Hypothesis of a Cosmology Based on a Foundational Medium

[quantum_wave]

Well, I am not going to be able to set you straight on much of anything relating to physics. I have a long way to go before I understand it myself. But in one conversation I had with Mazulu about Penrose's theory on conformal cyclic cosmology, I proposed a possibility. I can't remember exactly where I got the idea and while I probably have it wrong I will give the explanation again here.

Visualize a 2D space with a sun at the center. This is the rubber sheet analogy which I am sure you are familiar with. Consider an object some distance from the sun and assume it is stationary to start. Consider the area of the space inside a circle centered on the sun with a radius of the distance the object is from the sun. The area of that circle is larger than one would expect from a circle in flat space. This space is non-euclidean. The area outside the circle is flatter than the space inside. So there are more degrees of freedom inside the circle than outside. So consider the object to be small and randomly jittering around. As the magnitude of the jitters is increased they can take the object further inside or outside the circle and so the probability that the jitter goes toward the center of the circle is greater than away from it, simply because there are more possible locations there. Sideways jitters have equal probability so there is no "force" produced in that direction. It is all just probability. Note that I am not saying I believe this, just that it is a concept I read somewhere. You can replace the jitter with a probability wave function or probably other known features of matter. But for this to work the feature of matter that is used where I said jitter, has to be the same for all types of matter, because of the gravitational constant.

So that is one possible example of how geometry could account for gravity. I am sure there are others. I am unsure whether they represent how gravity works in reality. In other words I don't really know enough about the subject to know if even my description of the concept is correct. But that usually does not stop me.

I understand the analogy and have come across it many times with pictures of the two dimensional set up that allude to the three dimensions plus time of the spacetime geometry. It is accompanied by an explanation similar to and sometimes not as good as yours, and it in effect tells us we can't really display it or visualize it because we are just stupid humans, lol. However, when have you ever heard of a physical explanation for how the sun warps the space around it, or of any physical effect to explain the curvature that can be tied to the observations of how objects "roll around the rubber sheet" to move through spacetime?

The answer is in the kinds of connections you have been studying; that we human's have been observing the effects of gravity since the days of the Plato's cave analogy. We have slowly improved our quantification of it to account for almost all observed anomalies right up through the EFEs. They are the best answer yet of how to calculate and predict the effects of gravity. But then too, there is an unfortunate evolution from the mathematical work that so nicely produces explanations for the observations and gives reliable predictions, to an insistence by a few that there doesn't have to be anything physical to explain how gravity works because gravity IS geometry and math; no need for any physical connection to explain action at a distance if you believe that geometry and math can physically curve spacetime :shrug:.

But it is all good for me because it means I have a hobby that isn't likely to go away, and as a result, I am one of the few hacks who has a layman explanation for the particulars of a quantum gravity model that is hard to falsify. It is not science and so professionals aren't and shouldn't be interested, but it is layman thinking about what a model might be like when science finally quantifies it. And I know that the great minds who will read that statement (no one here specifially) will be tempted to make reference to wild or idle fantasies that can't be falsified either, but they do seem to have trouble pointing to specifics of my model that they would call outrageous "blue unicorn" thinking, .

So think all you want about how to depict spacetime visually or even to make a single scientific statement about how it works physically, and you will see the stimulus for my "aether think" hobby, i.e. there is no physical effect that we know of yet that causes the curvature of spacetime or action at a distance.
(3787)

 

[quantum_wave]

...

So think all you want about how to depict spacetime visually or even to make a single scientific statement about how it works physically, and you will see the stimulus for my "aether think" hobby, i.e. there is no physical effect that we know of yet that causes the curvature of spacetime or action at a distance.
(3787)

Action at a distance in my model is simple, however no one who sees themselves as intelligent, educated, and scientifically well informed could find comfort wrapped up in the unscientific hypotheses of an aether model. But there may be an aether, so don't be too proud of yourself if you can't get across the divide long enough to consider it.

What is the divide? It is the thinking that space is filled with a medium that cannot be detected. It is the thinking that the only variable in the universe is the wave energy density of the medium. It is the thinking that says that the presence of matter and energy are just complex wave interactions that make it seem as though space can be warped and time can dilate. It is the thinking that you can't fix the speed of light as a constant in a vacuum if there is no vacuum anywhere, ever, i.e. there is no hope to ever measure the speed of light traversing a vacuum because you always are measuring it traversing the foundational medium no matter how good your vacuum is. It is the thinking that you can consider time and distance to be invariant regardless of the perspective from which you observe and measure them if you attribute the apparent variability to the one foundational variable, the unseeable wave energy density in the medium.

