# Reality Waves

#### Spellbound

##### Banned
Banned
Reality can be defined as the energy of a wave. Each object within a specific universe of the multi-verse can be defined by a wave vibrating at a certain frequency that does not escape from the whole of which it is part, and possessing a certain energy level. Question: what is the relationship between the overall universe's wave and the waves of each constituent object?

Reality can be defined as the energy of a wave. Each object within a specific universe of the multi-verse can be defined by a wave vibrating at a certain frequency that does not escape from the whole of which it is part, and possessing a certain energy level. Question: what is the relationship between the overall universe's wave and the waves of each constituent object?
Simply taking scientific sounding terms like energy, waves, frequency and unverse, and inserting them randomly in a sentence does not change gibberish into physics.

You're right. Then care to explain the relationship between reality, waves and energy?

You're right. Then care to explain the relationship between reality, waves and energy?
You're the one making the claim that there is such a relationship -- but you want us to explain it to you? WTF?!?

Pretty sure 42 is the answer you need.

Reality can be defined as the energy of a wave. Each object within a specific universe of the multi-verse can be defined by a wave vibrating at a certain frequency that does not escape from the whole of which it is part, and possessing a certain energy level. Question: what is the relationship between the overall universe's wave and the waves of each constituent object?

What cobblers.

You're right. Then care to explain the relationship between reality, waves and energy?

Planck's relationship between energy E of light and its frequency, ν, is a good place to start: E=hν.

As for "reality", that is what we try to model in science. Energy is one of many basic concepts we find helpful in so doing. Waves are phenomema we find in many places in nature and modelling these has proved quite fruitful. There is no more special connection between "reality" and either the concept of energy or that of waves than there is between reality and force or mass. (In fact I've heard it said that momentum is really a more fundamental concept than energy.)

You're right. Then care to explain the relationship between reality, waves and energy?
Sure. Reality is our universe I suppose. Energy exists in our universe. Waves or oscillations can be seen in energy and matter, which also occurs in our universe. That is the relationship.

Reality is our universe I suppose.
You mean the stars planets, the energy-packed space between them? Is that reality, ALL of it? Or do you mean something else?
Waves or oscillations can be seen in energy and matter
What do you mean by "can be seen in"?
which also occurs in our universe. That is the relationship.
There need be no "relationship" between these disconnected assertions without a rigorous argument. I see none

You mean the stars planets, the energy-packed space between them? Is that reality, ALL of it? Or do you mean something else? What do you mean by "can be seen in"? There need be no "relationship" between these disconnected assertions without a rigorous argument. I see none

You seem to be being remarkably argumentative about all this. Why do you take issue with the statement that waves or oscillations "can be seen in" energy and matter. I'd have have thought that would be a very uncontentious statement. I've seen waves in the sea. And I've seen numerous effects of what we interpret as different frequencies of light. What is the problem you perceive with such things?

Reality can be defined as the energy of a wave.
I agree, and would add that Reality is the sum of the wave energy that traverses the medium of space.
Each object within a specific universe of the multi-verse can be defined by a wave vibrating at a certain frequency that does not escape from the whole of which it is part, and possessing a certain energy level.
It is true that there is some aspect of wave energy and some "interaction caused" vibrations of bound particles associated with each object, but Reality is specific.

I use "specific" to mean two things:

1. Individuals form their own concept of reality and so it is specific to the individual. Scientific consensus and generally accepted facts of nature play a role in our individual concept of reality, but that role differs from individual to individual, and does not constitute the sum of reality. Though certainly reality is more than the generally accepted science, and may be quite different in many respects from that consensus, no individual concept of reality can lay claim to being the Truth.

2. Reality in terms of the nature of the universe is specific, in that it can be only one way. There are a potentially infinite number of specifics depending on your level of focus. Focus can range from the internal composition of a particle, the forces that govern the nature of particles and their interactions, the configuration of groups of particles into objects, the relationship between objects, and the history and future of all of those individual foci and their connections.

Describing reality is the work of science. Knowing reality is the work of the individual who seeks his or her own particular understanding to his or her own standards of satisfaction.

