[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #80



The continuum of action is energy to matter to energy to matter, ad infinitum, at each end of the scale
A grand sameness



Follow up comments on posts 78 & 79


The simple equation in reply #78, and the simple math in reply #79 have no standing in mainstream physics, but their significance in the ISU is to put some scale to the speculations about quantization. The action processes, quantum action and arena action, represent the mechanics of quantization going on at both ends of the size spectrum. The estimate of the number of the quantum increments within the core portion of a single electron or proton wave-particle puts some perspective on the meaning of near infinitesimal.


In addition, in the ISU, big bangs are quantized too. Yes, the quantized energy in the ISU is a feature at both the quantum level, where wave-particles are composed of energy in quantum increments, and at the Big Bang arena level, where each Big Crunch contains a macro level quantum of energy in the landscape of the greater universe.


For perspective on scale, at the macro level, single Big Bang events can be equated, in regard to the mechanics of the action processes, to the momentary high energy density spots within the wave-particle’s standing wave pattern; on scale we have infinite and infinitesimal.


During the action processes, the galactic matter and energy contained in the arena/arena convergence brings with it the main force of the event, gravity, while at the quantum level, the energy contained in the wave/wave energy convergence brings with it the energy that forms the high energy density spot that then expands under the force of energy density equalization. A spot expands, and a crunch collapses, thus the continuum of action is energy to matter to energy to matter, ad infinitum, at each end of the scale. It is a perpetual balancing act as the two main forces, quantum gravity and energy density equalization play out.


Thus in the ISU, there is a grand “sameness” going on simultaneously, at both ends of the spectrum.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #81





NakedScientists Image Gallery


Note: You may notice that throughout the thread, many image links are broken. Photobucket changed policy and with the iPad app I'm using, they no longer host free third party images. I went to sign up for the paid hosting service to restore the links and images, and their iPad app is not presently available; being revised for the latest IOS software change. I am doing a work around using NakedScientists Science Image Gallery, and restoring the images, but it has to be done one-by-one, and is taking some time.


Note 2: Thanks to NakedScientists Science Image Gallery linking feature, I was able to replace the Photobucket broken links with local links to the gallery.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #82



Observable portion of the Universe
Clues to the past
CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation)
ISU Primary Scenario
Hemispherical asymmetry (or dipole anisotropy),
An interesting cold spot



All that we can view of our own local surroundings on the arena scale, with our best optical and radio  telescopes, is a portion of our own expanding Big bang arena. However, in those observations there are clues available to us about the past; about the history of our arena and its “parent arenas”. By that I mean the there is some history of the preconditions to our own Big Bang imprinted in the temperature map of the cosmic micro wave background radiation.


Take the ISU primary scenario:


Two or more expanding Big Bang arenas expanded until they intersected and overlapped, as depicted in the simple sphere/sphere image that I have been using. That version of the image states that it could be Big Bang arenas overlapping, or quantum waves within the wave-particle standing wave pattern. The duality of scale in the ISU is consistent with the characteristic called “sameness” between the mechanics at the two levels, the micro and the macro scale.


Now, referring to the macro scenario of Big Bang arena action, here is a heat map of the observable universe. The WMAP and Planck sky surveys reveal a great deal of information:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_6_10_40.png


As a result, in the ISU model, the greater universe is characterized by a Cosmic Microwave Background that exists at slightly varying temperatures (wave energy density profiles), across the infinite landscape. In and around each Big Bang event that occurs in the landscape, there is a local temperature profile related to the event where two or more “parent”arenas converge and produce a third wave. The third wave, according to the scenario, in turn results in a gravitationally induced Big Crunch. In the ISU scenario, the crunch reaches nature’s limit of wave energy density, and collapses/bangs, into a new expanding Big Bang arena. The surrounding CMBR is therefore composed of the CMBR that is present within the two parent arenas, which is a factor of the extent of expansion experience by the two parents, plus the radiation of our own Big Bang event imprinted on the background as it is incorporated into our arena as a result of our expansion.


Therefore, our big bang arena has its own CMB, composed of the pre-existing background in the surrounding space, which is individualized by the specific preconditions present; the individual backgrounds of our parent arenas. Those backgrounds would be expected to vary based on their relative ages when they converged, based on an original local temperature of the big bangs, which is considered essentially the same for one bang to another, and the cooling effect of expansion.


Our CMB is characterized by some interesting anomalies related to our specific history. There is the wide angle temperature difference, called hemispherical asymmetry or dipole anisotropy, and there is also an interesting cold spot.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_08_17_2_27_06.jpeg



To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #83





CMB Wide Angle Temperature Variance
Peculiar Motion of our galaxy

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_07_17_2_11_47.jpeg


When you look at the temperatures of the CMBR background on angles wider than 30 degrees, a noticeable asymmetry in the background temperatures emerges. The asymmetry is characterized by a meaningful directional difference in both the quadrupole and dipole angles of measurement. It means that if the background is supposed to have an origin casually connected solely to one single Big Bang, it doesn’t seem to make sense.


The peculiar motion of our galaxy is explained by the current cosmology as “peculiar velocity or motion” relative to the Hubble flow, which can also be referred to as relative to the CMBR rest frame.


Compare the explanation of peculiar motion of around 1000 km per second, or around 2,160,000 mph calculated in the following Wiki, to the ISU explanation of our own arena’s background imprinted with the history of parent arenas.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_07_17_8_20_01.png

A map of galaxy supercluster peculiar motion

Can the hemispherical asymmetry be explained by the peculiar motion of our local group of galaxies relative to the CMB rest frame, and driven by some great attractor as the current physical Cosmological model suggests? Is there some other explanation not yet determined, like errors in masking out stars, and galaxies, and even dust clouds? Understanding the CMB data is one of the interesting fields of investigation going on today in the Cosmological community. Future mapping of the CMB with more accurate instruments and better masking techniques will certainly be forthcoming.

Also yet to be explained, is the cosmic cold spot that appears in both the WMAP and Planck CMB sky surveys. Is it some dark flow that signifies a close connection with some other cosmic structure? Is it an out flowing plasma jet, typical of some versions of a black hole, but on a massively larger scale? Or Is it the start of our own arena overlap that will lead to a new Big Bang arena, as the ISU model speculates?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #84



Much is "as yet" unknown
Corridors of continuity
CMB variations

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_02_08_17_12_58_34.jpeg


There are many questions, and though the ISU model is designed to be internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, there is much that is “as yet” unknown.


Consider that the multiple big bang landscape is the reality, and think about the cosmic microwave background that our arena is expanding into. It is coming from all directions in every big bang arena, and it fills all space in the “corridors of continuity” between new expanding arenas as well. It would have a lot to tell about the past arena action that has taken place, and especially most recently in our own vicinity.


If so, the background temperature differences discovered in our CMB mapping, reveals the result of an eternal history of arena action playing out across the landscape of the greater universe. More locally, it is what would be expected in the vicinity of two Big Bang arenas converging, and merging to form a new Big Crunch. CMB variations like the wide angle asymmetry in our own arena would reveal the histories of our individual parent arenas, imprinted on our arena as it expands into the space of our parent arenas; It would have the anomalies of asymmetry, and would also reveal the location of an impending arena convergence; the cold spot.


