Quantifying gravity's mechanism

[quantum_wave]

I'm a layman science enthusiast and am producing volumes of word salad on my "Gravity's Mechanism" thread that almost no one reads and no one agrees with, so there is nothing remarkable about that. But as part of that, my ideas need to be quantified in order to be more descriptive.

My view is that waves traverse space carrying energy so I simply refer to them as energy waves, though I envision space as a foundational medium that carrys them. The foundational waves are not the electromagnetic waves emitted by electrons, the foundational waves are the waves that electrons, and all particles are composed of. In my so called model, particles are composed of standing waves that have inflowing and out flowing wave energy components. It is the imbalance between the directional inflowing wave energy and the spherically out flowing wave energy that I predict causes gravity's mechanism.

Image of two converging spherical waves forming a high density spot in the overlap space

If you can picture two spherical waves expanding into each other, the point where they first touch is the "point of convergence", and as they continue to expand, they overlap. Geometrically, the shape of the overlap is referred to as a lens shaped space, and in my hypothesis, the overlap space represents the high density spot generated by the converging waves. These high density spots, though fleeting in duration, make up for that by being numerous within the particle's standing wave pattern.

I call the waves that maintain the presence of the standing wave particles *quantum waves. I refer to the two converging waves as "parent" quantum waves, and the new high density spot in the lens expands out of the convergence spherically when it reaches a quantum itself; a process I call quantum action.

$$\frac{V_{capR}}{V_R}+\frac{V_{capr}}{V_r}+\frac{V_{capR}}{V_r}+\frac{V_{capr}}{V_R}=$$$$\frac{1/3\pi H^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi R^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi H ^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi R^3}$$

The new quantum wave consists of Cap R and Cap r in the diagram. The equation represents the process. Each parent wave is 1 quantum, and when the equation equals 1, the new quantum wave has been generated.

 

[origin]

Why is this stuff in the science section? You realize QW, your thread in the fringe section is ignored for a reason - right?

 

[quantum_wave]

Move it where ever you want it, Origin.

 

[origin]

Move it where ever you want it, Origin.

Since I am just a user of this site, I cannot move it anywhere. I can just ignore it if the moderators are OK with it being here.

 

[quantum_wave]

In the diagram in the OP above, the new quantum wave will be centered relative to the two parent waves. But according to the Gravity Hypothesis, motion of an object is caused by an imbalance in the net inflowing wave energy. Since the inflow in the example in the OP is made up of two equally dense parent waves, there is no motion resulting from the convergence; the new quantum wave is located in the center of the action.

However, consider the convergence below:

Notice the imbalance between the two parent quantum waves. The smaller parent wave, Sphere B, has higher energy density because its quantum of energy is confined in a smaller sphere. The location of the new quantum wave produced by Cap A and Cap B will be offset in the direction of Sphere B because of the directional imbalace of the inflowing wave energy density. The new quantum wave will expand spherically from the Cap A + Cap B lens shaped space.

This is a simple example, but the principle of motion in the direction of the highest inflowing wave energy density is depicted.

A particle in my so called model will be much more complex in that there will be a huge number of converging quantum waves in the standing wave pattern, and the directional inflow will be arriving at the particle from the spherical out flow of other particles and objects.
(43)

 

[quantum_wave]

When I talk about a particle I refer to it as a standing wave pattern. The patterns are maintained by multiple inflowing energy waves that arrive at the particle space from the out flowing wave energy of distant particles and objects. The idea I use to quantify them is to define a quantum of wave energy relative to the standing wave pattern; the pattern is composed of energy in quantum increments.

Said simply, the quantum is equal to the energy of the spherical wave that emerges from each wave convergence within a standing wave pattern. My hypothesis suggests the number of such convergences within a standing wave particle per quantum period is easily in the hundreds of millions (in the case of an electron). Each wave convergence causes a high density spot to form because each parent wave contributes energy to the overlap space (the two spherical caps that form the lens shaped overlap space). The energy in the overlap is twice the energy of each parent, volume for volume, and the energy in the new wave that emerges from the overlap space is defined as one quantum (see diagram and equation above).
(72)

 

[hansda]

An electron by absorbing a photon jumps from one shell to another shell.

