Is there a medium "in space", a medium "of space", neither, or both?

[quantum_wave]

Is there a medium in space, a medium of space, neither, or both?
Definition of "medium" for this question:
A medium in this sense is an undetectable commodity that carries gravitational wave energy. Waves would expand spherically through this medium and would intersect and overlap. The waves would carry energy through the medium, and the energy in a wave would be subject to the inverse square law, i.e. a wave's total energy would always be the same until the wave front is interrupted, and the intensity of that energy at the advancing spherical wave front would decline in proportion to the square of its radius. Waves expanding spherically through this medium would intersect, and when they do, the energy at the intersection/overlap would equal the sum of the energy of the two intersecting wave fronts, i.e. there would be a high energy spot in the overlap space. Those high energy density spots would merge the wave energy of the two "parent" wave fronts, and that equalized high energy density spot would itself expand as a new independent wave front that would trend toward a spherically expanding wave front as the radius increases. The new wave front would intersect and overlap with other wave fronts, and each intersection would produce a new wave with the sum of the parent energy wave fronts. There need not be any first wave if wave energy in the medium has always existed and if wave energy is conserved. The commodity that makes up the medium must be compressible to carry wave energy in the advancing wave fronts. That is the definition of the "medium" for the question, "Is there a medium in space, a medium of space, neither, or both?"

 

[origin]

Is there a medium in space, a medium of space, neither, or both?
Definition of "medium" for this question:
A medium in this sense is an undetectable commodity that carries gravitational wave energy. Waves would expand spherically through this medium and would intersect and overlap. The waves would carry energy through the medium, and the energy in a wave would be subject to the inverse square law, i.e. a wave's total energy would always be the same until the wave front is interrupted, and the intensity of that energy at the advancing spherical wave front would decline in proportion to the square of its radius. Waves expanding spherically through this medium would intersect, and when they do, the energy at the intersection/overlap would equal the sum of the energy of the two intersecting wave fronts, i.e. there would be a high energy spot in the overlap space. Those high energy density spots would merge the wave energy of the two "parent" wave fronts, and that equalized high energy density spot would itself expand as a new independent wave front that would trend toward a spherically expanding wave front as the radius increases. The new wave front would intersect and overlap with other wave fronts, and each intersection would produce a new wave with the sum of the parent energy wave fronts. There need not be any first wave if wave energy in the medium has always existed and if wave energy is conserved. The commodity that makes up the medium must be compressible to carry wave energy in the advancing wave fronts. That is the definition of the "medium" for the question, "Is there a medium in space, a medium of space, neither, or both?"

Neither. No medium is required for the transport of energy according to current theories. GR idicates that gravitational waves are a distortion of space time that propegates at the speed of light, again no need for a medium.

If you are proposing an alternative theory then you are in the wrong section of the forum.

 

[rpenner]

Definition of "medium" for this question:
A medium in this sense is an undetectable commodity that carries gravitational wave energy.

Almost certainly the non-applicability of this definition to any observed phenomena makes it non-useful for physics discussion.

 

[Farsight]

Is there a medium in space, a medium of space, neither, or both?

The latter. Space is a medium. Waves run through it. It isn't nothing. It's like some kind of gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly. See Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address where he said this:

"This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty."

But you shouldn't insist on spherical wave fronts, and IMHO it's better to refer to electromagnetic waves rather than gravitational waves.

 

[quantum_wave]

Almost certainly the non-applicability of this definition to any observed phenomena makes it non-useful for physics discussion.

That could be argued from a couple of angles. The observed phenomenon I have in mind is gravity, and the applicability of waves and gravity is not in question, is it? There are currently several major efforts around the globe to detect gravity waves and the direction of their source. I thought that gravity waves and their means of propagation through space is as yet undetected and unknown. But I'm not going to question your position on the specific definition in the OP. I put you down as "neither", and I don't challenge the applicability of the definition to any physics discussion with you.