Drop a ball from a moving car and consider its motion relative to the car and to the ground. From the ground if you drop a bill it falls straight down, and from the car it makes a graceful curve that accelerates toward the ground that is passing by beneath you. That small local scenario seems fine. But even as far back as well over a hundred years ago we knew something about the scenario gets out sync when observing the motion of stars, planets and moons. Some ethereal effect seemed to be out there to carry light and gravity, but no aether could be found.

Albert Einstein, and others during his time, worked hard on the mathematics to explain motion and Einstein's Field Equations, as vaguely comprehended by mere laymen like me, put the observed motions into their proper mathematical perspective, and made famous his postulates of SR. There was no need for an aether that we couldn't detect if we can grasp the simple notion that the presence of mass and energy can warp and curve spacetime; don't ask how.

My hobby is not really about asking how because I get nowhere in the presence of pages of equations and unreconciled theories where it takes professionals years, even decades to grasp to the extent that the fine points and distinctions between them can be appreciated. My perception of the "search for how" is that the ultimate result, so far, is always the same; the main generally accepted theories seem inconsistent and are at least unreconciled.

My hobby is to start with the certainty that the universe works perfectly based on the nature of things, the invariant natural laws, and all aspects of nature work together without inconsistencies. My model is complex as layman models go, and growing, but I keep it internally consistent. If the great minds were to question me about the main aspects of it, asking about what might seem inconsistent within it to them, I can generally explain the consistency. And if the great minds were to question me about the known scientific observations that current generally accepted science can't explain, and ask me for my deluded layman view of how my model might account for them, sometimes I can explain them using the internally consistent aspects of my model. In other words, my hobby model has internally consistent explanations for things that are not yet explained and quantified by the scientific community; hence my model is an accumulation of untestable hypotheses that don't qualify as science. The result is that I claim to do hypothesis, not science.

An Hypothesis about a basic aspect of the universe: Converging waves in the aether cause high density spots that can appear to be stable because their presence is maintained and continually refreshed by standing wave patterns that have synchronized inflowing and out flowing wave energy components. Standing wave patterns are "particles" in my model.
(3909)

 

[quantum_wave]

...

An Hypothesis about a basic aspect of the universe: Converging waves in the aether cause high density spots that can appear to be stable because their presence is maintained and continually refreshed by standing wave patterns that have synchronized inflowing and out flowing wave energy components. Standing wave patterns are "particles" in my model.
(3909)

I always wonder why no one has challenged me on that hypothesis which I have mentioned from time to time. If I was a member who was just an average science enthusiast, I would be asking me this: "Oh yeah? Say that was true, then tell us this. Where did the two converging waves come from, smart guy?"
(4155)

 

[Lakon]

I always wonder why no one has challenged me on that hypothesis which I have mentioned from time to time. If I was a member who was just an average science enthusiast, I would be asking me this: "Oh yeah? Say that was true, then tell us this. Where did the two converging waves come from, smart guy?"
(4155)

Where did the two converging waves come from, smart guy?


PS - I recall reading some books many years ago by one TB Pawlicki, who had the same idea.

 

[quantum_wave]

Where did the two converging waves come from, smart guy?


PS - I recall reading some books many years ago by one TB Pawlicki, who had the same idea.

I hadn't heard of TB Pawlicki, but upon searching I see he is aka T.B. Pawels. I just read the reviews of one of his books:
http://www.amazon.com/Explore-Highe...dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Sounds interesting, thanks for the reference.

As for my lame baiting for someone to ask me about my hypothesis, sorry for that, but thank you for asking:

Of course the answer is that the universe has always existed, wave energy is conserved, and converging or inflowing spherical waves beget new out flowing spherical waves; the major hypothesis behind the concept of quantum action.
(4647)

 

[Lakon]

I hadn't heard of TB Pawlicki, but upon searching I see he is aka T.B. Pawels. I just read the reviews of one of his books:
http://www.amazon.com/Explore-Highe...dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Sounds interesting, thanks for the reference.

OK! Yes, he's a very interesting writer. From what I can recall, he was also an Olympic Games Judo champion, and then was struck down by polio ..
Anyway, he's also got a book called 'How To Build a Flying Saucer' - a rather corny title, yes, but I suppose it was intended to sell more books. All based on speculative engineering, etc. Really interesting stuff, and as I said I recall, much into the 'wave - matter' business.

As for my lame baiting for someone to ask me about my hypothesis, sorry for that, but thank you for asking:

Of course the answer is that the universe has always existed, wave energy is conserved, and converging or inflowing spherical waves beget new out flowing spherical waves; the major hypothesis behind the concept of quantum action.
(4647)

The universe has always existed - how do you know this (I'm not doubting it, but it's a big call to have an 'Of course' preceding it) ?

Edit - the TBP books referred to above are all very old; 20 - 30 years old maybe.

