Man on the Street dialogs about The Infinite Spongy Universe Model

[quantum_wave]

MOS: Balloons? Okay, you get all the fun, ha.

QW:
Single Photon Experiment seems to have weird conclusions:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html

"The formation of the interference pattern requires the existence of two slits, but how can a single photon passing through one slit `know' about the existence of the other slit? We are stuck going back to thinking of each photon as a wave that hits both slits. Or we have to think of the photon as splitting and going through each slit separately (but how does the photon know a pair of slits is coming?). The only solution is to give up the idea of a photon or an electron having location. The location of a subatomic particle is not defined until it is observed (such as striking a screen)."
[End of quote]

QW: That certainly sounds like the science is settled; they ask how a single photon can go through both slits, and conclude it can't, saying, "The only solution is to give up the idea of a photon or an electron having location." "At least not unless the photon can somehow know there are two slits ahead", and suggests in that case that "maybe the particles split themselves in two, "the location is not defined until observed".

It reminds me of the conclusion from the Bell Inequalities experiments that conclude that there can be no local reality unless we accept faster than light communications, i.e., the particles somehow "know" when the state of the other one is determined, and then respond. I think there is natural, consistent law that determines those things, and we have to keep looking for the mechanisms. See the next link below.

Here is good solution, and it is much like what I propose in my model:

http://phys.org/news/2011-06-quantum-physics-photons-two-slit-interferometer.html

"That famous experiment, and the 1927 Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein debates, seemed to establish that you could not watch a particle go through one of two slits without destroying the interference effect: you had to choose which phenomenon to look for.

"Quantum measurement has been the philosophical elephant in the room of quantum mechanics for the past century," says Steinberg, who is lead author of Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer, to be published in Science on June 2. "However, in the past 10 to 15 years, technology has reached the point where detailed experiments on individual quantum systems really can be done, with potential applications such as quantum cryptography and computation."

With this new experiment, the researchers have succeeded for the first time in experimentally reconstructing full trajectories which provide a description of how light particles move through the two slits and form an interference pattern. Their technique builds on a new theory of weak measurement that was developed by Yakir Aharonov's group at Tel Aviv University. Howard Wiseman of Griffith University proposed that it might be possible to measure the direction a photon (particle of light) was moving, conditioned upon where the photon is found. By combining information about the photon's direction at many different points, one could construct its entire flow pattern ie. the trajectories it takes to a screen.

"In our experiment, a new single-photon source developed at the National Institute for Standards and Technology in Colorado was used to send photons one by one into an interferometer constructed at Toronto. We then used a quartz calcite, which has an effect on light that depends on the direction the light is propagating, to measure the direction as a function of position. Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie," said Steinberg.

The original double-slit experiment played a central role in the early development of quantum mechanics, leading directly to Bohr's formulation of the principle of complementarity. Complementarity states that observing particle-like or wave-like behaviour in the double-slit experiment depends on the type of measurement made: the system cannot behave as both a particle and wave simultaneously. Steinberg's recent experiment suggests this doesn't have to be the case: the system can behave as both."
[End of quote]

QW: I have proposed that the photon has both its wave and particle states at all times; the high density spots establish its location, and the direction of the inflowing wave energy determines the direction where the next set of spots will form. It depends on our method of observations as to which state we observe. This article seems to agree, and suggests they have the beginnings of physical evidence.

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: Okay, let me test my understanding, in a recap description, for the record; too long to read, ha.:

Given that the electron is composed of standing wave energy in quantum increments, and the complex standing wave pattern has an inflowing and an out flowing wave energy component, the waves that make up the electron are themselves traversing the medium of space at the local speed of light. The medium that hosts the electron is called the "foundational medium" which is akin to the quantum foam in Quantum Mechanics. The emission of the photon from the electron is like an energy relief valve to regulate the energy contained in the electron. The electron's energy is regulated to the wave energy density of the surrounding local environment, so as the energy density of the local environment increases, more photons will be emitted, and vice versa.

The photon is emitted by the electron at the speed of light, which would be like a discrete piece of the election's standing wave pattern was ejected from the election, as the electron was itself traversing its orbital, or its allotted position relative to the nucleus, at the speed of light.

The ejected photon, a stable standing wave pattern in its own right, with a precise amount of energy based on its internal high density spot/wave combinations, speeds off in one direction at the speed of light, getting all of its inflowing wave energy component from the foundational medium, and from the forward direction only.