 

[quantum_wave]

The latter. Space is a medium. Waves run through it. It isn't nothing. It's like some kind of gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly.

I thought that if you responded, you would be in the "both" category, remembering your comments from our discussions a few months ago.

If I may say off topic, the definition of the medium that I offer in the OP mentions "compressibility" which differs from the "jelly" you mention in a simple way. A jelly seems to refer to the viscosity of the medium. Compressibility refers to the ability of the medium to host multiple gravitational waves from all directions. What you refer to as some kind of ghostly elastic jelly makes me think that you are saying that the jelly gets thicker as waves approach massive objects, and the effect of compressibility accomplishes that as you approach massive object because there are simply more gravity waves traversing the space as you get closer and closer to massive objects.

Your jelly then is similar to my increased wave energy density near mass. Your jelly acts like mud at the side of the road causing particles and EM to curve as if being bogged down by the mud. My reference to compressibility that allows more wave energy to occupy a given volume of space means increased wave energy density slows the velocity of gravity waves, and photon energy (EM) because there is a time delay in the advance of the wave involved with each tiny wave intersection event. There are far more such events as waves traverse high wave energy density space nearer and nearer to massive objects like the sun.
...

But you shouldn't insist on spherical wave fronts, and IMHO it's better to refer to electromagnetic waves rather than gravitational waves.

The reference to spherical waves is to gravity waves, not EM. And the waves are only spherical until interrupted by intersecting with other gravity waves, which is the tiniest of distances in the energy filled medium of space. The greater the wave, the longer the spherical designation applies; for example a Big Bang wave would look spherical until the intersect with another Big Bang wave of energy. But that would be getting into alternative theory, and the thread topic is fully defined in the OP.

The intent of the thread is a question to the members. I'm not proposing any new theory; wave theories have long been associated with gravity, and have been discussed here in this sub-forum many times. Instead, I am asking a question in order to find out if there are some members willing to say if they think in terms of: 1) a medium in space, 2) a medium of space, 3) neither or 4) both. I have you down as "both".

 

[Farsight]

I thought that if you responded, you would be in the "both" category, remembering your comments from our discussions a few months ago.

I struggled a bit deciding what to say. I said the latter because sometimes people say "space is filled with a medium" and IMHO space is the medium.

If I may say off topic, the definition of the medium that I offer in the OP mentions "compressibility" which differs from the "jelly" you mention in a simple way. A jelly seems to refer to the viscosity of the medium. Compressibility refers to the ability of the medium to host multiple gravitational waves from all directions. What you refer to as some kind of ghostly elastic jelly makes me think that you are saying that the jelly gets thicker as waves approach massive objects, and the effect of compressibility accomplishes that as you approach massive object because there are simply more gravity waves traversing the space as you get closer and closer to massive objects.

I'd go along with that apart from the "more gravity waves". Like I said, I think it's best not to refer to them because we haven't detected them.

Your jelly then is similar to my increased wave energy density near mass. Your jelly acts like mud at the side of the road causing particles and EM to curve as if being bogged down by the mud. My reference to compressibility that allows more wave energy to occupy a given volume of space means increased wave energy density slows the velocity of gravity waves, and photon energy (EM) because there is a time delay in the advance of the wave involved with each tiny wave intersection event. There are far more such events as waves traverse high wave energy density space nearer and nearer to massive objects like the sun.

I think you should avoid things like "each tiny wave intersection event". A black hole has an immense gravitational field, but the space around the black hole is not dynamical seething mass of waves because of the immense gravitational time dilation. Instead it's static.

The reference to spherical waves is to gravity waves, not EM. And the waves are only spherical until interrupted by intersecting with other gravity waves, which is the tiniest of distances in the energy filled medium of space. The greater the wave, the longer the spherical designation applies; for example a Big Bang wave would look spherical until the intersect with another Big Bang wave of energy. But that would be getting into alternative theory, and the thread topic is fully defined in the OP.

