An Alternative to Yaldon Theory: A Wave Particle Suggestion

[quantum_wave]

An Alternative to Yaldon Theory: A Wave Particle Suggestion

Reference the Yaldon thread:
A Model for the Propagation of Visible Light and Other Rays

and familiarize yourself with the Yaldon paper referenced in the OP of that thread; that is the description of the Yaldon particle in its proposed state, prepared by the Yaldon Team. This new thread is about an alternative to the Yaldon; an alternative way of thinking about an alternative theory, lol, but I am well known for speculations upon speculations, and the Alternate Theories sub-forum is the place intended for the type of layman word salad I toss up. For the new members, I am allowed to take that approach in this sub-forum; it is within the stated rules of AltTheory.

To be continued ...

 

[quantum_wave]

First, forget about particles for a minute, because all particles in my threads have internal composition, and the internal composition of all particles is the same "stuff", i.e., wave energy. Particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments. A quantum is the energy contained in the location where two or more "meaningful" waves converge, and while in the process of converging, they form a momentary high energy density spot at the location of the intersection.

That spot is my alternative to the Yaldon. The amount of energy contained in those spots can be somewhere in a vast range, so when a say "meaningful", it refers to spots within a narrow range of energy applicable to the local mechanics that are being discussed. There are micro level high energy spots and there are macro level spots, and the space that they can occupy covers a vast range too, and can be at the opposite ends of the size spectrum.

The next post will be about about the concept of an oscillating background in which all Yaldon alternatives, i.e., the high energy spots, form and exist, but only momentarily; Yaldon alternatives are not long term stable particles as in Yaldon theory.

 

[quantum_wave]

How do I come to the conclusion that there is an oscillating background? It is the result of carrying the concept of internal consistency within a cosmological model, to its necessary lowest level of wave energy interaction; interaction of the tiniest possible waves that fill all space. That outcome is part of a view of cosmology where everything is composed of wave energy, there is a wide range of energy waves, and nature places limits at the top and bottom of the range.

Explaining that further, the cosmological model I refer to in this and my other threads, is an eternal multiverse; an infinite open universe, steady state proposal. The landscape of the greater universe features local big bangs, each with the same set of invariant natural laws, and each of which inflate and expand, until their expansion wave is interrupted by encounters with other expanding big bang arena waves. Those encounters produce big crunches, the macro level limit to wave energy, composed of galactic material contributed by the converging "parent" arenas. Crunches, under natures maximum gravitational compression, collapse/bounce into new expanding big bang arenas, producing a perpetual and infinite universe model, at the macro level, which defeats entropy.

The beauty of that idea is that the macro scenario described above has a micro, or quantum level counterpart that also features wave convergences, but instead of big bang arenas converging, we have the tiniest of nature's energy waves converging to make up this oscillating background at the foundational level, composed of waves at nature's lowest limit of wave energy. Waves carrying varying levels of energy fall in between those limits.

The point is that at the macro level of the multiple big bang landscape, big bangs produce nature's largest energy waves, and at the micro level, the tiniest waves allowed by nature converge and form the tiniest high energy spots.

The big bangs emerge from big crunches that form when two or more expanding, galaxy filled arena waves converge, and the tiniest oscillations in the micro background emerge from the convergence of two or more tiny micro level wave intersections.

In other words, the macro level is the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, perpetuated by converging big bang arena waves, and the micro level is the oscillating foundational background, perpetuated by the lowest possible energy waves that nature can generate. Smaller waves just merge together before they can produce an emerging wave or oscillation, so no meaningful high energy spot forms from them.

 

[quantum_wave]

Back to the alternative to the Yaldon, the tiny wave convergences at the micro level are a background, and waves carrying greater amounts of energy above the energy of the oscillations are referred to as meaningful waves that stand out from the oscillating background.

Now we are at a level of energy in the meaningful waves that can be said to be the quantum increments of which particles themselves are composed. That works as follows:

Those particles are composed of a pattern of wave convergences within what is the particle space, produced by what are referred to as standing waves, with two components, the directionally inflowing waves that converge within the standing wave pattern to form the high energy spots, and the spherical out flowing wave energy component, emitted from each spot. That standing wave pattern produces a particle space composed of many converging waves with many high energy spots compressed into the particle space, and from which emerges a spherical energy wave out flow from the particle space. Note that the spherical energy wave emitted by the particle's standing wave pattern becomes the directionally inflowing energy wave component of the surrounding particles and objects.