 

[quantum_wave]

OK! Yes, he's a very interesting writer. From what I can recall, he was also an Olympic Games Judo champion, and then was struck down by polio ..
Anyway, he's also got a book called 'How To Build a Flying Saucer' - a rather corny title, yes, but I suppose it was intended to sell more books. All based on speculative engineering, etc. Really interesting stuff, and as I said I recall, much into the 'wave - matter' business.

In my model (layman hobby material) it is all waves, and much of what I read about quantum mechanics seems to convey that same idea. The difficulty I think the scientific community has is about reaching a consensus on the nature of space and time, and not whether everything is waves, IMHO. For me, it is the means of propagation of those waves across the vacuum or void of space that is the real issue. EM Theory assigns characteristics to the vacuum through which light passes (permittivity and permeability), QM talks about the standing wave nature of particles and objects, and even GR is looking for the gravity waves that communicate changes and interruptions in motion. I can't argue electromagnetic theory, quantum theory, or general relativity theory from a layman perspective because I don't fully grasp all of the intricacies and implications I would need to know in order to understand all of the relationships between Maxwell's laws, Einstein's equations, and the uncertainties of the quantum realm of wave-particle duality. To me, if the void of space used in all of those theories has characteristics other than volume, like permittivity and permeability, curvature, or unseen gravity waves, it isn't a void; it is filled with field or curvature or some medium.

The universe has always existed - how do you know this (I'm not doubting it, but it's a big call to have an 'Of course' preceding it) ?

It is a conclusion from my philosophy that there are three explanations for the existence of the universe; God did it, it came from nothingness, or it has always existed; choose one.

As for the concept of a cosmology, I want mine to represent my view of reality, and reality is also a philosophical concept. So I start by choosing from the three explanations, and I choose by the process of personal preferences the explanation that the universe has always existed.

If you had to choose, what is your choice among the three, or do you have another option; some people say the "we cannot know" is a fourth option but to me, having a personal view of cosmology requires taking a position on "the beginning".

And after you make a choice, right away you are faced with another choice. What are the infinites of the universe. Is space infinite, has time always passed, is there an infinite amount of energy? I also have chosen to invoke all three infinities and include as major premises of my model that space, time, and wave energy are potenially infinite, and are addressed in my model without the "potential" restriction, lol. So my model invokes the infinites of space, time, and wave energy.
(4732)

 

[Lakon]

In my model (layman hobby material) it is all waves, and much of what I read about quantum mechanics seems to convey that same idea. The difficulty I think the scientific community has is about reaching a consensus on the nature of space and time, and not whether everything is waves, IMHO. For me, it is the means of propagation of those waves across the vacuum or void of space that is the real issue.

Yes .. what do they 'wave' through ?

EM Theory assigns characteristics to the vacuum through which light passes (permittivity and permeability), QM talks about the standing wave nature of particles and objects, and even GR is looking for the gravity waves that communicate changes and interruptions in motion. I can't argue electromagnetic theory, quantum theory, or general relativity theory from a layman perspective because I don't fully grasp all of the intricacies and implications I would need to know in order to understand all of the relationships between Maxwell's laws, Einstein's equations, and the uncertainties of the quantum realm of wave-particle duality. To me, if the void of space used in all of those theories has characteristics other than volume, like permittivity and permeability, curvature, or unseen gravity waves, it isn't a void; it is filled with field or curvature or some medium.

Aether by another name ? Although the concept of curvature continues to elude me. What is this curvature and what does it curve away from ?

It is a conclusion from my philosophy that there are three explanations for the existence of the universe; God did it, it came from nothingness, or it has always existed; choose one.

As for the concept of a cosmology, I want mine to represent my view of reality, and reality is also a philosophical concept. So I start by choosing from the three explanations, and I choose by the process of personal preferences the explanation that the universe has always existed.

If you had to choose, what is your choice among the three, or do you have another option; some people say the "we cannot know" is a fourth option but to me, having a personal view of cosmology requires taking a position on "the beginning".

If I had to choose, I would also go with 'always existed'.

And after you make a choice, right away you are faced ith another choice. What are the infinites of the universe. Is space infinite, has time always passed, is there an infinite amount of energy? I also have chosen to invoke all three infinities and include as major premises of my model that space, time, and wave energy are potenially infinite, and are addressed in my model without the "potential" restriction, lol. So my model invokes the infinites of space, time, and wave energy.

Indeed, 'always existed' brings about these imponderables. But it seems a little more palitable than the other two options. My reply is brief not because I consider your ideas trite, but because you have put them so well that I can't add to them.

 

[quantum_wave]

Yes .. what do they 'wave' through ?

That would be the foundational medium.

Aether by another name ? Although the concept of curvature continues to elude me. What is this curvature and what does it curve away from ?