I think you're getting speculative with the gravity waves, and you'd be better of sticking with light waves. See for example Ned Wright's deflection and delay of light. And Einstein's Leyden Address etc.

The intent of the thread is a question to the members. I'm not proposing any new theory; wave theories have long been associated with gravity, and have been discussed here in this sub-forum many times. Instead, I am asking a question in order to find out if there are some members willing to say if they think in terms of: 1) a medium in space, 2) a medium of space, 3) neither or 4) both. I have you down as "both".

If you want to talk "both", then let me throw you this curve ball: a photon is both an electromagnetic wave and a gravitational wave.

 

[origin]

If you want to talk "both", then let me throw you this curve ball: a photon is both an electromagnetic wave and a gravitational wave.

What is your evidence that a photon is a gravity wave?

 

[dav57]

There is most definitely an ether-like substance permeating space, and what's more, it's detectable because it distorts in the presence of matter and bends light as well as creates gravity. it's a soup which distorts at proximity to mass because mass repels it, thus creating a more dense soup adjacent to mass. As the mass gets huge it repels the soup to the point that the density becomes huge and at that point even light can't get past (this is the event horizon of a black hole). The soup enables transfer of data as change occurs and the density change affects change measurements (time and length) as well as the path of light i.e. light is nothing more than data/energy transfer and it takes the path of least change required. In other words, where energy transfer has a choice of going through a less dense soup node or a more dense soup node it will take the more dense node because that data transfer would occur before the less dense node data transfer. that's why light passing a large star is bent, basically because it is confronted with varying densities to its left and right. It takes the route which allows fewest nodal soup changes to arrive at the same point.

The soup also repels itself as well as matter, which is why space is accelerating apart. The result is that light gets stretched along with the fabric it is using to travel across. The variable density of the soup is also responsible for gravity. Two pieces of matter adjacent to each other in an ether-like field whereby they both exert 'pressure' on the surrounding field will exert less overall pressure if they come together as one (a bit like two balls placed on a rubber sheet but in 3d). So they do. And this effect would be more powerful if 1. there was more mass to create more pressure and 2. the two bits of mass were closer.

It all seems so obvious to me and yes I am probably mad.

 

[quantum_wave]

Farsight, I want to maintain the nature of this thread to be as stated in the OP, based on the attitude of the member who objected to this thread if it was an alternative theory. I also want to be responsive to meaningful comments about the definition of "medium" in the OP when the responses from the members do address the definition.

I acknowledge that the definition does come from my threads in the Fringe sub-forums where I say I don't invoke Spacetime in my hobby-model, but I do accept the EFEs as the best math we have to quantify the effect of gravity. However, the Spacetime explanation that accompanies the math does not describe the mechanism of gravity. A model featuring wave energy density in the "medium" of space does a better job of that because the mechanics of wave energy density express how/why clocks in relative motion measure time at different rates. But I'm not selling my layman science enthusiast hobby model right now. What I'm doing here is getting input from members who are willing to share their answer to the question in the OP, and your statement that "space is the medium" should probably be responded to on that basis.

I struggled a bit deciding what to say. I said the latter because sometimes people say "space is filled with a medium" and IMHO space is the medium.

I offer the choice in the OP, and you found it more correct to say "both" when you first responded. Then you clarify in your follow up explanation that you prefer the "medium of space". My position is that you are correct in a cosmological sense.

However, space has volume in 3-D in the geometric sense, and a medium filling all space is a cosmological position of what fills those three dimensions. I would say that it is in line with the OP definition of "medium" to refer to the "medium of space" which is the cosmological position that the volume of space is filled with a medium.

I'd go along with that apart from the "more gravity waves". Like I said, I think it's best not to refer to them because we haven't detected them.