For comparison between this quantum action taking place at the micro level, the macro level arena wave action operates on the same principle, big bang arena waves convergence, produce big crunches, and the crunches subsequently collapse/bang to produce spherical out flowing arena waves. We now have the opposite ends of nature's wave energy magnitude scale.

Next post I will bring in the multitude of wave convergences that fill all space, and compare that to the various densities of the occurrence of Yaldons in Yaldon Theory.

 

[quantum_wave]

Particles are composed of some of nature's highest number of occurrences of high energy density spots within a given space, and the out flow of wave energy from particles produces a lower number of spots in the surrounding space as the out flowing waves expand away from the particle space. Note that each of the high energy spots requires a convergence with another energy wave, but the space between particles and objects has a lower number of waves traversing the open space, and thus there is a lower number in the physical presence of spots.

Also note that the "meaningful" waves at each level, micro and macro, are at the opposite ends of nature's energy magnitude scale, but are still quantum. A micro quantum of energy must exist in each wave convergence in order to produce the compact contained energy that jointly represents the mass of a particle, and a macro quantum of energy equates to the energy required in a big crunch to produce the emergent big bang arena wave; the collapse/bang.

Each time I reference a high energy spot, at the convergence of quantum energy waves at the micro level in this view of cosmology, I am talking about this model's alternative to the Yaldon; the Yaldon discussion in the YT thread refers only to the micro level, so discussion here about the macro level is in adddition to the scope of the YT.

 

[danshawen]

Back to the alternative to the Yaldon, the tiny wave convergences at the micro level are a background, and waves carrying greater amounts of energy above the energy of the oscillations are referred to as meaningful waves that stand out from the oscillating background.

Now we are at a level of energy in the meaningful waves that can be said to be the quantum increments of which particles themselves are composed. That works as follows:

Those particles are composed of a pattern of wave convergences within what is the particle space, produced by what are referred to as standing waves, with two components, the directionally inflowing waves that converge within the standing wave pattern to form the high energy spots, and the spherical out flowing wave energy component, emitted from each spot. That standing wave pattern produces a particle space composed of many converging waves with many high energy spots compressed into the particle space, and from which emerges a spherical energy wave out flow from the particle space. Note that the spherical energy wave emitted by the particle's standing wave pattern becomes the directionally inflowing energy wave component of the surrounding particles and objects.

For comparison between this quantum action taking place at the micro level, the macro level arena wave action operates on the same principle, big bang arena waves convergence, produce big crunches, and the crunches subsequently collapse/bang to produce spherical out flowing arena waves. We now have the opposite ends of nature's wave energy magnitude scale.

Next post I will bring in the multitude of wave convergences that fill all space, and compare that to the various densities of the occurrence of Yaldons in Yaldon Theory.

I do like this mode of thinking.

I still think Yaldon theory as presented in the other thread is rubbish, but admit that it might simply be a problem with the way it is presented without reference to its contextual relationship to other theories.

If you present a new theory of gravity, it helps to refer it to the observations already explained by Newton's concept of gravity. Einstein needed to do this to get support for relativity theory, and I can see no viable alternative to this approach that is likely to convince anyone that a new theory to explain new observations (like Michaelson-Morley) is needed.

 

[origin]

How about General Relativity as an alternative, or is this thread just about pretend stuff like the yelling theory and the sponge theory?

 

[quantum_wave]

I do like this mode of thinking.

I still think Yaldon theory as presented in the other thread is rubbish, but admit that it might simply be a problem with the way it is presented without reference to its contextual relationship to other theories.

If you present a new theory of gravity, it helps to refer it to the observations already explained by Newton's concept of gravity. Einstein needed to do this to get support for relativity theory, and I can see no viable alternative to this approach that is likely to convince anyone that a new theory to explain new observations (like Michaelson-Morley) is needed.

I think the YT effort was incomplete and didn't make any case for the extraordinary particle called the Yaldon as an explanation for the propagation of light. I prefer my own word salad.