How much force this particle photon generates on the electron for its jumping from one shell to another shell?

 

[arauca]

When I talk about a particle I refer to it as a standing wave pattern. The patterns are maintained by multiple inflowing energy waves that arrive at the particle space from the out flowing wave energy of distant particles and objects. The idea I use to quantify them is to define a quantum of wave energy relative to the standing wave pattern; the pattern is composed of energy in quantum increments.

Said simply, the quantum is equal to the energy of the spherical wave that emerges from each wave convergence within a standing wave pattern. My hypothesis suggests the number of such convergences within a standing wave particle per quantum period is easily in the hundreds of millions (in the case of an electron). Each wave convergence causes a high density spot to form because each parent wave contributes energy to the overlap space (the two spherical caps that form the lens shaped overlap space). The energy in the overlap is twice the energy of each parent, volume for volume, and the energy in the new wave that emerges from the overlap space is defined as one quantum (see diagram and equation above).
(72)

Are you attempting to quantize gravity particles , like some called it "gravitons "

 

[hansda]

Are you attempting to quantize gravity particles , like some called it "gravitons "

If energy can be quantified, i think force also can be quantified.

 

[arauca]

Do I understand gravity bends light ?

 

[Prof.Layman]

It has kind of made me wonder if the "gravity mechanism" could be an interaction of preon particle waves that act like cooper pairs in something like BCS theory . I don't think preons would be subject to the Pauli exclusion principle , so then cooper pairs would actually be preons and not really electrons that are fermions that are supposed to be subject to the Pauli exclusion principle . The preon could act like a "real" virtual particle that other particles would change into once they are absorbed by another particle. Then the interaction between preon particle waves would then determine the amount of mass that particle was absorbed into.

I wish I knew more about this topics, so that I could really look into it myself... It does seem like quite a long shot. On other note, I don't think science has really delved into anything close to what quantum wave has mentioned thus far. If science was to make any sense out of what quantum wave says, it would take a lot of heavy research into preons and how their interacting waves would determine how much they then interact with the Higgs Field.

 

[quantum_wave]

Are you attempting to quantize gravity particles , like some called it "gravitons "

No. The Standard Model of Particle Physics does indeed indicate the search for the graviton, a force carrier associated with the so called gravitational field. My solution is a layman view of the mechanics of quantum gravity, buy that is as close as it comes to being consistent with particle physics and the standard model in quantum mechanics.

In my so called model, the fundamental particles of the Standard Model, which are said to have no internal composition, have internal composition in the form of standing wave patterns composed of wave energy quanta in quantum increments.

An electron by absorbing a photon jumps from one shell to another shell.

How much force this particle photon generates on the electron for its jumping from one shell to another shell?

The concept of electron jumps and shells is very convenient in conveying the concept of photon energy absorption and radiation, but it is a mathematical body of equations and concepts designed to relate to a variety of theories and one theory's math will not necessarily apply to all theories or even any other theories, in my limited layman understanding.

In my so called model, the photon is a wave particle that acts like a particle when absorbed by an electron because it adds its quanta to the quanta of the electron, thus elevating the energy of the electron. When a photon is emitted, it is radiated as photon energy, and the amount of energy is quantified in quanta; the same quantum that I describe above.

In my so called model, the photon is radiated at the local speed of light based on the surrounding energy density of the environment. Its presence is maintained by inflowing wave energy just like any other standing wave particle with one remarkable exception; the photon gets all of it inflowing wave energy from the direction of motion, and like all particles in my so called model, emits spherical wave energy as it traverses space. I will entertain a follow up question but see no point in elaborating further to your limited question.

If energy can be quantified, i think force also can be quantified.