Curvature is what the scientific community has come to generally accept as the best explanation for how objects move through space relative to each other. It is the primary feature of General Relativity, which I know you know, but I say it to get to my next point. The math of GR comes close to corresponding to reality (what we measure and observe) but it is not precise. Those who are in the group that say math and geometry actually cause the curvature that objects seem to follow, i.e. that there is no missing physical cause, will tell us that the error is within experimental constraints or some such hand waving, and they say or at least imply that if you don't accept it as reality there is something wrong with you, lol. They just can't get themselves to consider the foundational medium, but instead they play the "aether by any other name" game as you so nicely labeled it .

If I had to choose, I would also go with 'always existed'.

Indeed, 'always existed' brings about these imponderables. But it seems a little more palatable than the other two options. My reply is brief not because I consider your ideas trite, but because you have put them so well I can't add to them.

Lol, well it is not rare for people to be speechless in the face of my lucid narrative, but usually it is more due to my audacity than because I have put things so well.

As for "always existed" being the most palatable, it might seem to be a pretty iffy fact upon which to build a model, but the other options are more iffy, .

If we had been friends for years and had discussed cosmological models of all sorts, I would suspect that we might agree that any cosmology that requires a beginning must suffer from the problems of infinite regression. Do you follow that reasoning?

It is the premise that the universe had no beginning and always existed that eliminates infinite regression, and also enables the defeat of entropy if you subscribe to my particular aether model.
(4942)

 

[Lakon]

That would be the foundational medium.

Yes, aether-by-another-name!

Curvature is what the scientific community has come to generally accept as the best explanation for how objects move through space relative to each other. It is the primary feature of General Relativity, which I know you know, but I say it to get to my next point. The math of GR comes close to corresponding to reality (what we measure and observe) but it is not precise. Those who are in the group that say math and geometry actually cause the curvature that objects seem to follow, i.e. that there is no missing physical cause, will tell us that the error is within experimental constraints or some such hand waving, and they say or at least imply that if you don't accept it as reality there is something wrong with you, lol. They just can't get themselves to consider the foundational medium, but instead they play the "aether by any other name" game as you so nicely labeled it .

There is a group that says maths and geometry cause the curvature of space ? On first impression, that sounds to me like saying that the French language caused the Eiffel tower. Interestingly, (and from memory without looking it up right now) mathematics is from the Greek 'mathema', ie, lesson, disposed to learn, etc, and Geometry is from the same; 'geo' = earth, 'metry' = measurement, ie, earthly measurement. We've certainly stretched the envelope there ..

Lol, well it is not rare for people to be speechless in the face of my lucid narrative, but usually it is more due to my audacity than because I have put things so well.

Well, I was being polite. It was more your audacity, but then, I like audacity a lot.

As for "always existed" being the most palatable, it might seem to be a pretty iffy fact upon which to build a model, but the other options are more iffy, .

Yes - that's what I meant.

If we had been friends for years and had discussed cosmological models of all sorts, I would suspect that we might agree that any cosmology that requires a beginning must suffer from the problems of infinite regression. Do you follow that reasoning?

It is the premise that the universe had no beginning and always existed that eliminates infinite regression, and also enables the defeat of entropy if you subscribe to my particular aether model.
(4942)

Not sure of the reasoning you're referring to. Is it "what caused the beginning / where did the beginning come from / what was before the beginning", etc ? If so I see the nature of the regress you refer to.

BUT - even current, accepted scientific knowledge has some absurdities at either end - the macro and the micro. Let us then be hung for mutton as for lamb .. and consider the infinite regress. If you believe (as you do, I think) that the universe is infinite, why not also at the other end ..ie, an infinite regress ?

I raise this with you, not because I have the capacity to argue for or against it (other than in broad, non mathematical terms) but because I want to point you to one of the most itneresting books I've ever read in my life - it is in fact, on my list of the 6 most interesting.

There was a guy .. one JW Dunne who died about 90 years ago. He wrote a book called 'The Serial Universe', which expounded on his theory of 'Serialism', such theory having it's central tenet (IIRC) as the infinite regress. He wrote several other interesting books too, some bordering on mysticism, others on fly fishing, others on the African jungle, etc.

Now, I can see others here howling 'CRACKPOT' even as I type this. Well and good.

But the thing about JW Dunne, was that he was a most practical man, fought in the 1st world war, was actually a military aircraft designer, and came up with some novel aircraft designs of that era which were of very useful purpose to the war effort. Yes, I know that an aircraft designer could also be a crackpot - that label flows freely 'round here, especially from those who would have contributed to society less, and being less productive in their lives, than those they label crackpots.

No matter. You know what ? although I have a hard copy of the book and read it years ago (barely understanding it - it fast dives into mathematics) I just found out it is available free on line, for download as a PDF.