You won't get the answer as to what Reality is by asking questions in a physics and math forum, unless answers like you have gotten here satisfy you. But you may be intending to spark conversation with the members of the community, and that is reasonable endeavour if one spends much time contemplating reality.

The universe is as it is, and can be no other way. I personally evolve my view of reality to include the position that nature is governed by universal invariant natural laws. I also acknowledge that science has described and attempts to describe many of the laws of nature, and yet there are many natural laws that we do not understand, and probably many that we do not know about.
Question: what is the relationship between the overall universe's wave and the waves of each constituent object?
The waves of each constituent object make up the overall universe's wave.

I agree, and would add that Reality is the sum of the wave energy that traverses the medium of space.
Do you have a good reason for saying this? Are quite sure it even makes sense? And by good, I mean compelling argument

The universe is as it is, and can be no other way.
Another empty assertion. How do you know this is true?
The waves of each constituent object make up the overall universe's wave.
This is a bold and again, unargued statement - especially the assertion that the "universe" has an associated wave function

Do you have a good reason for saying this? Are quite sure it even makes sense? And by good, I mean compelling argument
My agreement with the OP's assertion about reality being wave energy expresses the position that everything is composed of wave energy. My reason for saying that is because I don't know anything that can be shown to not be composed of wave energy, but I'm interested in considering your opposing agruments.
Another empty assertion. How do you know this is true?
Calling that an empty assertion makes me wonder if you have any reason, compelling or not, to say otherwise.
This is a bold and again, unargued statement - especially the assertion that the "universe" has an associated wave function
You are introducing the term "wave function", which I associate with quantum mechanics. My statement was not meant to say that there is a wave function for the universe, but instead it was meant to suggest that there are waves within waves and in aggregate they equal the universe. I wouldn't associate reality with QM.

Calling that an empty assertion makes me wonder if you have any reason, compelling or not, to say otherwise.
No. Calling something an "empty assertion" is not saying it is wrong - merely that it has no backing in argument.of any kind Even you will admit this to be true of your previous post (but one). Won't you?

No. Calling something an "empty assertion" is not saying it is wrong - merely that it has no backing in argument.of any kind Even you will admit this to be true of your previous post (but one). Won't you?
If I understand you correctly, you want me to admit to making empty assertions. Is that right? How about you make a counter assertion and we can leave it at that.

You really want to play that game? OK, you "asserted"
The universe is as it is, and can be no other way.
I assert there could easily be another way for the universe to be. I offer no argument, just an assertion, as you wanted, and just as you did

Now where does that get us?

You really want to play that game?
You seem to be the one trying to make a game of it. You didn't read my post or ignored what I said, which was, "then we can leave it at that."
OK, you "asserted"I assert there could easily be another way for the universe to be. I offer no argument, just an assertion, as you wanted, and just as you did

Now where does that get us?
This isn't my thread, and this discussion is not appropriate for the Physics and Math forum. If you want to play your game, start a thread in the Alternative Theories forum, link to it from here, and based on how you characterize the proposed discussion, I will decide if there is any reason I should engage in that discussion.

weird stuff going on and not able to edit?

You mean the stars planets, the energy-packed space between them? Is that reality, ALL of it? Or do you mean something else?
That is what I meant.
What do you mean by "can be seen in"?
I mean detected. Such as the frequency and wavelength of photons or the wave nature of electrons or the oscillations of atoms due to the temperature.
There need be no "relationship" between these disconnected assertions without a rigorous argument. I see none
I agree, the only 'relationship' is that they occur in the universe - which is trivially obvious.

You really want to play that game? OK, you "asserted"I assert there could easily be another way for the universe to be. I offer no argument, just an assertion, as you wanted, and just as you did

Now where does that get us?
Given that Spellbound is not participating here, and the topic of our side discussion is the nature of the physics of the universe, I think we are on safe ground seeing where the discussion goes.

I have a regular Wednesday meeting we call our Quantum Coffee session, and in prep for tonights meeting I considered bringing up this topic. As a result, the statement, "the universe is as it is and could be no other way", is based on the concept that the universe is governed by set of invariant natural laws. Given those laws, the universe is characterized by a sameness based on the idea that natural laws don't change. For your assertion to be true, the natural laws could not be invariant.