The cold spot would appear as notice of interaction between our expanding arena and an adjacent arena; the overlap of two arenas foretelling the future; the location of  the first “child” of our own arena. Get ready to pass out the cigars, lol.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #85



Dark Energy
Dark Energy Survey
Temperatures at the bang, in our arena, and in our parent arenas




The current dark energy survey is out! I find it readable, and though much more technical than I claim to fully grasp, it will make for some good reading.  More to the point of the thread, and to the ISU model, there are some opportunities to address three Cosmological observations that are “as yet” unexplained by the CDM model.


https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/des-year-1-cosmology-results-papers/

Dark Energy Survey

“This page serves as the portal for a series of 10 papers on and in support of the DES cosmology results from the first year (Y1) of the survey, which are being released on Aug. 3, 2017. For each paper, clicking on “Link” provides a pdf of the paper. At 5 pm Central Daylight Time on Thurs., Aug. 3, 2017, Daniel Gruen will deliver a talk on these results at the APS Division of Particles & Fields meeting at Fermilab, which will be streamed live here. These papers will appear on the public arXiv site in the next few days, after which the papers here will be transferred to the DES Publications page.”


The Introduction of the first paper:

I. INTRODUCTION
“The discovery of cosmic acceleration [1, 2] established the Cosmological Constant (⇤) [3] + Cold Dark Matter (⇤CDM) model as the standard cosmological paradigm that explains a wide variety of phenomena, from the origin and evolution of large-scale structure to the current epoch of accelerated expansion [4, 5]. The successes of ⇤CDM, however, must be balanced by its apparent implausibility: (my bold)three new entities beyond the Standard Model of particle physics — one that drove an early epoch of inflation; another that serves as dark matter; and a third that is driving the current epoch of acceleration — are required, none of them easily connected to the rest of physics [6]. Ongoing and planned cosmic surveys are designed to test ⇤CDM and more generally to shed light on the mechanism driving the current epoch of acceleration, be it the vacuum energy associated with the cosmological constant, another form of dark energy, a modification of General Relativity, or something more drastic.

The Dark Energy Survey (DES1, [7]) is an on-going, five- year survey that, when completed, will map 300 million galaxies and tens of thousands of galaxy clusters in five filters (grizY ) over 5000 deg2, in addition to discovering several thousand type Ia supernovae in a 27 deg2 time-domain survey. DES will use several cosmological probes to test ⇤CDM; galaxy clustering and weak gravitational lensing are two of the most powerful. Jointly, these complementary probes sample the underlying matter density field through the galaxy population and the distortion of light due to gravitational lensing. In this paper, we use data on this combination from the first year (Y1) of DES to constrain ⇤CDM and its simplest extension— wCDM, having a free parameter for the dark energy equation of state.”
[end of quote]

As noted in the Survey Introduction, in CDM, there are (quote) “three new entities beyond the Standard Model of particle physics — one that drove an early epoch of inflation; another that serves as dark matter; and a third that is driving the current epoch of acceleration — are required, none of them easily connected to the rest of physics [6].”(/quote)

I address all three in the ISU model, and will start here with the ISU speculation about the early epoch of inflation:

Note that in the ISU, the two main forces are quantum gravity, and energy density equalization, both discussed earlier.

In the ISU, the epoch that equates to the early inflation in CDM, is caused by the nature of the collapse/bounce of the preceding Big Bang (every Big Bang for that matter), and by the extreme energy density differential between the high density hot energy ball at the center of collapse, and the very low wave energy density of the surrounding space. Initial expansion is initiated by the “bounce”, which triggers rapid energy density equalization between the hot ball of wave energy, and the cold surrounding CMB that occupied the space of our mature “parent” Big Bang arenas.

We can put some temperatures to this differential for talking purposes:

Google, “how hot was the Big Bang energy ball?” And, “how hot is the current CMB of our observable universe?”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7245121/Hottest-temperature-ever-helps-explain-Big-Bang.html

“Scientists have created the hottest temperature ever in the lab – four trillion degrees Celsius – 250,000 times hotter than the Sun and close to the temperature generated at the creation of the universe.”

So let’s use four trillion degrees Celsius as the very earliest temperature for talking purposes.

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

The current average temperature of the CMB is ~2.725 degrees Kelvin.

“Today, the CMB radiation is very cold, only 2.725° above absolute zero, thus this radiation shines primarily in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and is invisible to the naked eye. However, it fills the universe and can be detected everywhere we look. In fact, if we could see microwaves, the entire sky would glow with a brightness that was astonishingly uniform in every direction. The picture at left shows a false color depiction of the temperature (brightness) of the CMB over the full sky (projected onto an oval, similar to a map of the Earth). The temperature is uniform to better than one part in a thousand! This uniformity is one compelling reason to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the Big Bang; it would be very difficult to imagine a local source of radiation that was this uniform. In fact, many scientists have tried to devise alternative explanations for the source of this radiation, but none have succeeded.”

Kelvin
One Kelvin degree is equivalent to one Celsius degree. The difference between the two temperature scales: All motion within an atom ceases at zero Kelvin (K) -- this point is called absolute zero. Water freezes at zero degrees Celsius, which is approximately 273.16K.

So there we have it. The temperature differential I refer to is in a range, at the high end, 4 trillion degrees Celsius in the first instant after the Big Bang, and the background of our parent mature arenas, which was hypothetically in a similar range as the observed CMB in our local arena, which has cooled to about 2.7 Kelvin through today.

To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #86




Depiction of a large patch of the ISU landscape
Arena action
Dark Energy
The Cold Spot
Accelerating expansion, layered expansion
Standard candles




https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg



My depiction of a large patch of the landscape of the greater universe as Big Bang arena action plays out. The frequency of big bangs occurring across the landscape is a function of the overall average wave energy density of the greater universe, which governs the time and distance between Big Bang events, on an average.


In the ISU, the most extreme energy density differential possible in nature is the driver of the initial expansion of our Big Bang arena energy wave, back out into the very same space that was occupied by our “parent” arenas. That is the ISU equivalent to the Inflationary Epoch that is attached to the current standard view of cosmology.


In the ISU, arenas never die, they just fade away. But our parent arenas have left their impression on the temperature profile of our arena’s cosmic microwave background, which is most evident in the hemispherical asymmetry mentioned in recent posts. That asymmetry supports the ISU scenario of the preconditions to Big Bang events, being the intersection and overlap of two or more expanding Big Bang arenas.


The ISU Model Takes a Position on Dark Energy


Per the last post, for talking purposes, our arena has cooled down from four trillion degrees to 2.7º, and that temperature is presumably continuing to decline toward some natural limit above absolute zero, as expansion plays out. It will never reach absolute zero of course, because in the ISU, there is a positive average temperature to the greater universe . So just wait long enough and the temperature of our arena will begin to be affected as it expands into the path of adjacent expanding arenas.


The first affect of such an approach will be a meaningful cold spot in our CMB profile as the reach of gravity becomes evident, and we see such an effect in the cold spot in the current sky survey data. But as parent arenas expand into the same space, things will heat up. That is where the initial outreach of the gravitational force shifts from the mutual pulling that causes the cold spot, and becomes an actual “hand to hand” encounter; a mixing and merging of galactic material contributed by the parent arenas. There will be a swirling rendezvous around the center of gravity in the overlap space, where the beginnings of a new Big Crunch will begin to take shape.


In close quarters, gravity is stronger than expansion momentum, and as distance decreases, the advantage shifts to gravity. In the ISU, arenas will only expand until that expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with adjacent expanding arenas. Then the crunch forms, reaches critical capacity, and collapse/bangs into a new expanding arena.


Is our local Big Bang arena expanding at an accelerating rate? There are arguments for and against, but we know for sure that the catalog of 1a supernovas, a marker used to determine the rate of expansion, is growing at an accelerating rate. As a result of the recent data from the Dark Energy Survey, the discovery and cataloging of new standard candles is expected to grow exponentially over the next five or ten years as the DES completes the full sky survey, and as the data is catalogued, papers will be written, peer reviewed, and a consensus about accelerating expansion will emerge.