Once the photon is on its path, the light/gravitational energy is emitted spherically from the boundary of the particle's standing wave pattern as it speeds through the medium of space at the speed of light. The out flow is a spherical "merging" of all of the tiny spherical waves emitted by the high energy density spots at the surface of the photon's standing wave pattern. As a wild ballpark guess, it is made of maybe millions of tiny spherical waves leaving the surface of the standing wave from all points around the surface of the photon's particle space. These tiny out flowing waves effectively join into a single spherical wave energy emission from the surface, equal in all directions; one set for each quantum period. The quantum period is the length of time it takes for all of the internal high energy density spots to be refreshed by the directionally inflowing oscillations of the foundational wave energy that is ever present in the background.

The wave-particle image shows 20 quantum periods, which implies that a quantum period is the length of time it takes for one complete set of high density spots to be refreshed from the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy component. That would logically determine its frequency. More spots means higher energy and higher frequency and shorter wavelength.

As the photon moves, it continually emits this out flowing wave energy from the surface, which physically evolves into an lopsided trailing balloon of light energy shown in the image. It travels at the local speed of light in all directions, but since the emitting photon is also traveling at the speed of light, the forward wave front of the balloon, which is just keeping up with the photon, is flattened and broadened out relative to the photon particle's standing wave pattern.

As the spherical wave emanates from the particle space, each moment in time means that the trailing spherical wave will have expanded a little, and the one before that a little more, and so on until somewhere behind in the medium of space, the older spherical waves will have greater and greater radii, and at the leading front, the newest spherical waves will be less expanded, right up to the one just being emitted.

That action makes the out flowing wave energy component look like a trailing balloon, inflating from the inflow of wave energy from the direction of motion, and expanding spherically from the photon particle. The photon particle would be there at the advancing front where the balloon originates, and the trailing balloon would appear to be inflating as each previous spherical out flowing wave expanded in the medium of space.

Look closely and you can see that the front edge of the ballon will consist of the front edge of every spherically out flowing wave, and would appear flattened and broadened relative to the photon particle space because the older out flowing waves will be more and more expanded, broadening and flattening the wave front.

So from a perspective of riding on the photon like a little speeding light/gravity wave- emitting chariot, the forward speed of the wave energy balloon will be equal to the forward speed of the photon's standing wave pattern; the local speed of light.

QW: Yes, essentially.

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: Up until this thread, you have clearly been focusing on your explanation of gravity as one of the key claims, i.e., particles and objects move in the direction of the net highest directional wave energy density in the inflowing wave energy component of the standing wave pattern. Now, for the first time, I see you have made a connection between light and gravity in regard to the out flowing wave energy component of the standing wave pattern, and have introduced the word "oscillation" when talking about the foundational medium of space.

Among other things, I have always associated "oscillation" with the radio antenna and the resulting radio waves that are produced. Is there a connection between the way you use oscillations in the foundational medium, with the way radio waves are emitted and received?

QW: Why yes. Radio waves, like all other electromagnetic waves, carry energy. The reason you don't need any power source to operate a crystal radio is that the energy is provided by the transmitter and carried in the radio waves themselves. The transmitting antenna oscillates at a given frequency, and an electromagnetic wave is generated. When that wave is picked up by distant antenna, the oscillations in the electromagnetic wave are converted to sound in a tiny ear phone. No battery is needed to listen the a crystal radio.

Please note that the oscillations are not peculiar to electromagnetic waves. The premise that the light/gravity wave connection features waves that act as both electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves, points to the fact that there are many radio sources in the cosmos that are also some of the most massive gravitational wave energy sources as well.

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: We have talked about the confusion you generate by calling gravitational waves by that name, i.e., failing to distinguish between the consensus definition of the mechanics of a gravitational waves, and the mechanics of your version as described in recent posts. How are they different and why continue the confusion by not distinguishing between the two types of gravitational waves, theirs and yours?

QW: This is a good place to mention that. We call the consensus gravitational wave one that the interferometers are able to detect, i.e., the ones that cause a displacement of objects in space (spacetime) as they pass. They are "ripples" in spacetime that cause a difference in distance in two perpendicular directions with the frequency of the gravitational wave. Do they actually exist? Not yet in my model because I don't invoke spacetime; I'll wait until they find them to address that, lol.