GR predicts gravity waves. There is a world wide effort to position detectors around the globe to triangulate the source of any huge cosmic events that might be detected. See Paddoboy's thread on the topic. Here is the link

I think you should avoid things like "each tiny wave intersection event". A black hole has an immense gravitational field, but the space around the black hole is not dynamical seething mass of waves because of the immense gravitational time dilation. Instead it's static.

GR has gravity waves too. When massive objects interrupt the spacetime geodesic, as I understand it, energy ripples through the fabric of spacetime. An object entering a black hole would be the ultimate interruption, lol. It has to produce a gravity wave, just like two neutron stars colliding would. On that basis, a particle entering a black hole would produce a tiny gravity wave as well. The mechanics may be different in spacetime than they are in the "medium" of space, but both positions predict them.

I think you're getting speculative with the gravity waves, and you'd be better of sticking with light waves. See for example Ned Wright's deflection and delay of light. And Einstein's Leyden Address etc.

Gravity and light are two different things. Gravity waves are as yet undetected, and light waves are easily detectible.

If you want to talk "both", then let me throw you this curve ball: a photon is both an electromagnetic wave and a gravitational wave.

That is not a curve ball. Particle-wave duality is a fact of nature. Photons exhibit their wave nature as they move through the medium of space, and they have particle characteristics when their path is interrupted by encountering particles or objects.

 

[quantum_wave]

There is most definitely an ether-like substance permeating space, and what's more, it's detectable because it distorts in the presence of matter and bends light as well as creates gravity. it's a soup which distorts at proximity to mass because mass repels it, thus creating a more dense soup adjacent to mass. As the mass gets huge it repels the soup to the point that the density becomes huge and at that point even light can't get past (this is the event horizon of a black hole). The soup enables transfer of data as change occurs and the density change affects change measurements (time and length) as well as the path of light i.e. light is nothing more than data/energy transfer and it takes the path of least change required. In other words, where energy transfer has a choice of going through a less dense soup node or a more dense soup node it will take the more dense node because that data transfer would occur before the less dense node data transfer. that's why light passing a large star is bent, basically because it is confronted with varying densities to its left and right. It takes the route which allows fewest nodal soup changes to arrive at the same point.

The soup also repels itself as well as matter, which is why space is accelerating apart. The result is that light gets stretched along with the fabric it is using to travel across. The variable density of the soup is also responsible for gravity. Two pieces of matter adjacent to each other in an ether-like field whereby they both exert 'pressure' on the surrounding field will exert less overall pressure if they come together as one (a bit like two balls placed on a rubber sheet but in 3d). So they do. And this effect would be more powerful if 1. there was more mass to create more pressure and 2. the two bits of mass were closer.

It all seems so obvious to me and yes I am probably mad.

Can I consider your answer to be "both"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you say about detectability is more about what we observe in the path of light and objects as they traverse the medium of space surrounding massive objects, and not the detectability of the "medium" as defined in the OP.

 

[wellwisher]

If space is not a medium, how can space be bent or curved, while being defined as the nothing between objects?

 

[Farsight]

What is your evidence that a photon is a gravity wave?

It conveys inertia. See Einstein's E=mc² paper and note the last line: If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies. And inertial mass is the same as active gravitational mass.

quantum_wave: your comment noted. I don't think there's much more that I can add.

 

[quantum_wave]

If space is not a medium, how can space be bent or curved, while being defined as the nothing between objects?

Is that a "both" response, or would you distinguish between "medium in space" and "medium of space".

Not that my answer to your question will be satisfactory, but the choice is between curved spacetime and a "medium" of or in space; not the same things.

 

[quantum_wave]

It conveys inertia. See Einstein's E=mc² paper and note the last line: If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies. And inertial mass is the same as active gravitational mass.

quantum_wave: your comment noted. I don't think there's much more that I can add.

Fine, but can you answer off topic questions and challenges by PM and not cause my thread to get off topic? I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself, lol.

