About Topics from the Fringe - AltTheory

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quantum_wave, Jan 3, 2017.

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    First, feel free to say to me what you think about the wave energy density hypothesis. Let me know what kind of fool I am to think particles have inflowing and out flowing wave energy components, or that they are even composed of wave energy at all. Tell me that I can't be right because there is no evidence of gravitational waves as tiny as at the particle level. Tell me that the rare ripples in spacetime when black holes collide aren't anything like the gravitational waves I imagine are flowing to and from particles and objects. Tell me I have the geometry all wrong. Say why you are astonished that I would think lightwaves and gravitational waves are filling all space to the extent that every point as wave energy density. Tell me that considering the CMBR as a characteristic of a multiple Big Bang universe is way too far fetched.

    I know there is an independent thinker out there who isn't afraid of the "dark side", as some people call AltTheory. Or if you want, just debunk the idea even if it can't be easily falsified. I mean, say why "it isn't even wrong". Come on, be a friend, be a teacher, be a helper, be a critic, or be the JUDGE. [humor]... and don't get mad if I ignore you, lol [/humor] Have some Friday Night Fun.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Go ahead and go to bed, and read this to help you go to sleep.

    To me, spacetime works fine with Einstein's Field Equations. I think the math is beyond most layman science enthusiasts, so when I tell you the math of my wave energy density model of the ISU is daunting too, that isn't really a negative, now is it, lol.

    One thing to point out is that spacetime is almost always curved, and in the ISU, for comparison, space is always flat in the context of GR, but more precisely, space never has any curvature in the wave energy density model. What makes particles and objects follow curved paths it the changing wave energy density of space relative to the presence of mass. Wave energy density tells objects how to curve along their paths.

    To apply the EFEs to any given case, you determine geodesics for the motion of all known objects influencing the spacetime in that exercise. You have to know the values for a lot of variables to implement the equations, and there are exacting requirements for values of mass and motion of surrounding objects. A layman probably can't or won't want to do the math, and/or can't obtain the values and variables that equate to the stress on the spacetime that determine the curvature in the geodesics (poorly said, I'm sure).

    I described the difficulty applying the EFEs, so here is the problem applying the wave energy density hypothesis. It requires a map of the value of the wave energy densities in the space surrounding our subject object. From that map data, the motion of the object will be determined by applying the process of quantum action that maintains the presence of particles and determines their relative motion, i.e., the path that the object is going to be taking. The map is generated by the out flowing gravitational wave energy component of all surrounding objects. To complicate it, those out flowing energy density components are continually expanding spherically from every object, so the map is changeing from moment to moment.

    I surmise that invoking it isn't actually any different than applying the EFEs. The EFEs work fine even though the reason they work is misunderstood, according to me, and so my model fixes that and invokes the application of the EFEs, but uses a different reason for why they work.


    The different reason that they work is that there are gravitational waves and light waves, coming and going through all points of space at all times, i.e, that is the source of the local wave energy density. As the local energy density of space changes, the relative velocity of light and gravity waves through that space changes with it. Consider Maxwell ...

    Classically, I think it is Maxwell, in regards to light waves, the permittivity of space is the degree that the electromagnetic wave experiences the local electric field, and the permeability of space is the degree that the electromagnetic wave experiences the local magnetic field. The point is that Maxwell worked with space that has permittivity and permeability, and they govern the velocity of light through the local space, and given a vacuum, light velocity is c. Add some permittivity and permeability, and light is less that c, as in when light traverses a medium other than a vacuum; a refractive index comes into play.

    Also, EM can self propagate because the oscillating light waves generate their own transverse electric and magnetic fields. That way, space can have characteristics, or can be empty, it can be just space, or it can be spacetime; light still can self propagate through it, no problem, because light is synchronized oscillations of electric and magnetic fields, perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. What changes, depending on the theoretical model, is reason why the light takes the path it does as that light propagates.

    But in the wave energy density model, light propagates spherically, and continually, from a photon along its path, no matter what its path may be, because this model is developed for wave-particles. Photons are wave particles that emit spherical light waves as they move through space; the out flowing wave energy component.

    The photon in its particle state has internal composition within the particle space, including the contained energy, the inflowing component, and out flowing component. That equates to mass in this model.

    But wait, the out flowing spherical wave from the photon particle's space has no mass in the particle sense; the out flowing wave energy is the photon in its wave state. Therefore this photon can go through a single slit as a particle, while it can go through more that one slit as a spherical wave out flow, i.e., the wave state of the photon (or electron, or buckyball) goes through both slits as a wave in a two slit experiment.

    The wave going through both slits will cause an interference pattern in the space between the slits and the screen, and that interference has peaks and valleys which affect the path of the photon particle that is traversing the same space after going through one or the other of the two slits, to reach the screen.

    You get all this right, lol.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    After thinking about that last post, and how long it was, probably means no one will read it :shrug:. I want you to know I could have written much more on the topic last night that I think would have been just as interesting; oh wait, you don't think it was interesting?

    For example, everyone probably thinks that the photon particle goes at the speed of light. But the photon particle in the wave energy density model is a wave-particle, both particle and light. Light is the spherically out flowing wave energy component of the wave-particle.

    Confusing? Not to me, because photons can act like particles when they strike another particle, but when they collide, they also have their own specific frequency, which means the wave-particle is also transferring energy at a given frequency when it is striking the particle or object.