Here is an image from BICEP2 B-mode signal, that caused a lot of excitement in 2014 about the detection of Big Bang gravitational waves, that depicts how they might look if they affected the polarization of electromagnetic waves:

Here is a an article by Harry Collins about that discovery and why he says no, not yet. The article is in a blog post, but it does cover the topic of different kinds of gravitational waves and the methods of detection. Worth reading:
http://urania-josegalisifilho.blogspot.com/2014_03_01_archive.html

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: I have a suggestion. Why not call your waves gravity waves, and theirs gravitational waves?

QW: Yes, that works if you are clear that in my model, every particle and object emits gravity waves, and there are no such things as the GR ripples in spacetime that are called gravitational waves in GR/BBT.

Photons are supposed to be among the particles that have no rest mass, and they always traverse the medium of space at the local speed of light/gravity. Most other particles don't come close to meeting those restrictions. However, there is a glitch there between the standard model and my model, because in mine, the photon has an equivalent to rest mass, as well as its relativistic mass. I talk about the photon as if it has location and momentum at all times, just like other particles and objects. It is the nature of wave-particle duality.

And like other particles with motion through the medium of space, they follow curved paths that are governed by the wave energy density and density fluctuations in the gradient of the medium of space.

The curved path is the result of the fact that the gradient reflects the history of motion of massive objects whose gravity waves are impressed on the background, i.e., the gravity waves are carried by the foundational medium. Gravity guides all objects through the medium, and they are almost always in the process of moving in the direction of the highest net directionally inflowing wave energy density; they "fall" toward where massive objects guiding them were when those objects emitted their gravity waves.

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: So if both electromagnetic waves (light), and gravity waves have frequencies, is there a gravity wave spectrum like there is an electromagnetic wave spectrum?.

QW: Yes, there is. The wavelength of massive objects, though, is very long, and as yet undetectable, relative to the electromagnetic waves (EM//light/gravity waves) emitted by photons.

A radio wave might have a wavelength the size of a tall building, and a gamma ray might be the size of the nucleus of an atom, but a gravitational wave emission from a tall building would be very long relative to any light wave, but short relative to a moon or a planet. So the gravity wave spectrum would be much wider than the EM spectrum, since all EM would be at the short wavelength end of the spectrum relative and gravity waves from very massive objects, which would be at the other end, and would include waves so long that they are barely interrupted when passing a tall building, lol.

To measure the frequency or wavelength of a gravitational wave from an electron or proton requires estimating the number of high energy density spots within their standing wave patterns at any instant, and determining the relationship of the volume to the surface area, and making some hypothesis about the average refresh rate throughout the particle. I did that a few years ago when I did that wild guess of the number quanta in the electron and proton.

I'll do another post to bring in those calculations, but the conclusion was that a wild guess at a ball park figure is that the electron has perhaps hundreds of millions of quanta, as defined in this model, and a proton might have hundreds of billions :shrug:. Their corresponding wavelengths from a gravitational wave perspective would still be short relative to the wavelength of even a small object.

Here is one link for consideration on the topic:
http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/gwave_spectrum.html

 

[quantum_wave]

Earlier I said I would post the thinking behind my conclusion that an electron might have perhaps hundreds of millions of quantum units, as defined in this model, and a proton might have hundreds of billions :shrug:.

Within the wave-particles, spherical waves are bursting out of high density spots (HDS), expanding, overlapping, and forming new HDSs within the proton. It is a continual process where the wave energy out flow that escapes the proton from the surface spherically (equal in all directions) is replaced by wave energy arriving at the surface (directionally) from the out flow of wave energy from other particles and objects. Thus the presence of the proton is maintained by the inflowing and out flowing standing wave action.

Let’s say that we can freeze the quantum action process that has established the presence of a proton. That freeze frame will contain a finite number of spherical quantum waves in overlap positions within the proton. Each overlap is a high density spot in my jargon. There are a finite number of high density spots within the particle space where the spherical waves have overlapped at the moment of the freeze frame.

For convenience and by convention, when describing the photon earlier, for each HDS, there was what I call a quantum unit. Each quantum unit includes a HDS and a portion of the "parent" spherical waves that produce it, so a quantum unit is equal to two quanta. That amount of energy is a representation of the internal energy distribution within the proton. So the proton contains a number of quantum units that has a 1:2 relationship to the number of quanta.

The question is, from what we know about the proton at rest, and from what I hypothesize about the process of quantum action at the foundational level, can we derive a ball park figure or even a wild guess of the number of quantum units within a proton?