You should get a copy and read it. I BET YOU WILL FIND IT FASCINATING AND VERY WORTHWHILE even if you don't agree with it's premise .. or maybe at the end of it you will.

 

[quantum_wave]

Don't consider this an answer to your last post, but it is an aside. Google a phrase similar to "does geometry cause the curvature of space", and survey the links generated, . Rather that say there is no known physical cause of gravity, they dance around with geometry and mathematics because that is all we really have to explain gravity so far.
(5026 views)

 

[Lakon]

Don't consider this an answer to your last post, but it is an aside. Google a phrase similar to "does geometry cause the curvature of space", and survey the links generated, . Rather that say there is no known physical cause of gravity, they dance around with geometry and mathematics because that is all we really have to explain gravity so far.
(5026 views)

Thanks - and just after I hung up last, I realised I should post the best link (there are some pretenders) here ..

http://archive.org/details/serialuniverse032783mbp

 

[quantum_wave]

Thanks - and just after I hung up last, I realised I should post the best link (there are some pretenders) here ..

http://archive.org/details/serialuniverse032783mbp

I liked the preface and introduction; how far I will get in the book is an open question, but thanks for the interesting recommendation. I'll let you know how far I get.

 

[Prof.Layman]

OK, forget the irony of it all, and forget that you haven't given me the science based link that supports your claim on what causes the increase in the length of time it takes for light to traverse various mediums, or to explain what causes light to speed up again when it emerges from that medium.

I didn't get the information off of the internet, maybe you should try to google it or something. I don't really trust the net as being a good source for factual science. I would suggest looking it up in a text or finding a book that has been copied onto the net.

To be conversant on my hypothesis, you would still have to come to grips with the concept that matter and light are composed of wave energy. In my model the foundational medium is all there is and waves are going in all directions through it. Matter is standing waves, gravity waves are foundational and are required to produce standing waves, and light waves are produced by the electric and magnetic nature of interactions between standing wave particles of matter.

Matter is not standing waves, standing waves occur when electrons are reflected back from a location with the proper impedence. It takes "matter" or electrons to create them.

If gravity waves are foundational to your model then your model has some real foundational problems. Scientist do not even understand them well enough in order to detect them in a lab, and the discovery of them being found in astronomey is questionable because of this even though it received a nobel prize.

Waves are compressions in the aether that spread out spherically from their point of origin, and as they expand their pressure decreases in accord with the inverse square law.

How could you possibly know this when the experiments set up to detect graviational waves show no sign of compression of the distances being measured?

When waves converge there is a spike in density. The concept of standing waves is that when the wave density in a patch of space increases sufficiently, a synchronization phenomenon occurs called a standing wave which is supported by inflowing and out flowing wave compressions. The standing wave causes recurring spikes in density in the particle space and we perceive these standing wave patterns as matter.

No, standing waves are spikes in the voltage of a circuit. This happens when it has the wrong impedence. It requires electrons to already be present in the cicuit and then be reflected.

Gravity is caused by an change in the directional relationship of the net inflowing wave component in the standing wave pattern, keeping in mind that the inflowing wave component comes from the spherical out flowing wave component of other particles and objects.

Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, and gravitational waves arrise from the theory when gravity cannot travel FTL and then there are differences in this curvature over time. It comes from the same nonsense that explains why one end of a rod does not react instantly to the other end of a rod being pushed, and it is why everything at a high velocity turns to goo even though they cannot even prove what speed they are actually traveling and can say they are at rest.

 

[quantum_wave]

I didn't get the information off of the internet, maybe you should try to google it or something. I don't really trust the net as being a good source for factual science. I would suggest looking it up in a text or finding a book that has been copied onto the net.

Matter is not standing waves, standing waves occur when electrons are reflected back from a location with the proper impedence. It takes "matter" or electrons to create them.

If gravity waves are foundational to your model then your model has some real foundational problems. Scientist do not even understand them well enough in order to detect them in a lab, and the discovery of them being found in astronomey is questionable because of this even though it received a nobel prize.


How could you possibly know this when the experiments set up to detect graviational waves show no sign of compression of the distances being measured?

No, standing waves are spikes in the voltage of a circuit. This happens when it has the wrong impedence. It requires electrons to already be present in the cicuit and then be reflected.

Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, and gravitational waves arrise from the theory when gravity cannot travel FTL and then there are differences in this curvature over time. It comes from the same nonsense that explains why one end of a rod does not react instantly to the other end of a rod being pushed, and it is why everything at a high velocity turns to goo even though they cannot even prove what speed they are actually traveling and can say they are at rest.