If the reality is that the 1a SN data convincingly demonstrates accelerating expansion, then the average wave energy density of the landscape of the greater universe has to be lower than if there is no acceleration. The good news is that the expansion of our local arena is going to play itself out; it will resolve into mergers with adjacent expanding arenas, and new Big Crunches and big bangs will begin to occur at arena fringes along the corridors of continuity. (Just a note, the corridors of continuity are places far removed from any impending Big Bang events, and are places where it would be possible for an extremely advanced life form to continue to exist, or to migrate to in order to survive an impending arena merger.)


In the ISU, it is a question of the overall energy density of the greater universe, not of it the greater universe is expanding or contracting; it is steady state and doing neither. The average density of the greater universe simply determines the average length of time and distance between the occurrences of big bangs across the landscape, and how long it takes them to play out.


If a local arena proves to be expanding at an accelerating rate, it is only because layered expansion as the energy density of the space it is expanding into itself continues to decline, and that is a function of the extent of the continued expansion of the parent arenas, and the grandparent arenas. Their continued expansion would have the affect of lowering the energy density of the space into which the local arena is expanding. The rate of acceleration would level, and disappear, as the averages of time and distance come into affect. Dark Energy would no longer appear to be occurring, and would thus prove to have been caused by the local space approaching, but not yet reaching the lower limit of energy density of the greater universe.


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #87




Dark Matter



As mentioned in Reply #85, in the Dark Energy Survey Introduction, in CDM, there are three aspects outside of the Standard Model of particle physics, 1) an early epoch of inflation, which was addressed from the ISU perspective in post #85 and #86, 2) another that serves as dark matter, to be addressed in this post, and 3) dark energy driving the current epoch of acceleration, discussed from the ISU perspective in Reply #86. All are observed and explanations are required, none of them easily connected to the rest of physics, as mentioned in the Introduction of the ten papers included in the Dark Energy Survey.


Dark matter in the universe, from the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) perspective, is the remnant cold dead galactic matter from a perpetual history of Big Bang arena action across the landscape of the greater universe. When two or more expanding Big Bang arenas overlap, a large portion of the galactic material and energy from the parent arenas gets incorporated into the accumulating Big Crunch, which fuels the next big collapse/bang event in that location. However, up to half of the galactic material escapes the local crunch and its expansion momentum carries it out into the corridors of continuity as the remainder of the parent arenas continue to expand. It will either stray into some approaching Big Bang arena, to be caught up in a future Big Crunch, or it will cool its heels in the corridor until its future is finally determined.


Every expanding Big Bang arena intrudes into those corridors as they expand, and there are plenty of remnants that get incorporated in to each new arena. Not only that, but consider the in-swirling rendezvous of galactic material that forms the new Big Crunch, contributed by the parent arenas. When the collapse/bang occurs, that accreting material is in the path of the initial rapid expansion of the trillion degree energy ball, and it is negated to the lowest order of cosmic dust. In the ISU, those remnants from the corridors of continuity, and the cosmic dust negated from the accretion disk, are the source of the huge amount of  “dark matter” lurking around our galaxies, retarding their separation momentum, influencing their shapes, and taking part in their individual evolution.


Also see reply #96, where additional pertinent discussion about dark matter in the ISU is addressed.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #88



Explanatory note
Proton Spin
Proton Spin Crisis
Quarks spin too

Explanatory note:
The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model of the cosmology of the universe is not presented as known science or even as scientific theory (it is full of both known science and speculations about “as yet” unknown science). As explained near the end of reply #17, and I quote:


"Let me elaborate on that methodology by pointing out that there is known science and "as yet" unknown science. I incorporate all known science into the ISU if it is based on observations and generally accepted explanations that are consistent from theory to theory, which, I think, includes most of known physics in general, and much of the theoretical physics that is generally accepted. …


However, the "as yet" unknown portion of physics and cosmology is what makes all of the models incomplete. My approach is to apply the "reasonable and responsible" methodology to the gaps, and speculate about ideas that fill the gaps. That is how the ISU evolves, and has evolved for many years, through several major false starts that have taken me back to the drawing board. I anxiously and readily seek falsification so I can revise and evolve a better personal view of cosmology. I encourage counter arguments, and I listen to them, and incorporate those that I consider reasonable and responsible. I am the arbiter of what is reasonable and responsible, because the ISU is my personal view of cosmology. It is not a scientific paper for peer review, it is a personal view for discussion with the intention of continual improvement."


I restate that disclaimer here because the next topic is an unsolved issue in physics, called the Proton Spin Crisis (or puzzle), for which I have included a couple of links and some “cut and paste” from them. When I address it from the ISU perspective, my content is intended to be internally consistent with all the ISU content, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data:


Proton spin crisis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_spin_crisis


More recent (2015):
http://www.ejaet.com/PDF/2-12/EJAET-2-12-59-67.pdf
Spin Crisis of Proton and Baryon’s Magnetic Moment
12 DPTiwari andRSGupta


Quote from the Wiki link:
Proton spin crisis
Unsolved problem in physics: The proton spin crisis (sometimes called the "proton spin puzzle") is a theoretical crisis precipitated by an experiment in 1987[1] which tried to determine the spin configuration of the proton. The experiment was carried out by the European Muon Collaboration (EMC).[2] Physicists expected that the quarks carry all the proton spin.


However, not only was the total proton spin carried by quarks far smaller than 100%, these results were consistent with almost zero (4–24%[3]) proton spin being carried by quarks. This surprising and puzzling result was termed the "proton spin crisis".[4]


The problem is considered one of the important unsolved problems in physics.[5]ContentsBackground A key question is how the nucleon's spin is distributed amongst its constituent partons (quarks and gluons). Physicists originally expected that quarks carry all of the nucleon spin.A proton is built from two up quarks, one down quark, and gluons. The ruling assumption was that since the proton is stable, then it exists in the lowest possible energy level. Therefore, it was expected that the quark's wave function is the spherically symmetric s-wave with no spatial contribution to angular momentum.


The proton is, like each of its quarks, a spin 1/2 particle. Therefore, it was assumed that two of the quarks have opposite spins and the spin of the third quark is parallel to the proton spin.


The experiment


In this EMC experiment, a quark of a polarized proton target was hit by a polarized muon beam, and the quark's instantaneous spin was measured. In a polarized proton target, all the protons' spin take the same direction, and therefore it was expected that the spin of two out of the three quarks cancels out and the spin of the third quark is polarized in the direction of the proton's spin. Thus, the sum of the quarks' spin was expected to be equal to the proton's spin.


However, it was found in this EMC experiment that the number of quarks with spin in the proton's spin direction was almost the same as the number of quarks whose spin was in the opposite direction. This is the proton spin crisis.


Similar results have been obtained in later experiments.[6]


Recent work


A 2008 work shows that more than half of the spin of the proton comes from the spin of its quarks, and that the missing spin is produced by the quarks' orbital angular momentum.[7] This work uses relativistic effects together with other quantum chromodynamic properties and explains how they boil down to an overall spatial angular momentum that is consistent with the experimental data. 2016 results from the RHIC indicate that gluons may carry even more of protons' spin than quarks do.[8]
(End of Wiki quote)


To be continued ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #89

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg


The Big Wait
While we wait
Stern-Gerlach apparatus
Persistence of spinWave-particle mechanics
The process of Quantum Action.


In regard to the proton spin crisis, the science is not really layman level, and that can be emphasized by any number of  links to material on the internet and YouTube videos:
https://youtu.be/Z1IqewSDDcc


https://youtu.be/2zZ1kv6vlq0


You can definitely go deep into theoretical physics and never get caught up with the professional community. The ISU approach is called the Big Wait, and I speculate, as in this thread, while I wait for the scientific community to arrive at a consensus on any given topic, including solving the proton spin puzzle.