Yes, I agree. Part of the process of quantifying particle energy and gravity's mechanism will result in an attempt to define an energy unit that will be a bridge between my so called model and the units of measure related to joules and electron volts, but that is something that will have to be developed with the help of knowledgeable science enthusiasts who are willing to help me with it. So far, there are no such people at this forum any longer, lol.

Do I understand gravity bends light ?

Yes, in my so called model, gravity is characterized by wave energy density, and the environment surrounding a massive object has high relative wave energy density that declines in accord with the inverse square law as the distance from the massive object increases.

That means that the medium of space surrounding a massive object like a star will slow and bend the path of light more and more as the photons pass closer and closer to the object.

Note to Prof.Layman: I'm not going to respond to your post in this thread but I will accept an invite to your thread on the subject where I will look forward to the discussion.
(115)

 

[Prof.Layman]

Yes, I agree. Part of the process of quantifying particle energy and gravity's mechanism will result in an attempt to define an energy unit that will be a bridge between my so called model and the units of measure related to joules and electron volts, but that is something that will have to be developed with the help of knowledgeable science enthusiasts who are willing to help me with it. So far, there are no such people at this forum any longer, lol.

Note to Prof.Layman: I'm not going to respond to your post in this thread but I will accept an invite to your thread on the subject where I will look forward to the discussion.

You say you want it defined into something that would be a more legitimate theory, but then I try to help you but then you don't want it. But, then I think the ability to describe it in joules and electron volts is beyond both of us. I don't think your the only one that has had these kinds of ideas, and I think the book I just read, The Particle at the End of the Universe, was a direct attack on these types of ideas. (it was strange to find things in it that related to some post I have made in the past years ago) But, like I mentioned, I think it is the only way that these types of models could survive in quantum physics.

Like you mention in your first post, you believe that the, "foundational waves are not the electromagnetic waves emitted by electrons". In quantum physics the waves created by electrons are photons, or vibrations in the electromagnetic field. The electrons then do not consist of photons when they are absorbed. But, in say preon particle theory that I mentioned, preons are theoretical particles that could make up electrons. So then like when you say, "the foundational waves are the waves that electrons, and all particles are composed of", then preons would be the particle that electrons are composed of. Do you see the connection here? You say it is word salad, and I am just trying to translate it.

But, one thing I realized is that the Higgs Boson can decay into two photons. They then say that there has to be a "unknown" charged particle that then makes this transition. It is only there because Feynman Diagrams says that it has to be there. Then this is because that is the only way the Feynman Diagrams can have conservation of charge. I think the global symmetry of quantum field theory is broken here. Photons are no longer just vibrations in the electromagnetic field, and this particle added to the Feynman Diagrams then just acts like a goldstone boson that just corrects for the broken symmetry of quantum field theory, but they didn't think that it would be an actual particle. So if it wasn't a valid particle that they thought should exist, then it could mean that the photon is a disruption in the Higgs Field, or like you say the "foundational medium".

So then if the photon is a vibration of the gravitational field, then particles would then have to consist then of photons. But, when they are viewed as virtual particles they no longer have the same mass, so then they can't be described as being exactly the particle in a particle. These virtual particles in a particle are then called preons. Then these preons would be stacks of different particle waves, that then would have a different interaction with the gravitational field, like electrons in cooper pairs that I mentioned in BSC Theory. They then become more massive, so then the particle waves of these pairs could then be a gravitational mechanism.

 

[quantum_wave]

You say you want it defined into something that would be a more legitimate theory, but then I try to help you but then you don't want it.

Please Prof., don't try to help unless you have a better concept of what I am hypothesizing. You should ask me what I am talking about if you aren't sure, not tell me what I should be talking about.

 

[Prof.Layman]

Please Prof., don't try to help unless you have a better concept of what I am hypothesizing. You should ask me what I am talking about if you aren't sure, not tell me what I should be talking about.

It is starting to sound like you don't even care about what could be and what cannot be actually science. I thought it would be an interesting bit of news, I think I should become a science journalist. I thought everyone would want to know something about the progress of the Higgs Boson. I think it could determine if your model is right or completely wrong once and for all, or get brushed aside with just new particles and other technobabble. I think we are still a long way away from even being able to test such a model.