I appreciate being set straight on all of that, even though I am not sure you understand the nature of the alternative theories forum. My hypothesis is about something alternative to the generally accepted theories, so when you take exception to my so called model and refer me back to mainstream theories, or your perception of them, there is some question about your comprehension of the kind of content to expect in this sub-forum and of what I am doing in this thread.
(5297)

 

[Prof.Layman]

I appreciate being set straight on all of that, even though I am not sure you understand the nature of the alternative theories forum. My hypothesis is about something alternative to the generally accepted theories, so when you take exception to my so called model and refer me back to mainstream theories, or your perception of them, there is some question about your comprehension of the kind of content to expect in this sub-forum and of what I am doing in this thread.
(5297)

I don't know if you are aware of this, but what you are actually doing is making anyone on internet forums sound like a cranck and a total crackpot when they present any legitimate theory because they have read this garbage for so long.

 

[quantum_wave]

I don't know if you are aware of this, but what you are actually doing is making anyone on internet forums sound like a cranck and a total crackpot when they present any legitimate theory because they have read this garbage for so long.

I don't know, it seems quite unlikely. And I do point out that my threads are not science. (And no one pays any attention to me or my hobby, so I think the scientific community is safe for awhile, lol.)

 

[quantum_wave]

Please ignore the asterisks.

All my experience, logic and wisdom, to whatever degrees they exist, defines my current perception of things and*I loosely call the portion of the state of my awareness about the universe my so called model. I am not doing science when I contemplate the universe, but as a hobby I often remark about*what that model says is going on in the unobservable *realms, which are the foundational level of order (quantum realm), and the Hubble volumes of space that we can only partially see (the big bang arena realm). I see the Action down at the quantum realm as being really intense, but the intensity is so remote from our ability to perceive it that it is not often brought to the forefront of our awareness. Out of the*seeming chaos of the intensity of action in the quantum realm emerges life, and from life emerges consciousness, and out of consciousness emerges self-awareness, and all of that precedes my contemplation that goes on about the quantum level.

So let's examine the intensity of the quantum realm as I hypothesize it to be. The universe at that level is simple but intense, and consists of the foundational medium (the aether) which is continuous and contiguous throughout all space, a perfect fluid for lack of any ability to say more about it. Everything we can observe is the effect of wave energy traversing the medium. At our elevated emergent level of consciousness, we lack the ability to separate the aether medium from the observable physical aspects of it.

The way I organize my thinking about the aether can be described best by starting with some basic definitions. The medium:*The aether medium is the ethereal characteristic of the universe. It is ethereal because it is undetectable, and it carries waves. The physical: The wave energy traversing the foundational medium is physical. Everything is composed of wave energy traversing the medium. We cannot detect the medium though it is in and around us in every respect, but everything we can detect is supported by the foundation medium.

Particles: Particles of which physical things are composed are themselves standing wave patterns established by the natural synchronization of wave energy coming and going across the medium. Complex standing wave patterns that are perceived as particles can be reduced to the simplest concept of spikes in pressure within the medium at the point of convergence of waves traversing the medium. Those endlessly recurring spikes in pressure, when synchronized in standing wave patterns, establish and maintain the "presence" of particles.

Complexity of standing wave patterns:*A standing wave particle is not just one high density spot or spike that keeps repeating itself, as some characterize it. They are much more complex. It is true in my model that the inflowing wave energy component is equal to the out flowing wave energy, but left at that, it would be way to simple a concept to produce that full range of particle characteristic that we observe. In my model a simple electron is speculatively composed of hundreds of millions of those synchronized wave energy spikes that occur at the convergence of pinhole waves that are the characteristic of the action at the foundation level. The three theoretical quarks that combine to make a proton are speculatively composed of hundreds of billions of those repeating spikes in pressure.*

The Quantum: The concept in my model is that each wave energy convergence in the standing wave energy pattern of a particle is one quantum of energy. If an electron has 1/1836 the energy of a proton, then that ratio is reflected in the number of quanta in the rest electron vs. the rest proton.

Space: Space is infinite. In the context of my model I drop the word "potentially" which is conventionally used to qualify the concept of infinite space.*Waves traversing the infinite medium carry the foundational energy of which all physical things are composed. Waves traversing the medium compress and cause pressure in the medium as they traverse it. Wave energy is conserved, beginning right down at that intense quantum level of order.

Time: Time simply passes. Consciousness, when addressed from the perspective of the first and second characteristics of the universe, ethereal and physical, is physical. Given our conscious self-awareness, we perceive events and assign the concept of time to the always forward sequence of events. Each event, buy the time it is perceived by our brain, is already in the past. Time cannot be physically reversed but the wonder of our conscious perception of time is that it is captured for mental review within our memory.

My model includes Infinities: Space if infinite and filled with the medium, wave energy traversing the medium is present across the infinite expanse of space, and the passing of time is eternal. Space and time are inseparable and yet separate; space hosts the medium, the medium at its grand height of complexity hosts life and consciousness, and consciousness perceives the passing of time.