Until then, in the ISU, the composition of the proton wave-particle makes no internal distinction between any sub-particles, quarks, leptons, force carriers, or any individual components; they all blend together as quanta in the particle space, millions upon millions, billions upon billions, of quanta per particle. The spin of the proton is the spin of the complex standing wave pattern of the proton wave-particle. It is one internally equalizing unit, consisting only of inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, sorted into quanta at the particle boundary by the process of quantum action. Quanta are emitted spherically as gravitational wave energy, and quanta are added from gravitational wave energy arriving directionally from distant particles and objects.


Relative to an individual particle in the ISU, spin is defined as an observation of an affect detected by various devices that measure the response of the particle to a specially configured magnetic field, like the Stern-Gerlach apparatus:
https://youtu.be/waK4eKNXB4A


Spin, as measured by the Stern-Gerlach apparatus, is a characteristic of charged particles that react to a precisely positioned magnetic field by either curving up or curving down relative to the measured axis. Interesting to note that you don’t get any random degrees of spin; extent of the deflection is the same for all “ups” and all “downs” for particles in a stream from a constant source. Also, measuring the spin deflection on any axis will give the result that half of the particles curve to the same extent in one direction and half curve to the same extent in the opposite direction. One can conclude that the characteristic of spin will always prove to be present in a charged particle, regardless of the axis on which the effect is being measured, and the extent of spin is a common characteristic on all axises.


That leads to another conclusion that spin is present on every axis at the same time, and the persistence of spin up or down occurs when you immediately remeasure all up or all down particles from one measurement axis, through a second apparatuses on the same axis. The first measurement sorts out the ups from the downs on the measured axis and they remain sorted as long as you remeasure them on the same axis. Change the axis, and persistence needs to be reestablished, only to be lost again if you measure on a different axis.


My speculation is that the persistence of spin has a mechanical explanation that is consistent with the wave-particle mechanics of the process of Quantum Action.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg



To be continued ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #90

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg


The Particle Adventure
LHC colliding protons
Quark soup

In regard to the proton spin puzzle, an accelerated core particle, protons for example, when collided with other particles, as in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), will have their standing wave patterns interrupted into the chaos of a high energy cloud of wave action (maybe akin to a quark/gluon plasma).



At the site of the collisions, in the face of the constant inflowing gravitational wave energy from all directions, Nature repairs the damage quickly, giving way to local forces of energy density equalization and quantum gravity, via the ISU recognized process of quantum action; wave intersections immediately reform from the scattered high energy waves, and debris will take shape out of the plasma in the local space. Light speed interactions will take place in a series of events, where exotic massive particles form from the plasma, and decay almost instantly, transferring their mass to a set of recognizable elementary particles that can be observed, and sometimes captured for further analysis, both particles and anti-particles.


http://www.particleadventure.org/standard_model.html



Quote from the Particle Adventure standard model page, “The Standard Model is a good theory. Experiments have verified its predictions to incredible precision, and all the particles predicted by this theory have been found. But it does not explain everything. For example, gravity is not included in the Standard Model.”




Physicists have identified many sub-particles that form out of those collisions, and have classified fundamental and elementary particles in the Standard Particle Model, said to be point like with no internal composition. Quarks are among them, and the spin assigned to the various types of quarks is at issue in the proton spin crisis. We don’t yet know enough about those particles, or about the physical nature of spin to resolve the puzzle. However, in the ISU model, all of point-like particles of the Standard Model have internal structure, composed of the quantum increments (quanta) that make up the wave-particle standing wave pattern.


Though progress is occurring via high energy physics, it goes without saying that there are theoretical aspects of the standard model that are  “as yet” unexplained.


This discussion of spin is from the perspective of the ISU model, and simply recognizes that the scientific community has not reached a consensus on exactly what spin is, and what the precise details are of the various proposed “as yet” incomplete solutions. Broad knowledge of the huge number of theoretical papers, details of experiments, and data available is beyond comprehension to all except the most involved scientists and mathematicians. So while we wait, I speculate about spin, and how it can be associated with the ISU wave-particle, and with the mechanics of the process of quantum action that establishes and maintains the presence of wave-particles, and governs quantum gravity, as addressed throughout the thread.


The ISU wave-particles have detailed internal structure; they are not point-like, and the effect called spin has a mechanical explanation involving motion of the standing wave patterns, and fields generated by that motion …


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #91

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg


Meaningful wave intersections = quanta
Quanta form in the direction of motion
Electric field generated in direction of motion
Magnetic field perpendicular to motion

Taking just the core portion of the wave-particle from the diagram in reply #89, the black dots represent meaningful wave intersections that equate to quanta contained within the standing wave pattern. The mass of the wave-particle is the sum of the quanta within the standing wave pattern. This first image is of the core portion at rest. Notice how the high energy density spots are centered within the particle space when the particle is theoretically at rest:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_48_24.jpeg



When the wave-particle is in motion, the organization of the high energy density spots is mechanically shifted toward the direction of motion, because that is the direction of the net highest inflowing gravitational wave energy that is used to replenish the spherically emitted wave energy, thus generating a preponderance of new high energy density wave convergences in that direction.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_50_54.jpeg


Motion is taking place when the wave-particle’s standing wave pattern advances through the oscillating background that fills all space.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_08_17_3_53_17.jpeg





For talking purposes, I propose that a complex standing wave-particle in motion, generates a magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of motion. If as depicted, the wave-particle is keeping its mass in a forward position in the standing wave pattern because new quanta form in the forward position as it traverses the oscillating background. Forward motion would then be causing it to act like a little gyroscope constructed of wave intersections that form momentary high energy density spots across the moving standing wave pattern, thus maintaining the magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of motion.


While contemplating the characteristic of persistence of spin, mentioned in reply #89, such that when the up and down particles are sorted by the first pass through the Stern-Gerlach device, the reason that half sort up and half down is due to the slope of the magnetic field relative to the direction of motion, i.e., that there is a 360º range around the forward directional axis through which the tilt of the field, relative to the perpendicular is random when measured on the first pass. That range is from slightly above the angle of measurement by the Stern-Gerlach device, or slightly below. All measured particles are tilting in regard to the particle's magnetic field relative to the perpendicular, and to the orientation of that tilt relative to the Stern-Gerlach device orientation, so when measured again, the previous “up” will again curve up, and those whose field is tilting “down” when measured again, will again curve down.


Once sorted out by the first pass through, as to up and down, then a second measurement on the same axis demonstrates the persistence of spin. The particles are not really spinning or revolving around the directional axis, their orientation to that directional axis is a stable characteristic of the wave-particle in motion. Therefore, all the previous ups again measure up, and all of the previous downs measure down when remeasured on the exact same orientation of the device.


I’ll stipulate that I am thinking of the wave-particle magnetic field as always being oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion of the particle, but also having a slope relative to the perpendicular, caused by the individual particle’s imbalance in the distribution of the internal high energy density spots. If that imbalance is stable for each individual particle relative to the direction of motion, as the particle is in uninterrupted motion, then that is the speculative explanation for how particles that measure "up" in the first device, would also measure up in a second pass through a device with the exact same orientation.


From the perspective of the ISU, it is much more appropriate to refer to the effect as angular momentum, than as spin, and to be even more descriptive in naming it, I would like to add the term “particle slope persistence”, which is synonymous with spin or angular momentum in the ISU lexicon.


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #92

What gives a particle its charge?

Edit: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg565553#msg565553
An up date on ISU particle charge from January 2019 from the "What are they saying about quantum gravity?" thread.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_24_08_17_10_55_50.png



Electric field of a positive and a negative point charge.

Background

A quick search brings up Wiki:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_particle
“In physics, a charged particle is a particle with an electric charge. It may be an ion, such as a molecule or atom with a surplus or deficit of electrons relative to protons. It can be the electrons and protons themselves, as well as other elementary particles, like positrons. It may also be an atomic nucleus devoid of electrons, such as an alpha particle, a helium nucleus. Neutrons have no charge. Plasmas are a collection of charged particles, atomic nuclei and separated electrons, but can also be a gas containing a significant proportion of charged particles. Plasma is called the fourth state of matter because its properties are quite different from solids, liquids and gases.” (and more of interest, without answering what gives a particle charge).