I have a question about your reference to "presenting a new theroy of gravity", which isn't attempted in the YT thread or in this thread. Are you talking about my ideas on gravity presented elsewhere or what?

 

[danshawen]

I prefer my own word salad.

Don't be so harsh on yourself. It is no more "word salad" than some widely accepted theories.

Are you talking about my ideas on gravity presented elsewhere or what?

Not specifically, but for me they do have an appeal.

There are several sticky points to Newton's and even Einstein's gravitational field equations.

The first one is the constant G. It is not a derived constant. Moreover, the way the original Cavendish experiment was performed, using metal spheres, the confounding factor of electric charge and magnetic fields, many orders of magnitude stronger than actual gravitation, were likely not mitigated entirely. It doesn't really matter in terms of the dynamics of celestial mechanics used to orbit spacecraft, or else this deficiency would be a bigger problem than it is generally perceived. The same constant G also appears in Einstein's GR field equations.

The second sticky point is the assumption of uniform density and geometry in order to determine nominal center of mass. If the density of a gravitating body is not uniform for whatever reason, it may be obvious when you attempt to orbit spacecraft, but other than Newton's "divine hand" or oversimplification of the geometry, there is literally no means to predict the dynamics of even a simple two body problem without extensive experimentation.

Neutrinos can effortlessly plumb the depths of massive bodies to find their exact centers. So can Higgs bosons, which must do so in order to lend parts of atomic structure in the center regions inertial mass. Moreover, Higgs bosons have a composite spin of zero, so whenever and wherever they impart inertia, the signature of that mechanism will be to impart inertia in a manner that is spherically symmetrical based on density rather than geometry. Neither Newton's nor Einstein's field equation feature that kind of symmetry of interaction, all by themselves, without making a lot of extra assumptions that may or may not be the case, such as uniform density within spherical shells.

And Yaldon theory didn't really explain this symmetry either, so how is it an improvement?

Not to mention the merits of conveniently accounting for GR's principle equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass. What other theory of gravity does all of this?

 

[quantum_wave]

Don't be so harsh on yourself. It is no more "word salad" than some widely accepted theories.

Not specifically, but for me they do have an appeal.

I think wave-particle duality is taken to its limit in my model, meaning particles are noting but waves. Point particles, as some particles are defined in the standard particle model, are thought to have no internal composition; their location can be resolved to a point, theoretically. It is awkward to visualize point particles interacting, and their assigned characteristics like spin, charge, mass, and motion are measurables, and not explanations for presence, mass, or motion. My model tries to give reasonable explanations for not only presence, mass, and motion, but a scenario of quantum gravity can be derived from it.

The standing wave concept, with constantly inflowing and out flowing wave action in the particle space makes for a robust and dymanic particle, constantly composed of high wave energy density as measured by the number of tiny wave intersections (spots) in the particle space. The high energy spots give the particle it momentary location, and the number of high energy density spots in the particle space is what gives a wave-particle its mass. The wave intersections surrounding the particle's standing wave pattern feature the phenomenon where more wave intersections/spots form in the direction of the net highest directionally inflowing wave energy arriving from the surrounding environment, i.e., from the spherical out flowing component of other particles and objects.

Because the location of the particle is defined by the standing wave pattern, and because the standing wave pattern moves in the direction of the net highest inflowing wave energy, we get a layman version of quantum gravity.

 

[quantum_wave]

There are several sticky points to Newton's and even Einstein's gravitational field equations.

The first one is the constant G. It is not a derived constant. Moreover, the way the original Cavendish experiment was performed, using metal spheres, the confounding factor of electric charge and magnetic fields, many orders of magnitude stronger than actual gravitation, were likely not mitigated entirely. It doesn't really matter in terms of the dynamics of celestial mechanics used to orbit spacecraft, or else this deficiency would be a bigger problem than it is generally perceived. The same constant G also appears in Einstein's GR field equations.

The second sticky point is the assumption of uniform density and geometry in order to determine nominal center of mass. If the density of a gravitating body is not uniform for whatever reason, it may be obvious when you attempt to orbit spacecraft, but other than Newton's "divine hand" or oversimplification of the geometry, there is literally no means to predict the dynamics of even a simple two body problem without extensive experimentation.