The pinhole effect: In the quantum realm the advance of wave energy through the medium employs what I describe as a quantum pinhole effect, reminiscent of the Huygens theory of the advance of spherical light waves through space.*Light and gravity are physically different, but at their foundation, they are advancing waves across the medium and*when I refer to the pinhole concept of wave advance, I am referring to wave energy in the medium, not just light waves, but gravity waves as well.*

Light and Gravity: In my model, I distinguish between light waves and gravity waves, and the distinction is great. Gravity waves are traversing the medium between particles and objects, and all particles are composed of those waves in complex standing wave patterns. Light (photon energy) is particle-waves that are emitted by other particles (electrons). This is the primary distinction between light and gravity; gravity has no particle nature as its waves traverse space and so cannot be detected. Light is a particle that moves through the medium, and as a particle, *photons therefore, are standing wave patterns composed of varying numbers of quanta that are continually being refreshed by inflowing wave energy. A big distinction is that photons get all of their inflowing wave energy from one direction, the direction of motion that was established when they were emitted. But being particles, they still produce out flowing wave energy that emerges spherically from the pinhole point in space and time where the refreshing of the high density spots (quanta) occurred. Gravity simply depends on waves in between the standing wave patterns that establish particles, so another distinction is that light in the form of photon particles emits gravity waves which are the spherical waves emerging from the individual quanta that make up the photon.*

Gravity: Gravity is caused by the differential between the directionally inflowing wave energy and the spherical out flow of wave energy*because standing wave patterns (particles) move in the direction of the net highest wave energy density. The reasoning for the directional motion is that the inflow from the direction of highest wave energy density has higher pinhole intensity which accelerates the refreshing of the quanta more rapidly in that direction (reduces the time delay of pinhole action because the pinhole waves are closer together).

Quantum Intensity: Light and gravity waves both advance through the medium in pinhole increments where each point of convergence between pressure waves is like a new pinhole spike of pressure out of which a spherical wave emerges. That pinhole action at the foundational level of the quantum realm is what I refer as the prerequisite intensity of everything physical. In detail, when waves converge they generate new waves by causing high density spikes at the convergences, and new spherical out flowing waves emerge from each pressure spike in the medium. Therefore the foundational level is characterized by intense action of pinhole sized spherical "bubbles" of pressure that expand until interrupted by converging with other pinhole waves. A new pinhole wave emerges out of each convergence.

Time delay: An important aspect of my model that has to be mentioned in any summary level post is that down at the limit where this pinhole action takes place, there is a time delay between the pressure spike when waves converge, and the emergence of the new spherical out flowing wave. Without that time delay, waves would be instantaneously propagated between particles, and that would invalidate the crucial gravitational energy information conveyed by the time delay; objects would not know which direction to go and would remain at rest.

The time delay is due to the sponginess or compressibility of the medium and the intensity of pinhole action in the medium. The time delay is described in my model by the mechanics that hypothetically governs the pinhole intensity at the foundational level. That intensity is characterized by the marriage of the Huygens pinhole type of wave advance and the time delay which is determined by the pressure of the medium. Like space and time, compressibility of the medium and the intensity of pinhole activity are inseparable but separate in nature.

The speed of light and gravity: One last thing that must accompany an executive level summary of my current state of delusions about at *what goes on at the intense level of quantum action is that wave pressure (which is the compression of the medium caused by the wave energy traversing it), dictates the speed of the pinhole advance of the wave fronts. That makes the speed of waves traversing the aether variable based on the wave energy density of the medium, and so, in my model the speed of light and gravity are not invariant.*The rate of wave front advance through the medium is a factor of the pressure of the medium at the particular wave energy density level of the given environment.
(5579)

 

[quantum_wave]

Continuous vs. discrete

Ah ha. Pinhole intensity has a discrete nature, characterized by two major aspects: 1) Pinhole Intensity is characterized by waves through the medium that have a continuous nature until their spherical expansion is interrupted at a point or points of convergence between the given expanding wave and other expanding waves, and 2) when that interruption occurs, it marks the beginning of the formation of a new compression of the medium in the space surrounding that point of convergence; I call that a discrete pinhole compression. It is on top of the existing compression of the medium through which the parent waves are converging. The volume of space that hosts the new compression is called the pinhole. Out of that pinhole compression emerges a new spherical pinhole wave whose pressure is a combination of three contributing pressures, 1) the pressure of the medium in which the two parent waves are converging which I refer to as the pressure of the environment, 2) the pressure of parent wave one, and 3) the pressure of parent wave two.

The frequency of those interruptions at the foundational level where pinhole action is functioning is termed the "pinhole intensity", and that intensity is governed by the wave energy density of the environment. For example the pinhole intensity in the space between the Earth and the Moon would be lower than the pinhole intensity at their surfaces, and the pinhole action at the surface of the Earth is much greater than at the surface of the moon. The frequency of pinhole action in a given patch of medium is referred to as the pinhole intensity, i.e. pinholes formed per volume of space per unit of time.