 

[OnlyMe]

What is your evidence that a photon is a gravity wave?

Origin, I don't have a specific reference for you right now, I recently lost about two years of notes from research papers in a reinstall from backup.., but there is some suggestion from Puthoff, Rueda, Haisch and others, working within the context of SED that inertia and perhaps eventually gravity can be explained by the interaction of very high frequency photons of the ZPF with matter, as a transfer of momentum...

It conveys inertia. See Einstein's E=mc² paper and note the last line: If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies. And inertial mass is the same as active gravitational mass.

The problem from where I see it, with both the work mentioned above and your statement, is that they tend to lead toward a shadow gravity model (which carries a great deal of baggage and unexplained problems of its own), once one incorporates the fact that photons are dynamic.., as in they travel from a source to destination.

Note: This is not the way Puthoff, Rueda, Haisch and others have been modeling inertia and gravity. The potential for a push gravity interpretation is purely an extension of the incorporation of photons as momentum force carriers.., or that there is a momentum relationship between the interaction between charged particles and the very high frequency (short wavelength) EM photons of the ZPF. I am not an expert in either QED or SED, but their work seems to focus more on the ZPF as an isotropic background and the interactions, inertial or gravitational, as boundary condition interactions between charged particles and an isotropic ZPF...

 

[quantum_wave]

Origin, I don't have a specific reference for you right now, I recently lost about two years of notes from research papers in a reinstall from backup.., but there is some suggestion from Puthoff, Rueda, Haisch and others, working within the context of SED that inertia and perhaps eventually gravity can be explained by the interaction of very high frequency photons of the ZPF with matter, as a transfer of momentum...



The problem from where I see it, with both the work mentioned above and your statement, is that they tend to lead toward a shadow gravity model (which carries a great deal of baggage and unexplained problems of its own), once one incorporates the fact that photons are dynamic.., as in they travel from a source to destination.

Note: This is not the way Puthoff, Rueda, Haisch and others have been modeling inertia and gravity. The potential for a push gravity interpretation is purely an extension of the incorporation of photons as momentum force carriers.., or that there is a momentum relationship between the interaction between charged particles and the very high frequency (short wavelength) EM photons of the ZPF. I am not an expert in either QED or SED, but their work seems to focus more on the ZPF as an isotropic background and the interactions, inertial or gravitational, as boundary condition interactions between charged particles and an isotropic ZPF...

Would you take a second and answer the question in the OP. It helps me understand your comments.

 

[Farsight]

...The problem from where I see it, with both the work mentioned above and your statement, is that they tend to lead toward a shadow gravity model...

Absolutely not. I'm quoting Einstein and talking relativity.

 

[OnlyMe]

Would you take a second and answer the question in the OP. It helps me understand your comments.

The answer depends upon from where you approach the question. Personally, from what I imagine you are asking, I have no absolute answer....

If you accept that within the context of QM space is empty, you could say that ZPE or the associated ZPF, fill that empty space and may act as a medium in some circumstances. But, while there may be some connection between the ZPF and inertia and gravitation, it would not be the light conveying medium associated with the aether of the pre-Einstein, world of physics.

Note, I said pre-Einstein rather than pre-Michelson and Morley, because without our interpretation of Einstein's special relativity the M&M experiments returned nothing but null results.., they failed to detect, rather than proved the existence or non-existence of the luminiferous aether, they were attempting to measure.

2nd Note, notice that I said "our interpretation" of special relativity.., I did so because as special relativity was introduced it only claimed there was no need to use the Aether to explain observation. It did not claim there was none, we or subsequent interpretation interpreted the inability to detect something, as a proof that it did not exist.

That should be enough to stimulate some controversy, no?

 

[OnlyMe]

Absolutely not. I'm quoting Einstein and talking relativity.

Relativity does not describe the mechanism. It just describes the kinetic interaction(s). How objects interact with each other with respect to gravitation.