In this exercise the units of measure don’t work unless we define the whole exercise in terms of a new unit, i.e. a “quantum energy unit” that occupies an average amount of space per quantum unit in the freeze frame of the standing wave pattern of a proton.

We are not talking about energy in joules, because the units of measure wouldn’t work. We are talking about energy in quantum units.

I am using the approximate ratio of the rest energy of an electron vs. a proton, which is 1/1836, to equate the number of quantum units in the proton to the number of units in the electron which gives me some basis for a calculation.

In addition, I am supposing that the number of quantum units in an electron is equal to the number of quantum units at the surface of the proton for various reasons, but for this exercise that is just to have a relationship to allow us to do the calculations.

Area/Volume = (4 pi r^2)/(4/3 pi r^3) = 3/r = 1/1836, given the assumption above.
Therefore r=3*1836 = 5508, thus the radius of the proton is equal to 5508 quantum units.

4 pi r^2 = surface area of a sphere
4/3 pi r^3 = volume of a sphere
pi = 3.14159265

Quantum units in an electron = 381,239,356
Quantum units in a proton = 699,955,457,517

I'll just call it 400 million and 700 billion respectively, or even just hundreds of millions and hundreds of billions respectively :shrug:.

A quantum unit = 2 quanta in my model.

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: You are pulling in all of the ideas from your past threads.

QW: As this thread develops it is becoming the updated current version of my model. I haven't made a conscientious effort to pull in all the past ideas that still stand, but I see no reason not to do that. It isn't really a discussion if no one participates, so the "Man on the Street" technique becomes a dialog that gives me freedom to go where I want with it. While I decide the next topic to bring in, pause here and view this great video, posted by BdS over on Futilitist's thread.

 

[quantum_wave]

QW: The video link in the last post was taken down by YouTube, but I found the same video and posted the link to Futilitist's thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-the-big-bang-just-a-temporal-illusion.152791/page-5#post-3360061

As far as the material in past threads that still stands, I may bring some of it into this thread as time goes by, but right now I am focusing on going forward with my speculations.

MOS: I see that you have been busy in the Science sub forums, and not very active out here in AltTheroy for the last month or so??

QW: That is true, but as has been the case here, participation over there goes at a slow pace. While I wait for members to participate in my Science sub-forum threads, I will do some more modeling out here for the fun of pursuing my hobby of having a personal supposed understanding .

In my thread, "Spooky or not spooky, that is the question", there is an attempt at brainstorming how the "spookiness" of QM might be explained mechanistically in terms of the oscillating background, and the structure and composition of particles, as I have described them in my layman science enthusiast model. I'll bring that into this thread by reference to that link.

Picking up from that thread, http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sp...at-is-the-question.155134/page-5#post-3361840, the discussion is up to the point where we have introduced the oscillating background and added the presence of wave energy associated with matter; particles, EM, and gravity waves, and that led me to mention the layers of wave action and the fluctuating wave energy density in a complex patch of space that contains matter and energy, super imposed on the oscillating background.

I still encourage member participation over in the "Spooky or not spooky" thread, but while I wait for a response to my latest posts over there, I would like to pick up here, where members expect my speculations. Moving on, I will explore what I think the composition and structure of an electron, and other atomic particles, atoms, and molecules might have to be like in order for them to act the way they do in the Stern-Gerlach experiments and other experiments that are used to highlight the "spookiness" of QM.

In the interest of doing that, first, here is a link to start with:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment

Also, I referenced "Atomic Physics" by Max Born, and there is a wealth of material in that book about the nature of atomic and sub-atomic particles and molecules, and about spin, and the development of what we know about spin over the years from the 1920's to the 1980's. Wiki picks up from there for the 1990s and on, as far as my layman level references go.

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: Nothing is happening on your thread over in the Science section, so are you at a point to move forward, or wait?
QW: The way I choose to go forward from ...:

Picking up from that thread, http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sp...at-is-the-question.155134/page-5#post-3361840, the discussion is up to the point where we have introduced the oscillating background and added the presence of wave energy associated with matter; particles, EM, and gravity waves, and that led me to mention the layers of wave action and the fluctuating wave energy density in a complex patch of space that contains matter and energy, super imposed on the oscillating background.