A point in space vs. a volume of space

Waves can be continuous if they advance through the medium uninterrupted, and yet pinhole action can be described as discrete. The way I justify my personal view of that duality of nature, i.e. continuous and discrete, is to describe for purposes of my model that pinhole action has two parts, the formation of the pinhole as a result of the convergence of two continuous waves, and the emergence of the out flowing continuous wave from the discrete pinhole compression.

The action that is going on during the duration between the initial point of formation of the pinhole and the emergence of the spherical wave from the pinhole is continuous action over a finite period of time. Therefore the pinhole process features continuous action that cannot be described as expansion, but is described as a transition between the continuous wave expansion of the parent waves, and the continuous spherical pinhole wave that emerges from the discrete pinhole. The action that occurs when parent wave expansion is interrupted has a finite duration during which the wave advance is halted and the energy of the waves is conserved by the compression of the medium in the space surrounding the point of convergence. There is a swirling of wave energy that replaces the individual expansions of wave energy of the parents, and that swirling defines and takes place during the the compression phase, in the volume of medium immediately surrounding the point of convergence.

By definition, the pinhole location is a point in space, but the pinhole itself is never a point which has no volume. The zero volume point is a location in the medium, and the volume of the pinhole before the spherical wave emerges is an overlap surrounding that location in which the pressure of the medium is increased, and that increase is equivalent to the combined energy of the wave segments that are encompassed by the overlap space.

The emergence of the pinhole wave carries that conserved wave energy of the parent waves, i.e. the new compression is transitioned to a spherically expanding out flowing compression wave.

Thus from the pre-convergence state, through the convergence state, and to the spherical wave emergence state, there is a duration called the pinhole period. During the pinhole period the pinhole action that takes place is described as a new compression of the medium; the swirling rendezvous where the wave energy of the parent waves mingles and mixes into a higher compression pinhole. That new compression begins at the location of the intersection of the two parent waves, and encompasses the compression of the medium in the overlap space surrounding the point of convergence. The compression equates to the combined wave energy of the two parent waves in the overlap space. The nature of pinhole action is that the conserved energy is converted to a spherically expanding wave that emerges from the compression.
(5952)

 

[quantum_wave]

This post fits here even though it is in response to a separate discussion elsewhere as we discuss our different models.

To be sure, there are many ways that the mechanics could work when we don't have the ability to actually put them to the test experimentally.

He mentioned The Return Wave as a feature of his version of the huygens type wave advance and it has an interesting correlation to my concept of energy density equalization that takes place behind the advancing wave front. If you follow my version of the birth of a new compression wave, i.e. the pinhole wave that emerges from the convergence of parent waves, you might note that we have a different concept of parent waves. Your picture shows parent waves along the arrow of time as the radius of the spherical wave increases, if I am not mistaken. Each circle represents the advancing wave front?

The pinholes in my version are caused by the wave front converging with the wave fronts of other waves, based on the idea that there is wave energy traversing the medium to and from all directions throughout the medium. It would be proper to say that in my model, the individual pinhole waves play a mutual role in the advance of each of the converging wave fronts. Half of the emerging pinhole wave advances one of the parents and the opposite half of the emerging pinhole wave advances the wave front of the other parent.

Taking that concept a step further, hypothetically, if a given wave front is advancing through a waveless medium, it traverses that medium at the maximum possible velocity allowed by the basic constant pressure of a waveless medium (a naturally imposed limit). Once we change the concept from a single wave to waves advancing through the normal medium with waves coming and going in all directions, the given wave traverses the medium slower because each pinhole wave that occurs along the increasing surface of its wave front invokes a time delay. It follows then that the intensity of wave action in a given patch of medium will influence the velocity of waves traversing the medium.

As for the energy density equalization of the expanding spherical wave as it employs the pinhole technique to advance, the pressure of the volume of the parent wave is continually changing, and it is that pressure behind the wave front that is continually in the process of equalizing. The interruptions of the advancing spherical wave with other waves causes the pinholes mechanism to operate, and the pressure along the advancing front is always higher than the pressure of the expanding spherical wave behind the front, and to compound the complexity of the the pressure behind an advancing wave front, the waves not only share the pinhole action as they advance, but the parent waves are also passing through each other in the medium after their initial convergence, and so the convergence of each parent with the pressure behind the initial wave front convergences continues to be the source of new pinholes.

Picturing those mechanics, the entire foundational medium is continually peppered by new pinhole action everywhere, and it is only the slight variations in the pressure and intensity of that vast sea of continually emerging pinholes that differentiates one advancing parent wave from another.
(6134)