User talk:Haselhurst/Discussion to Oct2006
Hello Wikipedia members, I am new to your encyclopedia and it is possible I will (to begin) make a few errors in creating new pages (sorry). I am a philosopher and wish to provide people with knowledge on the Wave Structure of Matter which seems to explain and solve many of the problems of post-modern physics, philosophy and metaphysics. These current problems arise because we assume the existence of many different things without understanding their necessary connection. i.e., Space, Time, Matter as discrete 'particles', Forces to explain action-at-a-distance and change in motion (acceleration), and a finite spherical Universe. We can connect these different things by assuming that Space exists as a Wave Medium and Matter exists as the Spherical Wave Motion of Space. You can read more on this at; http://www.SpaceandMotion.com http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/index.php
Sincerely, Geoff Haselhurst, February, 2004 (Updated April, 2005)
You will find it helpful in any discussions to be familiar with the policy page Wikipedia:No original research, and the policy on citing sources. Charles Matthews 11:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Charles, I understand your concern.
Will write to Milo Wolff (he is 82, and unable to use wikipedia) and get list of publications and correctly reference all quotes. (Hope this is better, see Milo Wolff )
With respect to original research, I will think about this for a few days, as I think that an encyclopedia that represents human knowledge must evolve with human knowledge. This will always be a controversial area, particularly at the beginning, history confirms this. It seems to me as a philosopher of Science, that we should publish original knowledge where it is shown to be true by the accepted methods of science (logic from principles in harmony with empirical knowledge from our senses). The empirical knowledge for the wave structure of matter (re: the article by Dr Milo Wolff on the Wave Structure of Matter) relates to work that dates back to Wave Foundations of Quantum Theory (1920s) (Schrodinger, de Broglie) and has been published in reputable Journals. The logic that it deduces is in harmony with our measurements. An important example, if you move two spherical standing waves relative to one another, you get a Doppler shifted wave that exactly matches the de Broglie wavelength. Coincidence? Very unlikely. However, even more remarkably, in these same wave equations you get Einstein's relativistic Mass increase. You unite central elements of Quantum theory and Relativity. This is really quite extraordinary. Hopefully this video interview of Milo Wolff discussing this discovery will add a human touch that helps appreciate the significance of this.
http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/video/wolff-physics-WSM-1.wmv
Thus I cannot help but think that this knowledge should be available to the world, so that people can think about this and understand why it seems to work, expose problems if it doesn't. That's how our knowledge evolves as i see things. So I am not trying to spam Wikipedia (I really like Wikipedia and use it a lot, have been a member here for over a year) just want to present sensible knowledge that explains past problems. I do take philosophy very seriously. I am an editor at Open-Site Encyclopedia in the Physics and Philosophy sections, and i am slowly building a website on Ibiblio, where they have this lovely attitude of encouraging free access to free knowledge (which i think is great!).
I quote from your reference;
"Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication, ... "
I take my work very seriously. I think Wikipedia has a very important role to play in presenting human knowledge in a fair and balanced manner. Not just presenting mainstream 'Dogma' that clearly has many problems (as modern physics and philosophy have).
Note: By Dogma I mean a belief in discrete 'particles' that somehow generate continuous 'fields' in Space-Time' - ideas which Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohm, etc. rejected.
As Albert Einstein writes;
"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)
"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, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)
From: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Theory-Relativity.htm
And Einstein's comments on the Philosophy of Physics are also relevant;
"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, EA 61-574)
"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.)
From: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Albert-Einstein-Principles-Physics.htm
In terms of the Wave Structure of Matter being a 'fringe' theory, the website on the philosophy physics and metaphysics of Space / Wave Structure of Matter gets about 25,000 page views a day (has about 300 pages on site) and is now Top 5 in ALL Philosophy sites on Internet. See Alexa results: http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=304
So I think it is now reasonable (I think it is very important) to get some of this knowledge into Wikipedia.
Hope this helps, all the best, Geoff Haselhurst
A few relevant quotes;
"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)
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. ...
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.
(Erwin Schrodinger)
Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics 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. (Schrödinger E, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, CN, 1995).
I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics)
A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement. Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. The mathematical framework of quantum theory has passed countless successful tests and is now universally accepted as a consistent and accurate description of all atomic phenomena. The verbal interpretation, on the other hand, i.e. the metaphysics of quantum physics, is on far less solid ground. In fact, in more than forty years physicists have not been able to provide a clear metaphysical model. (Fritjof Capra, 1975)
From: http://www.spaceandmotion.com (Use search function on page to find relevant articles)
Another welcome
[edit]Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for contributions to this site but please understand an essential rule - material must not be taken from copyrighted sources and placed into articles. If the Wolff article was inserted without permission then we must remove it. Regards, Lotsofissues 08:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for the welcome. Very nice of you.
The articles are not copyright, in fact they where sent to me by Dr Milo Wolff about two months ago to be added to Wikipedia, but I have been busy and only just put them up. He is 82, and is not able to use wikipedia very well (I am trying to teach him over the internet!).
I realise that the articles also need re-writing in a better Encyclopedia style, explaining knowledge (and, where applicable, the problems this knowledge solves). I think both philosophy and encyclopedia entries should be simple and plain, clarity of quality content being the goal.
Give me a few weeks and i will improve them, and hopefully over the next few years I can add some good knowledge into Wikipedia in the areas of physics philosophy and metaphysics.
I am aware of the rules for copyright (Open-Site, where I do some editing, are very strict on this).
My own work at http://www.spaceandmotion.com is published as GNU FDL (one of many things i like about Wikipedia is their use of FDL).
And I will also write up this introduction to myself (as a Natural Philosopher). I realise it is a bit full on at the moment, need to better explain my knowledge of philosophy physics and metaphysics, how I think I can help in some areas at Wikipedia. (Just very busy still for a while).
Hope this helps a bit, cheers,
Geoff Haselhurst
- Great, I look forward to seeing the work of someone with a defined specialty - site content drastically improves based on active specialty editors.
Geoff - Thanks! I look forward to the challenge, but it will happen slowly over next few years! And having read the metaphysics page here at wikipedia I think there is lots that can be added that is both very interesting and very important (there are a lot of misconceptions about metaphysics since so much nonsense is written under the guise of being metaphysical, i.e. 'beyond' our senses, rather than correctly, as the cause of our senses!)
Image copyright problem with Image:Carver-mead.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Carver-mead.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 06:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:G-Haselhurst.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:G-Haselhurst.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 23:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Introduction to Wave Structure of Matter
[edit]I have moved this pages text to wikibooks here, and listed the article for deletion - Ravedave 01:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Capra-1.jpg
[edit]
|
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Capra-1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:Bohm-david-one-many.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Bohm-david-one-many.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:Bradley-1.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Bradley-1.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:Brentano-1.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Brentano-1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Copyright problems with Image:Albert-einstein-theory-relativity.jpg
[edit]
---CH 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Wave structure of matter
[edit]A discussion on deletion of this article is logged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Wave Structure of Matter. You can appeal deletion at WP:DRV, but please do not recreate this article at different titles. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)