And a brief discussion about particle charge from a thread at physicsforums:

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-gives-particles-charge.700104/

DiracPool and several other members responded (follow the link and read the short thread):
DiracPool responded:
Charge is a fundamental property of matter, in a "first cause" sort of way. It is, at present, one of the fundamental building blocks of physical models, not reducible to a more fundamental architecture of constituents. So to ask why charge exists is kind of like asking why gravity exists, or why matter exists. The answer is that, at present, we don't know. But we have to start somewhere, so we label or give names to different phenomena and then formulate equations and test these formulations against experiment. "Charge" is a name that was given to a property of materials that behaved in a certain manner. It was later found out that charge was quantized via the Millikan Oil Drop Experiment. These quantized charges were called electrons and given a negative (-1) label to contrast from the proton, which had a (+1) label. It was later found that the proton was composed of three quarks with partial charges that add up to +1. Why these charges should perfectly balance each other in terms of coulomb units is still baffling to scientists, as far as I'm aware. I don't think that there's any insight into the issue that you are missing.

Andrew Mason added:
Just to follow up on what DiracPool has said, scientists tend to develop theories that explain phenomena in terms of more fundamental phenomena. Inevitably, one reaches a point that cannot be reduced to something more fundamental. Whether we have reached that point with charge is not yet clear. But we might have.

And jtbell made a contribution:
In classical physics, electric charge and the electric and magnetic force laws are unexplained. They are taken as "given", in the same way as mass and F = ma in Newtonian mechanics. In quantum field theory, one can derive the existence of charge and the laws of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations) from something called "local U(1) gauge symmetry." But that simply begs the question, "why does the universe obey local U(1) gauge symmetry?"
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-gives-particles-charge.700104/


There is a thread started here at NakedScientists, in the Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology sub-forum:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70639.msg516662#msg516662

My methodology for answering questions that are “as yet” unanswered by the scientific community relies on speculation and are not supported by anything more than trivial math, and so I wouldn’t try to participate in the hard science sub-forums here at NS, except to post the above links. Never the less, addressing questions like that here in the “New Theories” sub-forum seems to be allowed.


It would be nice, from the perspective of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, to have even a speculative answer to the question, “what gives particles their charge”. Any speculations, in order to become part of the ISU, would have to be internally consistent with the rest of the ISU wave mechanics, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

Noting that the ISU has described internally consistent, speculative mechanics of the presence of particles, and quantum gravity, at a scale far below that of point particles and the fundamental particles of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and has speculation on the nature of “particle slope persistence” (spin) to address another “as yet” unanswered question in physics, as in my last few posts, I’m contemplating the question of particle charge from the ISU perspective, and will post about where it leads me.


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

What gives a particle its charge in the ISU?


There are differences between what the Wiki says about charged particles, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_particle , and the ISU material, as posted in this thread. Any new speculations and conclusions that might come out of this project about how particles in the ISU get their charge will be based on the speculative ISU wave-particle, the process of quantum action, and the oscillating background. Those will be layman level, science enthusiast speculations and conclusions, not science done by professionals. The posts will include notes about how the ISU ideas differ from mainstream thinking, and will feature speculated mechanics taking place in a “reality” below the presumed scale of action considered in the popular media and research material I find on the internet as addressed in the Wiki, etc.


Points of departure from what science tells us about charge, and charged particles, and some speculations and personal brainstorming about that from the perspective of the ISU:

1. The image in the last post represents the electric field of point particles, but there are no point particles in the ISU. In place of point particles we will be discussing wave-particles advancing through the oscillating foundational background, as described throughout. The closest thing to point charges is the charge that may be associated with a single oscillation between two phases, akin to a fluctuation between positive and negative. That is the action going on at the foundational level where all space is filled with the smallest scale of wave convergences. The presence of the oscillating background wave energy is the product of a potentially eternal history of Big Bang action and quantum gravity across the spatially infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.

2. The electron at rest in the ISU has nearly 400 million quanta, for talking purposes (meaningful wave intersections representing convergences of parent waves), organized in a complex standing wave pattern that contains all of the mass of the particle in the form of quanta (described as high energy density spots that form as two or more "meaningful" wave fronts converge.) Still, no electron is ever at rest in the ISU, and my speculation is that they are in constant motion at or near the speed of light in a fuzzy cloud around the nucleons (“fuzzy” meaning that neither the location nor momentum can ever be precisely measured because the process of quantum action is continually refreshing the positions of the quanta that constitute the electron). And all the time the electron is advancing through the oscillating background which governs the local speed of light and gravity.

3. Speculation is that when an electron reaches an elevated energy level, the point where it is about to emit a photon, the electron is at is maximum velocity in its orbital space, and when an electron emits a photon, the photon is accelerated to the local speed of light by “riding” or “boosted” by the spherically out flowing gravitational waves emitted at the local speed of light, continually by the electron, regardless of the local velocity of the electron itself. The internal wave energy components of the electron are always traveling at the speed of light locally within the high energy density core portion of the electron wave-particle. The speed of light in the ISU is relative to the local wave energy density. The wave energy there in the core is extreme, relative to wave energy density at the particle boundary from which the photon is emitted, meaning that the photon acceleration boost that occurs at the boundary is not remarkable.

4. Unlike the particles commented on by the member named DiracPool, mentioned in the last post,  particles in the ISU are reducible to a complex architecture of the constituent high energy density “spots” that make up the core portion of the wave-particle. This speculation gives us something to work with when contemplating how a particle gets its charge, i.e., there is more complex architecture than the standard model invokes.

Some thinking to myself:
Could the wave mechanics of the ISU, down at the level where the wave-particle is in constant motion through the oscillating wave energy background, have something to do with the net charge that a particular type of particle carries?

Do the foundational level oscillations of the background alternate between an electric and magnetic field at the level of the tiniest wave action?

What is the connection like between positive and negative charge and electromagnetic properties of particles?

Do the wave intersections in the oscillating background carry a charge or fluctuate between charge and no charge, or positive and negative?

Noting that charges exert a force on each other, such fluctuation would be an interesting characteristic of the background through which wave-particles advance. Could those oscillations be equated with alternating “point” charges throughout the background, and therefore throughout all space at the point by point level?

Does the motion of an individual wave front of the waves that are oscillating adjacent to each other, have a causative effect?

Do each of those tiniest wave fronts, which advance until interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent wave front, which is at the point where there is a rapid change in energy density that always occurs at the point of intersection, consequently cause a switching between a positive and an negative local charge at the tiniest scale, point by point, within the standing wave particle?

Relative to the “point by point” oscillations, does the relatively huge size of a wave-particle, which has so many quanta joined in unison as it advances through the oscillating background, pick up a net charge from the oscillations as a result of the wave-particle motion through the oscillations?

Does the motion of the standing wave pattern through the background cause the magnetic field to form perpendicular to the direction of motion, and does that mean that there is an electric current associated with wave-particle motion through the oscillations?

Does the particle’s perpendicular magnetic field change the charge of the local background as the particle passes?

Could such a local change in the background oscillations mean that the particle not only carries a charge, but is surrounded by the opposite charge in the background as a result of the charges of the oscillations equalizing by netting or cancelling out in the space surrounding the moving charged particle?

All this is personal brainstorming, and the thread is open to all ideas, contributions, or brainstorming, based on the ISU wave mechanics.