 

[Cheezle]

I would like to dedicate this next performance to Prof.Layman and quantum_wave.

Crank that Science!

[video=youtube;NkGFsNnaKHI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkGFsNnaKHI[/video]

 

[quantum_wave]

I would like to dedicate this next performance to Prof.Layman and quantum_wave.

Crank that Science!

...

Yeah! Crank that science. Not one of my students, I'm afraid, but it was fun for about a minute. I'm not claiming to be doing science, just layman hypothesizing for purposes of discussion and science learning. Its a hobby, you know. Take it for what you can find in it, or leave it. Disparage me if you get a charge out of it, or even better, help show me where my so called model is not internally consistent, or where it is inconsistent with scientific observations and data. Maybe you can point that part out to the moderators and have my threads sent elsewhere; suits me. The report button is at the bottom of the page, I think. Enjoy.

 

[Cheezle]

Yeah! Crank that science. Not one of my students, I'm afraid, but it was fun for about a minute. I'm not claiming to be doing science, just layman hypothesizing for purposes of discussion and science learning. Its a hobby, you know. Take it for what you can find in it, or leave it. Disparage me if you get a charge out of it, or even better, help show me where my so called model is not internally consistent, or where it is inconsistent with scientific observations and data. Maybe you can point that part out to the moderators and have my threads sent elsewhere; suits me. The report button is at the bottom of the page, I think. Enjoy.

No one can convince you that your ideas are wrong. I tried once to engage you and you always retreat into, "it is not science and so professionals aren't and shouldn't be interested." Or, "its just my hobby." Or similar attitudes. It is a very effective shield against real discussion. So I won't bother with telling you what is wrong with your ideas. Why should I? You are not really interested in other people's opinions or even the facts.

The video was a statement of how I see your ideas. Boring and without any merit. I did not even make it through a minute of the video, and likewise I didn't make it all the way through your original post. And yes, you should never have posted this trash here in the Physics & Math section. Why would you do that?

 

[Prof.Layman]

I would like to dedicate this next performance to Prof.Layman and quantum_wave.

I think this video more accurately depicts scientist trying to discover a science theory similar to quantum waves model that they already heard from him on the internet.

[video=youtube;z5rRZdiu1UE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE[/video]

 

[quantum_wave]

No one can convince you that your ideas are wrong.

That is not true, I've been found wrong many times and have acknowledged it, and remedied it by improving my so called model.

I tried once to engage you and you always retreat into, "it is not science and so professionals aren't and shouldn't be interested."

Engaging me and showing me something that is internally inconsistent in my word salad, are two different things. The "not even wrong" attack or approach is fine, but at some point even my "not even wrong" so called model must have something that stands out such that it is remarkable. Just point it out for me; that would be appreciated, acknowledged, and remedied, as I have been doing for years now.

Or, "its just my hobby." Or similar attitudes. It is a very effective shield against real discussion.

I know you have no interest, but I will tell you where that came from. I've been starting threads here since 2008 I think, and basically presenting ideas for discussion and learning. Many science professionals and well educated science enthusiasts who for some reason pay attention to these science forums, pointed out that what I was doing was not science. I didn't claim it was, but unless I say it is not science, I always get the "its not science" response.

So I won't bother with telling you what is wrong with your ideas. Why should I? You are not really interested in other people's opinions or even the facts.

That is not true.

The video was a statement of how I see your ideas. Boring and without any merit. I did not even make it through a minute of the video, and likewise I didn't make it all the way through your original post. And yes, you should never have posted this trash here in the Physics & Math section. Why would you do that?

Oh, you are so informed about my ideas. I should come to you when ever I have a question. Or you could show some of your science expertise, here in the Physics and Math forum, by saying what is wrong with the diagram, or the equation, or the so called mechanism, or any little thing that would show you are any better at Physics and Math than I am. Oh wait, you didn't read it.