present knowledge, not people's opinions, yet what i read below (see bottom of this page) seems to be opinions (they do not provide reasons for their criticisms). Having studied philosophy, physics and metaphysics for the past ten years, there is clearly a lot of historical knowledge that supports the Wave Structure of Matter, most particularly the foundations of philosophy and metaphysics (dating back to the Ancient Greeks and Indians) and their realisation of the dynamic unity of reality. The following quotes from Aristotle, Leibniz, Kant, Bradley, Brentano, Faraday, Maxwell, Nietzsche, Lorentz, Einstein, Schrodinger and Bohm are important in this debate;

"Metaphysics is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. And here we will have the science to study that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ... That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. ... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity." (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 340BC)

"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity." (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)

"Natural science (physics) contains in itself synthetical judgments a priori, as principles. … Space then is a necessary representation a priori, which serves for the foundation of all external intuitions." (Kant, Critique of Pure reason, 1781)

"We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole." (Bradley, 1846-1924)

"A three-dimensional (spatial) world is infinitely more likely than any of its alternatives." (Brentano, 1838-1916)

"I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space." (Faraday, 1830)

"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy." (James Clerk Maxwell, 1876)

"Greek philosophy seems to begin with a preposterous fancy, with the proposition that water is the origin and mother-womb of all things. Is it really necessary to stop there and become serious? Yes, and for three reasons: firstly, because the preposition does enunciate something about the origin of things; secondly, because it does so without figure and fable; thirdly and lastly, because it contained, although only in the chrysalis state, the idea :everything is one. ..That which drove him (Thales) to this generalization was a metaphysical dogma, which had its origin in a mystic intuition and which together with the ever renewed endeavors to express it better, we find in all philosophies- the proposition: everything is one!" (The Greeks' by Friedrich Nietzsche, p159)

"I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter." (Hendrik Lorentz, Theory of the Electron, 1900)

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time." (Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ... The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, Relativity, 1950)

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 1954)

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. ... I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. ... The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists." (Erwin Schrodinger) (Some of these quotes are from 'What is Life, unsure of rest.)

"The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it." (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

These people are not crackpots, they are some of the finest minds in the history of human knowledge, and they all recognised that the 'particle' conception of matter cannot describe physical reality (the current paradigm). However, there are crackpots out there that write on both the particle and the wave structure of matter (WSM), and I believe there have been some bad examples of this at wikipedia in the past relating to WSM. I hope over the next year to present a more balanced and well supported voice to this discussion, and to present knowledge to Humanity that clearly does explain and solve a lot of the current problems of modern physics philosophy and metaphysics founded on 'particles' and 'fields' in 'space-time'. Thus I am suggesting that this article be deleted, not because I have any problems with the Wave Structure of Matter, but because i don't think the article is of a suitable encyclopedia standard.

You can read my work at;

http://www.spaceandmotion.com (home page)

http://open-site.org/profiles/haselhurst.html (I am editor of physics and philosophy sections)

and discuss this with me on my discussion page at;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haselhurst

or the WSM forum at;

http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/index.php

In ending, as i see things, it is important to realise that truth is not democratic. As Tolstoy wrote; "Wrong does not cease to be wrong simply because the majority share in it". Likewise, I am pleased to see that wikipedia is also not democratic. For knowledge to advance it must be founded on the accepted methods of Science (deduction from principles in harmony with knoweldge from senses), and a careful understanding of the history and evolution of knowledge (particularly the subjects of physics philosophy and metaphysics). As a philosopher I take this responsibility of correcting errors in human knowledge very seriously, and believe that wikipedia / encyclopedias play an important role in this process (as the famous french Encyclopedists, Diderot et al, realised).

I also realise that some people may claim that the WSM should not be permitted on wikipedia because it is 'original research'. However this is not the case. As above, this dynamic unity of reality (which the WSM explains) is an ancient idea that is central to all Science and the evolution of western knowledge from the renaissance on (with the introduction from Persia of the works of Aristotle, Plato, etc.).

I actually think that the main source of criticism is based on the natural human tendency to cling to existing ideas, no matter how absurd they become. As Galileo, Darwin and Planck wrote;

"I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope." (Galileo Galilei, Dialogues Concerning Two World Systems, 1600)

"Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality." (Charles Darwin, from 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions', Thomas Kuhn)

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography)

Sorry for such a long polemic (hope people find it as interesting as I do though!). But I think this discussion is important, and often there are no glib easy answers, it takes careful consideration based on substantial knowledge to make wise / just decisions (as i see things).

Sincerely,

Geoff Haselhurst Haselhurst 05:36, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

"And though the philosopher may live remote from business, the genius of philosophy, if carefully cultivated by several, must gradually diffuse itself throughout the whole society, and bestow a similar correctness on every art and calling." (David Hume, Treatise Concerning Morals and Human Understanding, 1737)

"It is the duty of philosophy to destroy the illusions which had their origin in misconceptions, whatever darling hopes and valued expectations may be ruined by its explanations. ... and thus to prevent the scandal which metaphysical controversies are sure, sooner or later, to cause even to the masses." (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)

---

It's back again. Complete nonsense but there might be an informative article about a fringe theory hidden in there.Cutler 09:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "The Wave Structure of Matter by Milo Wolff, (M.I.T. retired)"? No offense to anyone, but it sounds like a failed university essay. And the point of Wikipedia is to release your info; this guy's branded it so it's his and any edits to it would be corrupting his creation. So, no, it has to go I guess. Again, apparently! Master Thief Garrett 09:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because of so poor quality. If it gets better, label with the same category as Time Cube. Pavel Vozenilek 09:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If this is what was discussed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A Theory of Everything then Speedy delete under criterion G4. If it isn't, then Delete as original research. Uncle G 14:14, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• Delete. This is neither fringe theory nor nonsense, it's just what happens when someone thinks they understand advanced physics from reading "pop" sources. Gazpacho 20:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research/essay, misses references (but has numbers. Misformatted, self-referential and non-notable theory. Mgm|^(talk) 21:36, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. Josh Cherry 03:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - As a recreate can't it be speedy deleted? - Tεxτurε 20:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.