I’m posting links to some layman level popular science material about particle charge from various sources; the internet, the books on my shelf, and the library which are and will be considered during the project. I will be studying, contemplating, and referencing this and other information as I go along, trying to see if anything starts to seem like an explanation for particle charge in the ISU:

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py106/Charge.html

[Cut and paste of linked material from that link, to have it at hand; see link for graphics that didn't translate over in the cut and paste]
Electric charge and Coulomb's law


Charge
•   there are two kinds of charge, positive and negative
•   like charges repel, unlike charges attract
•   positive charge comes from having more protons than electrons; negative charge comes from having more electrons than protons
•   charge is quantized, meaning that charge comes in integer multiples of the elementary charge e
•   charge is conserved
Probably everyone is familiar with the first three concepts, but what does it mean for charge to be quantized? Charge comes in multiples of an indivisible unit of charge, represented by the letter e. In other words, charge comes in multiples of the charge on the electron or the proton. These things have the same size charge, but the sign is different. A proton has a charge of +e, while an electron has a charge of -e.
Electrons and protons are not the only things that carry charge. Other particles (positrons, for example) also carry charge in multiples of the electronic charge. Those are not going to be discussed, for the most part, in this course, however.
Putting "charge is quantized" in terms of an equation, we say:
q = n e
q is the symbol used to represent charge, while n is a positive or negative integer, and e is the electronic charge, 1.60 x 10-19 Coulombs.
The Law of Conservation of Charge
The Law of conservation of charge states that the net charge of an isolated system remains constant.
If a system starts out with an equal number of positive and negative charges, there¹s nothing we can do to create an excess of one kind of charge in that system unless we bring in charge from outside the system (or remove some charge from the system). Likewise, if something starts out with a certain net charge, say +100 e, it will always have +100 e unless it is allowed to interact with something external to it.
Charge can be created and destroyed, but only in positive-negative pairs.
Table of elementary particle masses and charges:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_10_17_10_54_40.gif




Electrostatic charging
Forces between two electrically-charged objects can be extremely large. Most things are electrically neutral; they have equal amounts of positive and negative charge. If this wasn't the case, the world we live in would be a much stranger place. We also have a lot of control over how things get charged. This is because we can choose the appropriate material to use in a given situation.
Metals are good conductors of electric charge, while plastics, wood, and rubber are not. They¹re called insulators. Charge does not flow nearly as easily through insulators as it does through conductors, which is why wires you plug into a wall socket are covered with a protective rubber coating. Charge flows along the wire, but not through the coating to you.
Materials are divided into three categories, depending on how easily they will allow charge (i.e., electrons) to flow along them. These are:
•   conductors - metals, for example
•   semi-conductors - silicon is a good example
•   insulators - rubber, wood, plastic for example
Most materials are either conductors or insulators. The difference between them is that in conductors, the outermost electrons in the atoms are so loosely bound to their atoms that they¹re free to travel around. In insulators, on the other hand, the electrons are much more tightly bound to the atoms, and are not free to flow. Semi-conductors are a very useful intermediate class, not as conductive as metals but considerably more conductive than insulators. By adding certain impurities to semi-conductors in the appropriate concentrations the conductivity can be well-controlled.
There are three ways that objects can be given a net charge. These are:
1   Charging by friction - this is useful for charging insulators. If you rub one material with another (say, a plastic ruler with a piece of paper towel), electrons have a tendency to be transferred from one material to the other. For example, rubbing glass with silk or saran wrap generally leaves the glass with a positive charge; rubbing PVC rod with fur generally gives the rod a negative charge.
2   Charging by conduction - useful for charging metals and other conductors. If a charged object touches a conductor, some charge will be transferred between the object and the conductor, charging the conductor with the same sign as the charge on the object.
3   Charging by induction - also useful for charging metals and other conductors. Again, a charged object is used, but this time it is only brought close to the conductor, and does not touch it. If the conductor is connected to ground (ground is basically anything neutral that can give up electrons to, or take electrons from, an object), electrons will either flow on to it or away from it. When the ground connection is removed , the conductor will have a charge opposite in sign to that of the charged object.
An example of induction using a negatively charged object and an initially-uncharged conductor (for example, a metal ball on a plastic handle).
(1) bring the negatively-charged object close to, but not touching, the conductor. Electrons on the conductor will be repelled from the area nearest the charged object.
(2) connect the conductor to ground. The electrons on the conductor want to get as far away from the negatively-charged object as possible, so some of them flow to ground.
(3) remove the ground connection. This leaves the conductor with a deficit of electrons.
(4) remove the charged object. The conductor is now positively charged.
A practical application involving the transfer of charge is in how laser printers and photocopiers work.


Coulomb's law
The force exerted by one charge q on another charge Q is given by Coulomb's law:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_08_17_1_39_16.gif


r is the distance between the charges.
Remember that force is a vector, so when more than one charge exerts a force on another charge, the net force on that charge is the vector sum of the individual forces. Remember, too, that charges of the same sign exert repulsive forces on one another, while charges of opposite sign attract.





To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Continued … What causes particle charge in the ISU?

In order to be a bit organized about doing this project “live” on the thread, I’ll use:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/index.html

And follow the links under “Electric Charge” for the purpose of covering the pertinent reference material (for the initial series of posts). I’ll try to note where the ISU fundamentals bring in speculations about “as yet” unknowns, and their speculated effects, at a scale below our ability to observe. The idea is that these speculations are internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. If these posts inspire opposing arguments or falsification of any details, I’m open to them in the interest of continued improvement.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elecur.html#c2

First up is Coulomb’s law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html#c1
It is well known that like charges repel, unlike charges attract.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_24_08_17_10_55_50.png



That is an observable, but behind the observations of attracting and repelling is the concept of “force”, and in Coulomb’s law the force is acting on a point charge, q1, as a result of the presence of a second point charge, q2.

The reference to “force” brings us to the first point of departure between the Hyper-physics explanation and the ISU fundamentals. The hyperlink to “force” covers the basic forces:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/force.html#defor
“One of the foundation concepts of physics, a force may be thought of as any influence which tends to change the motion of an object. Our present understanding is that there are four fundamental forces in the universe, the gravity force, the nuclear weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the nuclear strong force in ascending order of strength.”

The ISU identifies the two major forces as energy density equalization, and quantum gravity, so let’s recognize that as a fundamental difference between the hyper-physics material and the ISU. The ISU thinking is that quantum gravity, when it is explained and becomes a consensus, will account for three of those forces, gravity, plus the strong and weak nuclear forces. The fourth force, the electromagnetic force, is addressed by Hyper-physics as follows:

“One of the four fundamental forces, the electromagnetic force manifests itself through the forces between charges (Coulomb's Law) and the magnetic force, both of which are summarized in the Lorentz force law. Fundamentally, both magnetic and electric forces are manifestations of an exchange force involving the exchange of photons . The quantum approach to the electromagnetic force is called quantum electrodynamics or QED. The electromagnetic force is a force of infinite range which obeys the inverse square law, and is of the same form as the gravity force.”

The ISU Particle Charge Project will include examining the hyper-physics links included in that link, as it develops.

But first, the ISU talks about another force, energy density equalization. Quantum gravity and energy density equalization are always present together, in the process of opposing each other. When the local affect of gravity is observed, it has become the dominate force in the local environment, and when expansion is observed, energy density equalization is dominant in the local environment. The local environment can be of any size, and will have a net force acting on it. In the ISU, energy density equalization is the force behind the initial rapid expansion (inflation) of a Big Bang arena at the instant of the collapse/bang, and is behind the “as yet” unexplained observable, dark energy (see reply #87). On a universal scale, the universe is neither expanding nor collapsing, and in that respect is in a “steady state” on a grand scale.

The concept is that in the multiple Big Bang universe, a Big Bang starts out with the collapse of a Big Crunch; the core of the collapsing Big Crunch being nature’s maximum wave energy density. Correspondingly, the space occupied by the “parent” arenas which have each contributed a vast portion of their galactic matter and energy to the crunch, has therefore become nature’s lowest wave energy density environment, given that volume of space.