... is to clarify the concept of particles and waves that are "super imposed" on the oscillating foundational background, thus picturing the background without the presence of imposed particles and waves. The easiest way to do that is to assert that without the presence of matter, there would be no EM and no gravity waves traversing the background, just the regular, repetitive wave/spot/wave oscillations at a given frequency (let's call it the foundational frequency). Given that statement, I can go forward by speculating about the insertion of a single particle on the oscillating background.

What makes such a speculation complex, is that the particle can't exist without the background, and so the particle itself fits into, and is very much like the oscillating background of which it is a part (and of which the particle partly consists of). Notably however, the particle at rest has a finite and stable boundary within the boundless oscillating background. That boundary is called a complex standing wave pattern that I hypothesize all particles are characterized by. The complex standing wave patterns would have to be different for each type of particle. Yet, each type of particle, and it's particular standing wave pattern would have to host and protect the various states that each particle can be shown to have, specifically angular momentum; spin as described in the link to the Stern-Gerlach experiments.

Additionally, I define particles as being composed of standing waves in quantum increments, and it is the internal wave/spot/wave nature of the particles that display the quantization. The wave/spot/wave is the mechanization that is consistent with the process of quantum action, that perpetuates the quantization of the standing wave pattern.

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: I see you are back to inching along out in the Fringe.

QW: Yes. It is still fun inching along. It doesn't matter where, as long as the "model" is being contemplated; some of this stuff will make it over to the sub-forums in the science section, but without any expectations.

Now that I am talking about the nature and composition of particles as they interface with the oscillating background, it seems appropriate to mention a passage from Max Born's, "Atomic Physics" that I am paralleling with some of these speculations: "Stern-Gerlach (1921) is based on deflection of a molecular beam in a non-homogeneous magnetic field. We may regard the atom with the magnetic moment as an elementary magnet of dimensions which, though small, are still finite."

That explanation of an atom with a magnetic moment is also consistent with the explanation of an atomic particle with a magnetic moment. When an atom, an atomic particle, or a molecule has "presence" in the oscillating background, you cannot distinguish the background from the particle, except by the boundary. The background oscillates without the presence of the particle, and the particle is composed of an oscillating wave/spot/wave action much like the background itself, but within a coherent boundary.

It is that coherent boundary that enables the motion of the particle through the background. The particle "owns" the space within the boundary, and the energy content within the boundary is quantized by the wave/spot/wave action displayed by the complex oscillating standing wave. The presence of the particle, once established, begins a history of inflowing and out flowing wave energy, and the imbalance between the inflow and out flow is an instrument of motion.

The inflowing and out flowing wave energy, gravitational energy in my model, advances though the background point by point, "carried" in all directions by the background's wave/spot/wave action.

 

[quantum_wave]

Speaking of a particle established within the oscillating wave/spot/wave background, the wave/spot/wave oscillation within the particle space (the "coherent" standing wave pattern that defines the particle's boundary), will have a notably higher rate of oscillation than in the surrounding background. That is to say that the wave energy density within the particle is much higher than in the surrounding space.

Another way to describe the wave energy density is to talk about it in terms of a frequency of wave/spot/wave action in a given space (the particle space or the background). Comparing the frequency of the internal wave/spot/wave rate of oscillation to the external background wave/spot/wave frequency would show that the internal frequency was much higher than the external frequency. That means that the inflowing wave energy may have, and generally does has a different rate of oscillation than the particle has, and further, the inflowing wave energy has a different rate of oscillation than the background through which the wave is traversing as it finds its way to the particle.

The wave that approaches the particle has a history that goes back to the particle from which is was emitted. That wave entered the background with a frequency that was established by its parent particle, and the background oscillations "faithfully" carry that wave and its original frequency across the background space, to the receiving particle. A spherical out flowing wave from a parent particle will flatten out as it traverses the background, and will be a curved plane wave when it reaches the receiving particle.

Given that the inflowing curved plane wave has a particular frequency, my concept is that the internal frequency is continually in the process of equalizing those inflowing waves with the particle's internal frequency, and one way to characterize that is to talk about a refresh rate for the particle. There are oscillating high density spots all throughout the particle space that are continually being "refreshed" by the curved plane waves arriving from surrounding particles and objects. That inflowing wave energy is merging and equalizing within the particle space. The spherical expansion phase of the adjacent spots within the particle serves to refresh the energy required to perpetuate the internal wave/spot/wave process. Directional inflow finds it way into, and through the particle, to then emerges from the particle boundary and back out into the surrounding space.