Neutrinos can effortlessly plumb the depths of massive bodies to find their exact centers. So can Higgs bosons, which must do so in order to lend parts of atomic structure in the center regions inertial mass. Moreover, Higgs bosons have a composite spin of zero, so whenever and wherever they impart inertia, the signature of that mechanism will be to impart inertia in a manner that is spherically symmetrical based on density rather than geometry. Neither Newton's nor Einstein's field equation feature that kind of symmetry of interaction, all by themselves, without making a lot of extra assumptions that may or may not be the case, such as uniform density within spherical shells.

And Yaldon theory didn't really explain this symmetry either, so how is it an improvement?

Not to mention the merits of conveniently accounting for GR's principle equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass. What other theory of gravity does all of this?

If you consider the internal composition of particles with mass in my layman level model, as described above, you see that even within a single particle, there is no claim of uniform density. Quite the contrary, since the mass of a particle equates to the momentary "freeze frame" of the distribution of high density spots within particles and objects.

The total mass will not be uniformly distributed unless the particles are at the center of gravity of a major object where, theoretically, the directionally inflowing wave energy is equal from all directions, i.e., "at rest" relative to surrounding directional gravitational attractions. That lack of uniform density is the result of the skewed distribution of wave energy convergences and their associated high density spots within particles; always skewed in the direction of the highest directional inflow of gravitational wave energy from surrounding sources.

 

[danshawen]

Higher "energy density" spots. I like the sound of that. How about time dilation nearer the higher energy density spots? Higher/lower/no change from empty timespace?

 

[quantum_wave]

Higher "energy density" spots. I like the sound of that. How about time dilation nearer the higher energy density spots? Higher/lower/no change from empty timespace?

Time dilation is every where, lol.

There are no two adjacent points in space (spacetime in the standard view) that have the exact same energy density, because of the numerous gravitational waves traversing each point, coming from all directions, all the time. The case I have been offering, where two or more meaningful gravitational energy waves converge, and thus form a momentary high energy density spot at the point of convergence, is only one example of a tiny location in space that has a specific level of density relative to the energy density surrounding it, i.e., relative to either of the individual "parent" waves involved in the convergence.

In my model it is the energy density of the local space that equates to the curvature of spacetime. Waves travel slower as the wave energy density of the local space increases. It is local energy density that governs the rate that a clock will measure the passing of time because clocks are made of particles, and particles function slower as the energy density increases. There is the old adage that time stops at the event horizon of a black hole, and if that were true, it would be because the energy density in that location was so great that particles making up the clock could no longer function. In my model, a black hole slows the rate that clocks measure time almost to a stop, but unless we are talking about a big crunch type black hole with nature's ultimate density, particles still function. They get negated when the crunch collapses at the big bang, and cease to function individually for a period of time until the hot dense ball of energy produced by the crunch expands, cools, and decays into a progression of exotic particles until stable particles re-form.

If the local space is defined as a tiny patch of space at the convergence of two or more waves, it has its own individual density, and its own measure of the rate of time passing, assuming you could get a small clock at that point to measure it. Put an identical clock at an adjacent point and the two clocks will measure the rate that time is passing at a minutely different rate. But they have to be quick, because at the local energy density of such a small patch of space, the density fluctuates as each moment passes.

Time, for practical purposes, has to be measured in larger patches of space, and where the clocks are moving relative to each other, in order to get meaningful reading of time dilation.

 

[quantum_wave]

Higher "energy density" spots. I like the sound of that. How about time dilation nearer the higher energy density spots?

The answer to this, from my viewpoint, is in the last post ...

Higher/lower/no change from empty timespace?

and here is a response to the second part of Danshawen's post:

I take it that empty timespace would equate to flat spacetime, so correct me if I take that wrong.

In my model, space is never empty. From my last post, "it is the energy density of the local space that equates to the curvature of spacetime." In that case, flat spacetime would equate to all space having the same level of energy density, and further it would mean that there was no point in space that had enough wave energy density to support the presence of a particle. Without particles there would be no light or gravitational waves. We would be left with the oscillating background, as described in post #3 above as the micro level counterpart to the big bang arena action of the macro landscape of the greater universe, as follows:

How do I come to the conclusion that there is an oscillating background? It is the result of carrying the concept of internal consistency within a cosmological model, to its necessary lowest level of wave energy interaction; interaction of the tiniest possible waves that fill all space. That outcome is part of a view of cosmology where everything is composed of wave energy, there is a wide range of energy waves, and nature places limits at the top and bottom of the range.