    The particle portion of the photon wave-particle carries the means to maintain a specific frequency, and the means to emit that frequency as an outflowing spherical wave. The photon wave-particle therefore, is capable of delivering both a physical kick and an energy transfer at a specific frequency. This energy kick combination can actually force electrons off of the surface that it strikes (photo electric effect), and the distance the electrons jump is governed by the frequency of the particular wave-particle, i.e., each photon energy level (wave length) will produce a different size of electron jump.

    Up until that moment of contact, photons are traversing space, emitting an out flowing wave from the particle, i.e., emitting light. Now the question is, is the particle in the center of the set of out flowing spherical waves, or is it at the directional leading edge of the spherical out flow or trailing edge of the particle's complex wave pattern?

    Up until thinking about that last post, my speculation was that the particle (the mass part of the wave-particle) was at the leading edge of the spherical wave portion of the wave-particle, but now I am rethinking that.

    I'll elaborate on this later, after I decide. I might draw some pictures.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Elaborating on that last post, the reason I am rethinking the position of the particle portion of the photon wave-particle, within the complex wave-particle pattern, while it traverses space, is that the wave portion goes through both slits. That causes an interference pattern, and observations indicate that the peaks and valleys of the wave interference pattern must be having an affect on the path of the particle portion of the photon after it passes the slits.

    So if the mass is at the leading edge of the wave front, how can the particle respond to the interference caused by its own out flowing spherical energy wave? The particle portion would be in front of the wave interference pattern as it goes through the slits, and would not encounter the interference pattern on its way to the detector.

    Doesn't it make more sense for the mass portion to be in the center of the wave-particle's complex wave pattern. There is an issue though, and that is that a photon gets most of its inflowing wave energy component from the direction of motion, hypothetically. That would imply that the particle portion would be at the leading front of the pattern.

    It is my decision to make, to change the model, and I'm going with it being in the center, which seems more consistent with the fact that the out flow is spherical. That way the wave front has time to pass through the slits and set up interference that would affect the path of the photon as it continues on to impact the detector/screen. Also, in that configuration, light, which is the wave energy outflow from photons, would logically be emitted equally in all directions from the photon wave-particle, which is consistent with the hypothesis.

    Again, you have fallen asleep, so maybe this hypothesis will slip through, undetected.
     
  8. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    You might have noticed that I am proposing that light, what we refer to as electromagnetic waves, is the out flowing gravitational wave energy component of the photon wave-particle; photons being a special class of wave-particles because the always travel at the local speed of light.

    There is a range of frequencies of light that we can see with the human eye, and there is a much wider range that we can detect across the electromagnetic spectrum, based on its wavelength. My hypothesis is that the photon wave particle has a particle core that has mass. The mass is equivalent to its contained energy, (number of high energy density spots, from my earlier descriptions) and that particle core emits light waves spherically of a given frequency from the particle core mass, and those emitted waves are the wave portion of the photon wave-particle.

    Remember, the photon always travels at local speed of light, so any relative change in velocity is not referring to a change in its local speed of light velocity, but to the affect observed by an observer in a different wave energy density environment, who would see the same light at a different wavelength.

    In my model there is also the premise that all particles and objects emit out flowing gravitational wave energy. It is portrayed as filling all space. All outflowing gravitational wave energy is not called light unless it is within the range of frequencies of the EM spectrum. So at another forum, where I was wondering how frequencies of other particles and objects compare to light frequencies, I asked:

    How do electron frequencies compare to the frequencies of the EM spectrum?

    How do buckyball frequencies compare to the frequencies of the EM spectrum?

    How does the LIGO-detected gravitational wave frequency range compare to the EM spectrum frequencies?

    According to a member response at that forum, we should bear in mind that the de Broglie wavelength for a particle is dependent on its momentum.

    For an electron with 1eV kinetic energy the de Broglie wavelength is about 1.23nm, which is equivalent to soft X-rays in terms of frequency.

    For a buckyball moving at 100m/s it comes out as about 5pm, which is a gamma ray.

    The LIGO detection ranged between 35 and 250Hz. This is between Extremely low frequency (ELF) radio waves and Super low frequency (SLF) radio waves.

    I'm looking into that information, and contemplating how it might help shape my wave energy hypothesis.
     
  9. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    I'll take this over to another forum for now, where I might be able get some feedback, and expand my ideas. But don't get excited that I am leaving, lol, this is where most of my archives are, and that is the stimulus for keeping the model updated here.
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    This could be of mild interest, maybe more so to any who wish me shame and ridicule. I got plenty of it when I posted about a Wave Energy Density Model of the Universe, in the Against the Mainstream sub-forum at another cite. Don't do that over there, lol. They aren't into alternative ideas and they got defensive over simple things like wave energy density filling all space, or photons with mass.

    I suggested that wave particle duality might explain the two slit experiment because in the single photon experiment, the particle portion goes through one slit, while the wave portion goes through two or more slits, creating an interference pattern that affects the path of the particle portion on its way to the detector. You would think that post would get some response but they ignored that. They were more concerned over a post where I discussed that the CMBR might be better explained by a multiple Big Bang universe.

    There were messages that put words into my mouth, and made accusations that were unfounded, and were antagonistic. Granted my far out ideas seemed to them to be antagonism on my part. Of course I was just trying to discuss ideas, and kept my cool, while they come off looking more than bit over sensitive about alternative ideas in the whole affair, if you ask me.

    They closed the 30 day window for an ATM thread down within 24 hours, :shrug: see link:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?163578-Wave-Energy-Density-Model-of-the-Universe
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017

Share This Page