So when nature’s highest and lowest wave energy density environments are adjacent in contiguous space, the immediate effect is that the two energy density environments begin the process of energy density equalization with an initial rapid epic of “inflation”. The Big Bang arena wave is driven to expand into the lower energy density space surrounding it by the force of energy density equalization.

To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Continued project … What causes particle charge in the ISU?


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_28_08_17_8_45_26.jpeg

Protons and electrons create electric fields.
Credit: Igor Zh. | Shutterstock




Continuing with the Coulomb force hyperlink, the equation includes a term for the “permittivity” of space. Permittivity is one of three applicable constants brought up in the “permittivity” link. Keep in mind that the presence of gravitational wave energy in space is a characteristic of the ISU, while it is characterized as permittivity and permeability in the Hyper-physics material:


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c3


“In the equations describing electric and magnetic fields and their propagation, three constants are normally used. One is the speed of light c, and the other two are the electric permittivity of free space ε0 and the magnetic permeability of free space, μ0. The magnetic permeability of free space is taken to have the exact value 4 pi x 10^-7 N / A^2”


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/imgele/emcons2.gif
(gif of speed of speed of light equation relative to permittivity and permeability).


Considering the relationship between the speed of light, and the characteristics of space that govern the speed of light, from the Hyper-physics perspective, electric permittivity and magnetic permeability are the cause of impedance.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space


“The impedance of free space, Z0, is a physical constant relating the magnitudes of the electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetic radiation traveling through free space. That is, Z0 = |E| / |H|, where |E| is the electric field strength and |H| is the magnetic field strength. It has an exactly defined value
Z sub 0 = 119.9169832 π Ω ≈ 376.730 313 461 77 …  Ω
{\displaystyle Z_{0}=119.9169832\;\pi \ \Omega \approx 376.730\ 313\ 461\ 77\ldots \Omega }.”


“The impedance of free space (more correctly, the wave-impedance of a plane wave in free space) equals the product of the vacuum permeability μ0 and the speed of light in vacuum c0. Since the values of these constants are exact (they are given in the definitions of the ampere and the metre respectively), the value of the impedance of free space is likewise exact.”




The affect that gravitational wave energy has on the speed of light in the ISU can be equated with the impedance of space, accounted for by electric permittivity and magnetic permeability from the perspective of the Hyper-physics material. The resulting universe has the same characteristics of course, but the ISU has wave mechanics explanations for the effects, as addressed in regard to the speculation that the wave energy density of space governs the speed of light in the local environment.


One might speculate that the electric and magnetic aspects that are observed, electromagnetism, are effects of the constituents in space, and of the motion of wave-particles through an oscillating background that contains and advances gravitational wave energy, including light, through space.


In the ISU, the photon is a wave particle that is emitted from an electron at the speed of light. When emitted, the photon wave-particle has the same two components as any wave particle, the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving through space from distant wave-particles and objects, and the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy that potentially has an infinite reach. Because the photon travels at the local speed of light, it gets all of its inflowing wave energy component from the direction of motion, and therefore follows the curved path of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, which is a composite of the history of the motion of all mass.


Light, the electromagnetic spectrum, is considered the spherically out flowing wave energy component of the photon wave particle:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg




To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The Hyper-physics material on Electric Charge goes on to address the speed of light c, a constant in a perfect vacuum:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c3


“Experimental measurements of the speed of light have been refined in progressively more accurate experiments since the seventeenth century. Recent experiments give a speed of … c = 299,792,458 m/s …
Therefore the above speed of light has been adopted as a standard value and the length of the meter is redefined to be consistent with this value.
In vacuum, all electromagnetic waves travel at c, the speed of light.”


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_31_08_17_8_28_29.jpeg





There is no reason to doubt that the speed of light is a constant, c, in a perfect vacuum. A perfect vacuum, or free space, is devoid of any particles. In the standard view of cosmology, vacuum energy density is used to refer to the cosmological constant, and the recent conclusion is that there is a small positive value for the vacuum energy density (a perfect vacuum being zero).


The concept is not much different from the ISU force of energy density equalization in regard to the rate of expansion of the known universe. However, in the ISU, the universe as a whole is steady state, not expanding, and so the cosmological constant can only apply to individual expanding arenas within the steady state universe. Overall, there are a potentially infinite number of active Big Bang arenas in various stages of expansion, convergence, and crunch formation.


This Ned Wright link is information in regard to a single expanding Big Bang, as implied by observations of the visible portion of our Big Bang arena:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

The point that the speed of light has a maximum limit in nature as a result of the permittivity and permeability of space brings up an interesting speculation in the ISU. It is seemingly a small point to make, but in the ISU, in addition to the occasional hydrogen atom, the composition of space that is characterized as impedance is considered part of the explanation for the effect called dark matter as well. The missing mass in the universe is a standing problem in cosmology. “… up to 80% of the matter in the universe is simply missing.” (Various sources including http://science.time.com/2013/04/05/has-the-missing-80-of-the-universes-mass-been-found/)


In the ISU, the explanation for dark matter, in addition to the speculation in reply #88 earlier about remnants of galactic matter from a perpetual history of Big Bang arena action, space is full of the intersections of the gravitational waves that are continually converging from all directions at all points in space. The thinking is that each wave intersection and overlap represents a momentary “spot” of mass. If it occurs at the particle boundary it may be taken up and incorporated into the complex standing wave patterns of existing particles and objects, or it may be a passing momentary convergence in open space.


In the case of a passing convergence, it is not a standing wave particle in the sense that wave-particles are stable, but it has the two components of a standing wave; the inflow of the two converging parent waves, and the out flow from the momentary spot. As this type of action occurs in the space between particles and objects, the third waves emerge out of each high density “spot”, and expand spherically, intersecting with surrounding waves. That is the way gravitational wave energy advances spherically through the oscillating background of space.




To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Still in the Coulomb’s Law link, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html#c1, where, after permittivity and the speed of light, we come to Newton's third law, introduced by saying:


“Note that this satisfies Newton's third law because it implies that exactly the same magnitude of force acts on q2 . Coulomb's law is a vector equation and includes the fact that the force acts along the line joining the charges. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Coulomb's law describes a force of infinite range which obeys the inverse square law, and is of the same form as the gravity force.”


Newton's third law
"Newton's third law: All forces in the universe occur in equal but oppositely directed pairs. There are no isolated forces; for every external force that acts on an object there is a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction which acts back on the object which exerted that external force. In the case of internal forces, a force on one part of a system will be countered by a reaction force on another part of the system so that an isolated system cannot by any means exert a net force on the system as a whole. A system cannot "bootstrap" itself into motion with purely internal forces - to achieve a net force and an acceleration, it must interact with an object external to itself.”

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_4_33_35.gif



“Without specifying the nature or origin of the forces on the two masses, Newton's 3rd law states that if they arise from the two masses themselves, they must be equal in magnitude but opposite in direction so that no net force arises from purely internal forces.”


Coulomb’s law about forces between charged particles is quite similar to Newton's third law about forces between masses, and they both obey the inverse square law.




The next link in the Coulomb’s law hyperlink is to the inverse square law in regard to the electric field:


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html#isqe




Inverse Square Law, Electric
“As one of the fields which obey the general inverse square law, the electric field of a point charge can be put in the form shown below where point charge Q is the source of the field. The electric force in Coulomb's law follows the inverse square law.”

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_01_09_17_8_01_40.gif



Note: the diagram is for the inverse square law in general. The inverse square law is at home in the ISU, both in regard to the inverse relationship to distance, and in regard to the infinite reach of both quantum gravity and energy density equalization. The spherical out flowing energy wave has a potentially infinite reach; it will theoretically expand spherically forever until interrupted by encountering an opposing gravitational force. Gravity, light, radiation, and even sound have inverse square relationships in both the standard model and the ISU.


