mj<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@ScienceCommunicator" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>ScienceCommunicator</span></a></span> </p><p>Right - so 2 basic ways to look at it:</p><p>Each specialty branch comes up with their own perspectives, priorities/hierarchies, and jargon. With few exceptions, they stay in their own lanes and do not mix outside their field/subfield. Their writings are stand-alone, rarely intended to connect back to the greater human knowledge base. They'll tell you exactly what "wet" or "sound" is, based entirely on their tiny-desk world-view.</p><p>The other way would be a general model of vibration, perhaps based on quantitative info rather than qualitative. It would incorporate all modes of vibratory phenomena, regardless of mediums, velocities, or other characteristics that were fleshed out by some subfield as critical for their particular context & definitions.</p><p>Frequency (Hz) actually would be a good quantitative baseline for this, if it hadn't been exorcised from <a href="https://c.im/tags/quantum" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>quantum</span></a> mechanics.</p><p>The "old QM", as espoused by the founders and historic supporters for the split in Physics, used a semi-classical approach that was later abandoned. Later, Pi was added to E = hf as convenience for some aspects, but frequency generally falls away when you work with quantum states ala Schrödinger. <a href="https://c.im/tags/Time" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Time</span></a> is just an input to QM, and is the <a href="https://c.im/tags/Newtonian" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Newtonian</span></a>, absolute kind. The concepts of frequency & wavelength seem to get in the way of the probabilistic formalism.</p><p>IMO, the <a href="https://c.im/tags/probabilistic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>probabilistic</span></a> formalism then gets in the way of a <a href="https://c.im/tags/relativistic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>relativistic</span></a> completion to quantum theory being developed, though in reality, there is no limit to the imaginative supplemental mathematic epicycles that can be added while still spitting out the same expected answers.</p>