Every spot on the particle surface continually emits a portion of its spherical wave energy out into space, and a portion is directed back into the internal particle space. The wave energy emitted to the external environment by the many spots on the particle surface form into a spherical outflow from the particle that has the frequency determined by the particle's internal frequency, and the frequency of that out flow is consistent with the particle's overall refresh rate.

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: You best post this to the Fringe, before taking it to the "Spooky or not Spooky" thread ...
QW: True, I can move it there if no one argues that it violates known science:

To add some thoughts here, the predictability appears when we encounter particles, or atoms, molecules, etc. that have a "magnetic moment". That particle will be deflected by a magnetic field. The presence of a magnetic moment means that the particle itself is a tiny magnet.

What makes a particle a magnet? The particle has an internal oscillation caused by the wave/spot/wave action. Each time a spot is produced, i.e., at a wave/wave convergence, it is the result of the transition of wave energy to mass. In my laymen level brainstorming, I attempt to characterize that wave/wave convergence as a high energy density environment at the physical place where an electric charge transitions to a magnetic spot. It would be as if the wave/spot/wave oscillation has an electromagnetic characteristic within a charged particle.

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: We have talked about the confusion you generate by calling gravitational waves by that name, i.e., failing to distinguish between the consensus definition of the mechanics of a gravitational waves, and the mechanics of your version as described in recent posts. How are they different and why continue the confusion by not distinguishing between the two types of gravitational waves, theirs and yours?

QW: This is a good place to mention that. We call the consensus gravitational wave one that the interferometers are able to detect, i.e., the ones that cause a displacement of objects in space (spacetime) as they pass. They are "ripples" in spacetime that cause a difference in distance in two perpendicular directions with the frequency of the gravitational wave. Do they actually exist? Not yet in my model because I don't invoke spacetime; I'll wait until they find them to address that, lol.

MOS: I have a suggestion. Why not call your waves gravity waves, and theirs gravitational waves?

QW: Yes, that works if you are clear that in my model, every particle and object emits gravity waves, and there are no such things as the GR ripples in spacetime that are called gravitational waves in GR/BBT.

Man on the Street: OK smart guy. So what about those gravitational waves that LIGO found?

QW: Good that we go back to that post :
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ma...ngy-universe-model.154507/page-4#post-3355692

In that post we discussed the Gravitational Waves associated with General Relativity's predicted ripples in space time, vs. the common gravity waves I predict in the ISU model. The explanation from the ISU perspective is that those very high energy density waves that LIGO found by interferometry would actually be some the hugest gravity waves in nature, when examined from the ISU model's perspective.

Since they hadn't yet been found at the time of that post, I did say that I would have to come back and address them if they were found. They show that the detected waves fit the "ripple in spacetime" descriptions, but I maintain that they also fit the gravity wave description in the ISU.

This is one of those cases where the difference between infinite space and infinite time in the ISU model vs. the warping or rippling of spacetime in GR, leads to a different interpretation of the same event. In GR they are basing the confirmation on the predicted change in the length of the LIGO arm and therefore on the length of a light beam along that arm, as a shortening or lengthening of the arm. They say that because the speed of light is invariant, the length of the two arms are affected by the gravitational waves.

I describe the same effect as the variable speed of light over the same distance in different energy density environments. I say that the length of time it takes for light to travel the same distance varies as the wave energy density changes in the space occupied by one arm vs. the wave energy density of the space occupied by the other arm.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I describe the same effect as the variable speed of light over the same distance in different energy density environments. I say that the length of time it takes for light to travel the same distance varies as the wave energy density changes in the space occupied by one arm vs. the wave energy density of the space occupied by the other arm.

That is indeed interesting I wonder how this could be identified via experimental observation.
You need to rest you cant keep pushing yourself so hard.
I have always liked your man on the street there is something I can relate to with him.. Seems decent enough.
Keep up the hard work but dont over do it.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

That is indeed interesting I wonder how this could be identified via experimental observation.
You need to rest you cant keep pushing yourself so hard.
I have always liked your man on the street there is something I can relate to with him.. Seems decent enough.
Keep up the hard work but dont over do it.
Alex

If I had been the one to fund the interferometer experiments, I would be the one claiming verification of my hypothesis/theory. Of course I would have made well publicized public statements about what I expected to find.

My prediction that the varying wave energy density of space, caused by the gravity waves emitted by an in-swirling collision of two black holes, would trigger the detector because the speed of light would vary along the arms of the instrument as the peaks and valleys of the gravity waves passed. Then it would be the spacetime people who would be saying, "Wait, that isn't the right interpretation, it was really just a huge ripple in spacetime that caused the arms of the detector to change in length", lol.