Explaining that further, the cosmological model I refer to in this and my other threads, is an eternal multiverse; an infinite open universe, steady state proposal. The landscape of the greater universe features local big bangs, each with the same set of invariant natural laws, and each of which inflate and expand, until their expansion wave is interrupted by encounters with other expanding big bang arena waves. Those encounters produce big crunches, the macro level limit to wave energy, composed of galactic material contributed by the converging "parent" arenas. Crunches, under natures maximum gravitational compression, collapse/bounce into new expanding big bang arenas, producing a perpetual and infinite universe model, at the macro level, which defeats entropy.

The beauty of that idea is that the macro scenario described above has a micro, or quantum level counterpart that also features wave convergences, but instead of big bang arenas converging, we have the tiniest of nature's energy waves converging to make up this oscillating background at the foundational level, composed of waves at nature's lowest limit of wave energy. Waves carrying varying levels of energy fall in between those limits.

The third paragraph there introduces the concept of the oscillating background. One characteristic of that background is the local rate of oscillation. In the "empty spacetime" scenario, the oscillations would be constant and regular across the entire universe. No meaningful wave energy would stand out, and so no matter would exist. It would be perfectly equalized, in the terminology I use. In that environment, if a spontaneous light wave appeared (I wouldn't, but if it did) it would traverse the background at nature's maximum light velocity, say c. If the background was hosting a lot of light waves, the waves themselves would intersect, and their velocity would be slower than the maximum.

The answer then, to the question of whether time dilation would be higher, lower, or no change from empty timespace is that it would be lower, in fact zero, since there is no relative motion to establish a measure of time dilation in a perfectly equalized background.

 

[danshawen]

That seems to work in an isotopic linear energy background.

But zero quantum spin, even of a field itself, can only occur if equal / opposite spins combine, the same way that isotopic quantum foam energy combines opposite directions at invariant c to yield a (non-unique) bidirectional rest frame.

Even without excitations of the field other than virtual pairs, vacuum energy exists, and not simply in linear form. The energy exists whether there is ever a photon or a fraction of a wavelength of any energy that can be observed or not. The value of c combined with a direction determines whether energy is virtual or real in a given rest (spin, translation) frame. Energy beyond that of the ohmygod particle and of any magnitude can be red shifted until it becomes virtual by nothing more exotic than relative motion, and that neglects the energy of spin and the possibility that it may also be spinning in two or more composite directions at once.

Spinning oscillations combining to produce zero quantum spin and linear bidirectional oscillations may be different aspects of the same quantum foam noise, but I assert that the spin occurs at a rate faster than c at any radius / light travel time. This temporal substrate is consistent with the idea that only energy and time exists, and time is not the same as the speed of light. It may indeed be proportional to time, but that does not render a model for time that is useful for the purposes of extension of relativity.

Your vision needs to take as much account of what you can't observe as much as what you can. No one bothers to measure the speed of the rest frame with respect to c because it is not unique; as many measurements as there are pairs of opposing directions. Same thing with spin, but the only clue about how fast it occurs is entanglement. The universe is like that; more things you can't observe than things you can. That's probably why so many folks get caught up in manipulating the math before developing a physical model consistent with all of the observations it is possible to make. We now know with certainty that a spin zero particle exists, so deal with it. It's an excitation of the vacuum quantum field, and is very sensitive to spin because by itself, it does not spin in a preferred direction relative to itself or anything else. You'll be needing to deal with that observation as well.

 

[danshawen]

Time dilation is every where, lol.

Yeah. Every "when", then.

 

[danshawen]

In my model it is the energy density of the local space that equates to the curvature of spacetime.

This is good and consistent. That "curvature of local space" is equivalent to time dilation.

