Scope of Assumptions

 In part, the previous section of discussions has attempted to outline some of the basic concepts underpinning the LaFreniere wave model and some of the perceived issues. In this section, the goal is to review some of the many assumptions of, not only a potential wave model, but also accepted science. For, in some respects, all models might be questioned in terms of whether they provide a reasonable causal description of physical reality. Of course, this goal needs to be put into some practical perspective as it is one that has possibly alluded many great minds over the course of human history. In this context, different people throughout history have interpreted the empirical data available at any point in time in different ways, possibly for a variety of reasons. Therefore, this review of the assumptions on which science is built will be limited to just a few topics that appear to have direct relevance to a wave model.

However, even the discussion of the reduced list of topics above is possibly overly ambitious, such that the scope needs to be further restricted to just the key assumptions that might provide a causal explanation, rather than just mathematical models. In this context, the first causal assumption is that a wave model must explain the nature of the wave media and how it might propagate energy in space and time. While the nature of this wave media might be speculative, if a causal rationale can be forwarded, the discussion may then move to the assumptions surrounding wave propagation and various Doppler effects, which are grounded in known wave mechanics. However, as highlighted in the discussion of concepts, the LaFreniere electron model proceeds on the basic idea of wave superposition, which then leads to the possibility of standing waves that can be subject to length contraction. The assumption that length contraction may be linked to a causal mechanism is clearly of key importance as it might possibly explain the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, a physical rationalisation of length contraction might also provide a causal mechanism by which time dilation may manifest itself as a comparative measure of time in the moving and stationary frame, although a wave model implicitly requires the stationary frame to be relative to the wave media. Of course, length contraction and time dilation are also key assumptions of the Lorentz transforms, which Einstein used to underpin the initial publication of special relativity in 1905, although the causal mechanisms of these effects appear to have remained speculative at best. However, despite any obvious causal explanation of length contraction and time dilation, the Lorentz transforms and Einstein’s theory of relativity, both special and general, have become accepted science and based on the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, it was assumed by many that the need for a wave media had also been negated.

Note: It is highlighted that while all the following discussions, as outlined above, are speculative, they are all proceeding on the basis of trying to justify some form of wave model. However, an attempt is being made to link these assumptions to some potential causal mechanisms and not to be reliant on mathematical logic alone. While these assumptions may ultimately challenge some of the interpretations of accepted science, they do not necessarily refute the observational evidence on which mainstream science has been established.

The discussion of the nature of light may initially appear somewhat problematic within the LaFreniere wave model, because it is assumed to be predicated on a longitudinal wave propagating through 3D space, analogous to sound waves through air. However, accepted descriptions of electromagnetic waves, i.e. light, are transverse in nature, such that we might have to question whether they are fundamental waves or simply an emergent waveform linked to more fundamental mechanisms. We might simply attempt to illustrate how transverse EM waves might be a product of a longitudinal wave structure vibrating vertically in space as shown left, although this is purely speculative at this stage. However, there are many other assumptions surrounding the nature of light, i.e. its wave-particle duality, which would need further explanation within a wave model, although there is one other issue that is of particular relevance to general relativity, i.e.

Does gravity cause light to bend along a geodesic curvature of space-time?

This may be a fundamental assumption of general relativity, which a wave model may need to challenge. The previous assumption that standing wave compression may provide a causal explanation of length contraction does not necessarily lead to the idea of space-time curvature of general relativity or the wholesale expansion of space, as assumed by accepted cosmology. If standing wave structures form the basis of matter waves, as described by deBroglie, can be compressed, then the idea of length contraction may be pursued. However, length contraction does not correspond to space contraction in special relativity and therefore might question the mechanism by which space is assumed to be subject to curvature in the presence of a gravitational field. Of course, if this curvature is questioned, then another explanation of the observational data that supports the idea that the path of light is affected by gravity is required. Again, while simply a speculative assumption, the idea of refraction might be considered, if it is accepted that space is not a perfect vacuum, where the speed of light [c=1], but rather a media of propagation that varies in optical density, such that light can be refracted around mass object, because it propagates through regions of space with different optical density that affects the velocity of light.

But how might a wave model quantify the idea of length and time?

If, at the most fundamental level of the universe, only waves exist, then any measure of length between two points in space might only be quantified in terms of the relative wavelengths of the waves that underpin the structure of matter. Likewise, time may also only be perceived in terms of the number of wave cycles, i.e. frequency, relative to each other. Of course, such concepts may be far from obvious, or even useful, at the macroscopic scale of people, who prefer the more convenient concepts of length and time inferred from rulers and clocks. However, it is possible that this assumption could provide some insight as to why both length and time are relative concepts.

Note: At this point, this discussion has simply introduced a range of possible assumptions, which might help a wave model provide a description of physical reality subject to cause and effect. Of course, at this stage, such assumptions have to be seen as speculative in the face of what appears to be substantive empirical evidence in support of accepted science.