There is a reason that GR only predicts those gravitational waves for very high energy events. I looked into once, but have forgotten if it was something about conservation of momentum or just a failure in the equations in cases of such massive energy events. I'm sure a professional could explain why only such massive events are supposed to cause ripples :shrug:. Why not a ripple in spacetime when an apple falls to the ground? Oh wait, the apple follows a geodesic. But then, why aren't the in-swirling black holes just following geodesics? I don't know enough about the real theoretical physics involved to know the answers.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I don't know enough about the real theoretical physics involved to know the answers.

Well on the positive it is good to recognised that you may have limitations... Also on the positive you are perhap able to explore ideas their (proffessionals) "extra" knowledge may prevent them from ever exploring and you on the other hand not knowing there is no point going down a particular path you may get an original idea.
I can recall tryi ng to sort out a problem configuring and setting up an astronomy mount. I had this chap visiting who could not read or write and we were chatting whilst I was tinkering.
In the end he said what is your problem. I explained, he looked, held his chin and said. "What if you just did such and such?"
Simple effective and his idea really helped me out but I was just too close to the problem and a chap who could not read or write came up with a brilliant solution.
And I have seen that dort of thing happen a few times.
And who knows your time here may open a door it may not but it is great to at least to be able think about "stuff".
Look take a couple of hours off so you can work harder after a rest.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

It is just a compulsion hobby. I'm getting to be more of a recluse in my old age, and have plenty of time for it.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It is just a compulsion hobby. I'm getting to be more of a recluse in my old age, and have plenty of time for it.

I have been more or less a hermit for near twenty years and most happy learning and thinking.
Which is totally opposite to my younger years when I was a playboy sortta person, I think I got my share and someone elses so I dont need that life these days.
I like the net cause I get to talk about my current interests. In the real world I dont meet other astronomers or folk interested in cosmology. The usual chat leaves me cold.
Gotta go to lunch, hanging out for fish and chips.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

...
Gotta go to lunch, hanging out for fish and chips.
Alex

Don't blame you, they are one of my favorites. However, yesterday I insisted that we have hot dogs for the 4th of July celebration, also a treat in my estimation.

I wanted to post some further words in the Man on the Street context in regard to the discovery of gravitational waves.

The curvature of spacetime in GR, and the variable speed of light and gravity in the ISU, are two ways to explain the natural motion of objects through space or spacetime. Both models predict that objects follow curved paths, either due to the geodesics of GR, or due to the variable wave energy density of the local space.

In the ISU, both light and gravity waves are deflected when they encounter changes in the local wave energy density filling the space they are traversing, which is akin to the way light is deflected by different transparent mediums like water and glass. Objects move in the direction of the net highest wave energy density path in the ISU, while the geodesics of GR are governed by all of the massive objects with their varying influences on the local spacetime. "Net" is a key word in that sentence.

The results in regard to motion of objects is predicted to be nearly the same with one exception. That being that in GR, some motion is affected not only by geodesics, but also by the presence of passing gravitational waves required in GR when very massive objects experience high energy events, like supernovas or colliding black holes, that I don't think are precisely accounted for by the EFEs. Those massive energetic events require no special adjustments in the ISU model because they leave their gravity wave energy density imprint on space just like an apple falling from a tree does. The ISU "imprint" is from the gravitational wave energy emitted spherically from the apple, as well as from the objects in those massive events, and from all objects as they move through space.

In both cases, motion is relative, and the calculations for two objects in relative motion include slightly different values in the equations for each individual object, based on their locations relative to the surrounding massive objects. In GR, those objects curve the spacetime around themselves and the curvature reaches spherically out into space with a potentially infinite reach. That means that geodesic paths through spacetime must be affected by all of the individual surrounding masses. It is impossible to quantify the exact influences that all objects in the universe have on the local spacetime in which the objects are moving, so the EFEs are very accurate but are not precise, and they require corrections for those massive events that are predicted to produce gravitational waves in addition to geodesics; not sure when an event crosses the line into a qualifying as a massive event.

The EFEs however are better than any math offered by my layman level speculative model, and so are good enough for practical purposes, and are invoked by the ISU model, with the stipulation that the math is quantifying the same motion that is occurring in both models, but that the explanation for the motion is due to quite different mechanics.