 

[danshawen]

particles function slower as the energy density increases

The particles themselves are energy. Most of that energy is propagating in various modes of composite spin. They persist as particles because of time dilation. Relativity cannot go to the quantum realm because it is hamstrung by a formulation of time that is stuck <= c, which only applies to the time dilation at the exact centers of particles, exactly the same amount of time dilation as an equivalent rest frame where c is measured with respect to the center of that particle.

 

[quantum_wave]

That seems to work in an isotopic linear energy background.

But zero quantum spin, even of a field itself, can only occur if equal / opposite spins combine, the same way that isotopic quantum foam energy combines opposite directions at invariant c to yield a (non-unique) bidirectional rest frame.

My familiarity with the concept of how spin and field work together is limited to an understanding that spin is a characteristic of a particle that is measured by the path the particle takes through a magnetic field. Normally the magnetic field is produced by the presence of a magnet, and the particle must exist and pass through the field to register its spin. In the equalized background, which I think equates to your empty flat spacetime, there are no particles, and so there is no magnet in the conventional sense, and no traditional magnetic field.

That is not to say that there is no magnetic and electric interaction in the equalized background. The oscillations each have an electric and magnet component due to the physical interaction of converging energy waves. When energy in the form of a wave encounters energy in the form of another wave intersecting with it, i.e., a flow of energy from both directions, my idea is, that at the point of convergence, there is the tiniest of magnetic fields produced in the presence of the converging energy waves. The electric field would be said to surround the point of convergence as a result of the existent energy of the waves, and the magnetic field would be said to be produced perpendicular to the path of the convergence, when the two energy carrying waves clash head on. That event produces a tiny high energy density spot at the point of convergence, and that high energy density spot then expands into a tiny new spherical wave, to perpetuate the oscillating background.

That is one oscillation in the background and so each oscillation has an electric and a magnetic component. That means that waves that make up the background are traveling at the speed of light, and therefore they establish the maximum speed of light possible in an otherwise particle free environment. When you introduce particles, you get gravitational waves and light waves, and their relative velocity is governed by the background, and they advance via the oscillations of the background.

Since we are not necessarily talking the same language in regard to the oscillating background (my alternative to the quantum foam), I'll stop here to see if you respond, before getting into virtual pairs and vacuum energy density.

 

[danshawen]

My familiarity with the concept of how spin and field work together is limited to an understanding that spin is a characteristic of a particle that is measured by the path the particle takes through a magnetic field.

This is of course the most important application of quantum spin, as it is applied to magnetic resonance imaging of soft tissues for medical diagnostic purposes.

A photon (the boson associated with the EM force) has spin in the form of polarization states as well as linear momentum in whatever direction it is propagating (and ONLY in that direction).

When inertia is given to particles of matter with more complex composite quantum spins by means of the Higgs mechanism, that inertia is no longer confined to a single linear direction, but exists simultaneously in all directions at once.

But, yes, a spherical wave would do it. No idea what entanglement would resemble there exactly.

Consider the Ehrenfest paradox very carefully before deciding that spherical waves are the thing we are discussing. A great deal of insight is provided when you realize that observers at different radii from the center of a circularly propagating wave cannot even agree on the period, or the time required for the wave to complete a single rotation about the center. This is because time dilation depends on the radius for that mode of propagation, which accounts for most of its rather strange behavior. For one thing, it will defy any attempt to apply Euclidean geometrical concepts to analyze it. Euclidean solids are beasts that have isotropic time embedded in their structure. Absolute space and time are both dead ends for this analysis. Absolute space begins and ends with the geometric centers of particles possessing composite quantum spin. Absolute time only has an absolute ORIGIN that exists as the instant of NOW. No time interval "rate" occurring after that instant is the same at different relative velocities or locations with respect to the centers of composite spin particles after that instant.

I think there must be a law that in order for propagating energy to interact in certain ways (spin --> linear, or linear --> spin, for example), the local time dilation of the waves must be comparable to within certain percentage limits. Spin -1 doesn't normally interact with a spin of +1, except in the special case of the Higgs boson, and that is because it is the only kind of particle in which integer disparate spins can be entangled in the manner of paired electrons. This is a tricky application of energy density, to determine how much of the energy of one propagation mode couples to another with what kind of particle and predict what will be the effect. No one ever said unifying all of the forces would be an easy thing to accomplish.