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The last of the first round of hyperlinks, those from the Coulomb’s law link, is the gravity force:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#grav

Cut and paste from the link:
“Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, yet it is the dominant force in the universe for shaping the large scale structure of galaxies, stars, etc. The gravitational force between two masses m1 and m2 is given by the relationship …
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_09_17_1_23_41.gif



This is often called the "universal law of gravitation" and G the universal gravitation constant. It is an example of an inverse square law force. The force is always attractive and acts along the line joining the centers of mass of the two masses. The forces on the two masses are equal in size but opposite in direction, obeying Newton's third law. Viewed as an exchange force, the massless exchange particle is called the graviton. From Einstein's treatment in general relativity, gravity is associated with a curvature of space-time and changes in mass configuration can produce gravitational waves.
The gravity force has the same form as Coulomb's law for the forces between electric charges, i.e., it is an inverse square law force which depends upon the product of the two interacting sources. This led Einstein to start with the electromagnetic force and gravity as the first attempt to demonstrate the unification of the fundamental forces. It turns out that this was the wrong place to start, and that gravity will be the last of the forces to unify with the other three forces. Electroweak unification (unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces) was demonstrated in 1983, a result which could not be anticipated in the time of Einstein's search. It now appears that the common form of the gravity and electromagnetic forces arises from the fact that each of them involves an exchange particle of zero mass, not because of an inherent symmetry which would make them easy to unify.”


That link covers a lot of territory. The first point I want to address is in regard to the differences between the wave mechanics of the ISU, vs. the spacetime of GR. The link puts it like this:
“From Einstein's treatment in general relativity, gravity is associated with a curvature of space-time and changes in mass configuration can produce gravitational waves.”


That is addressed in the ISU by first, comparing two simple sayings:


In GR, the saying goes:
Matter tells space how to curve
Curved space tells matter how to move
Everything moves in the straightest possible line in space-time.


In the ISU, the corresponding saying is:
Matter emits gravity waves
Gravity waves tell matter how to move
Everything moves in curved paths through the wave energy density profile of space.


It is about the line of force between two objects of mass:


The path of an object freely moving through space is described by the emission of out flowing gravity waves from all objects in space. The gravity wave emissions are continuous from objects in space, and as they are emitted they are incremental to the local wave energy density profile of local space. So as an object moves, it lays out a path of high wave energy density surrounding it, along its path. The density of the path it leaves declines as the wave energy density equalizes with the lower surrounding environments, but is always a high energy density path relative to those lower wave energy density surroundings.


The local density at every point in space is ever changing, but it never “forgets” the history of the movement of all objects, so once a freely moving distant object comes under the influence of the net highest wave energy density path, its own path curves into the net highest density path laid out before it in the wave energy density profile of space.


Thus, the wave energy density profile of space, in the form of spherically expanding gravitational waves, is moderated by the inverse square law. It also governs the local speed of light (and gravity) which varies as the local wave energy density of the profile varies. Objects follow that profile as they move relative to each other, and the curved path is always in the direction of the highest net wave energy density of the surrounding space. In the ISU, space does not curve, it contains gravitational wave energy that makes the motion of objects follow curved paths because all objects in space are in relative motion to each other.


An example is the moon which is constantly falling toward where the earth was a little over a second ago and around 250,000 miles away. But that delay of gravity is enough to keep the moon in perpetual free fall around the earth as it follows the net highest wave energy density path on a time delayed basis. The source of wave energy density that the moon is following is the Earth, which is continually moving out of the way before the moon gets there, thus leaving a curved path for the moon to follow as it continually falls to where Earth was a little over a second ago.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/gravwav.html#c1
Gravitational waves link

To be continued ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Repeating the disclaimer … Any speculations and conclusions that I post in this thread are about my views on cosmology which I refer to as the ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe) model, and are layman level, science enthusiast speculations and conclusions, not science done by professionals. If these posts inspire opposing arguments or falsification of any details, I’m open to them in the interest of continued improvement.

Next, in regard to the link to “exchange force” that is included in the Hyper-physics Gravity link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/exchg.html#c1

Exchange Force
Cut and paste:
“All four of the fundamental forces involve the exchange of one or more particles. Even the underlying color force which is presumed to hold the quarks together to make up the range of observed particles involves an exchange of particles labeled gluons.
Such exchange forces may be either attractive or repulsive, but are limited in range by the nature of the exchange force. The maximum range of an exchange force is dictated by the uncertainty principle since the particles involved are created and exist only in the exchange process - they are called "virtual" particles. Such exchange forces are often pictured with Feynman diagrams.”
Table

Force                           Exchange particle
Strong Force                         gluon
Electromagnetic Force        photon
Weak Force.                        W and Z
Gravity.                                graviton
End of link.


Further, from the hyperlink, “Range of exchange forces”:
“Note that this expression implies that a zero mass for the exchange particle implies a force of infinite range. The rest masses of the exchange particles for the electromagnetic force and gravity, the photon and the graviton, are taken to be zero and those forces are presumed to be infinite in range. The recent detection of gravity waves is consistent with transmission at the speed of light and therefore with a graviton mass of zero.”


The ISU has taken a different path in describing both light and gravity, and they are big departures from the material presented in the Hyper-physics links, as noted throughout the thread. As mentioned at the end of reply #96, “Light, the electromagnetic spectrum, is considered the spherically out flowing wave energy component of the photon wave particle:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg”



In the ISU, the mass of a photon, just like all wave-particles, is contained in a wave-particle whose presence is maintained by a complex standing wave pattern that moves in the direction of the net highest wave energy density source in the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space.


The concept of a photon at rest with zero mass may be technically correct in the language of the standard model, but that is not consistent with the idea that the photon is emitted at the speed of light, has mass composed of various numbers of quanta (not to be confused with the standard model or the “quantum of action”), and has both a directionally inflowing standing wave component, and a spherically out flowing wave energy component, which is light in the ISU.


In regard to the graviton exchange particle of the force of gravity, the approach in the ISU is presented as the speculated scenario for quantum gravity, described in reply #76, and the exchange is effected by wave energy, not by a virtual exchange particle called a graviton.


To explain that, particles that make up m1 and m2 in the equation …
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_09_17_1_23_41.gif



… are the source of spherically out flowing gravitational waves emitted from the standing wave patterns of the wave-particles that make up the two masses, m1 and m2, in accord with the description of standing wave particles mentioned throughout. The spherically out flowing wave energy emitted by wave-particles in m1 and m2, traverse the space between each other at the local speed of light, and become each other's directionally inflowing wave energy components. This is a gravitational wave-energy exchange.


They cause wave convergences in space that might act as momentary “virtual” particles, or as I phrased it, “momentary ‘spots’ with mass” as mentioned in post #97, but those “spots” do not traverse space, they appear and disappear. This action is part of the process of quantum action at the particle boundaries of the each of the receiving masses, and those convergences, or high energy density spots, are continually being incorporated into the masses, replacing the continually out flowing gravitational wave energy from the surfaces of the respective masses, m1 and m2.


Therefore, the ISU counterpart to the graviton particle that is predicted by the standard model, is the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component of the standing wave patterns of all of the wave-particles that make up m1 and m2.


The ever changing wave energy density profile of space then, is related to the wave particles in the mass that move through it, just as the electromagnetic radiation is related to the photon wave-particles that emit the light of the electromagnetic spectrum as they traverse open space.


The light of the electromagnetic spectrum is a special form of gravitational wave energy, meaning that since the photon wave-particle travels at the speed of light, it gets all of its inflowing wave energy component from the direction of motion, thus “faithfully” following the curved path laid out in the wave energy density profile of the local space.


To be continued (from Tampa, FL, after Irma) …