[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #440

I've been thinking about the cause of particle charge, and am going to speculate about it here on my original NakedScientists thread about the ISU.

This first link is to reply #92 in this thread where I explored the popular science media content about charge:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg521293#msg521293

I just edited into that post a link to some of my quantum thinking on the subject from another thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg565553#msg565553
 
I want to post that content here for easier reference as I write the rest of this post:

If you think about natural forces applicable to the “whole of space” and, considering that the oscillating/foundational level of order fills the whole of space, then at the foundational level is where I expect to see the fundamental forces arise; there should be an explanation for the fundamental forces right there along with the explanation of quantum gravity at I am speculating about at that level.

Along that line of reasoning, the quantum action we are talking about in the ISU model suggests that when two (or more) wave fronts converge, they generate a third wave in the overlap space that continues to accumulate wave energy until the overlap space itself reaches a quantum of energy (relative to the local energy density environment). The third wave then, continues to expand spherically as its wave front advances at the local speed of light and gravity, following behind the advancing wave fronts of its “parent” waves.


Following that thought, the action is strikingly similar at each level of quantization, the big bang arena level, the wave particle level, and right down at the oscillating background level that fills all space; a “sameness” in the action processes across all scales. That makes the role that the wave fronts play in the quantization process one of the common denominators among those levels. Conceptually, the wave front is a spherically expanding differential between the energy density behind the wave front, and the energy density in front of the wave front. The differential at the front marks where the meaningful pinhole action of wave advance is taking place.


Therefore, a new pinhole wave is a third wave occurring at the level of the oscillating background, and the occurrence of that new third wave involves the motion of the wave front as it advances through the space in front of the front. The energy density behind the front is continually trending toward a state of equalization between the higher wave energy density behind the wave front, and the lower wave energy density in front of the wave front. As the spherical wave front advances, it is incorporating more lower density wave oscillations into the expanding volume of the advancing wave front, and the wave energy density behind that advancing wave front is therefore continually in a process of wave energy density equalization. That means that there is equalization going on behind the advancing front, while there is interruption of the equalization going on in front of the advancing wave front (and therefore behind the front of the other parent wave). It is at that line of differential between the two opposing fronts that the pinhole third wave action is occurring. The existence of a process of equalization behind the font, and the third wave action at the front, establishes the location of the advancing wave front and characterizes the conditions in effect at the point of the advancing front.

What point is being made with this post?

I'm suggesting, speculating about the presence of an electric force along the spherical wave front as it advances, and the presence of a magnetic force perpendicular to the advancing wave front, i.e., the question of whether a moving wave front produces electromagnetism as third waves are produced by the convergence of two or more “parent waves”.

Is that idea worthy of being considered as a foundational explanation for particle charge, and the fundamental explanation for electromagnetism? I say that rhetorically to indicate that it is a topic under consideration, that could fill a gap in the details of what I call the ISU model. It is not intended to imply that there is anything wrong with the generally accepted explanations of the physics of electric currents or the magnetic fields that they produce, as described in trusted sources, but it does bug me that I have not yet found the generally accepted explanation for the cause of particle charge in my layman level review of some of those sources.

To be continued ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #441

To follow on with the quantum thinking about particle charge in the ISU, my layman understanding of an electric current includes the idea that if you pass a loop of copper wire through a magnetic field, electric current flows through the wire, and as an electric current flows through a wire, there is a magnetic field perpendicular to the current flow.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43393/why-does-electricity-flowing-through-a-copper-coil-generate-a-magnetic-field
“An electric current (a flow of electric charge) has an associated magnetic field regardless of the material (or space) the flow occurs in. This is a fundamental part of electromagnetism, rooted in observation, and quantified in Ampere's Law.
I wish to emphasize that this phenomenon is considered to be fundamental in nature, which means, there cannot be a "more" fundamental explanation (for, if there were, electromagnetism would not be fundamental)."

It seems that the best answer so far for the cause of an electromagnetic particle charge is that electromagnetism is fundamental, and in the ISU, the invariant natural laws of the universe are fundamental.
I could go to speculative lengths and still not improve on the idea that in this case, the word “fundamental” refers to natural invariant laws recognized in the ISU as part of the philosophy of Eternal Intent (see reply #108  https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158). In the ISU philosophy, we express the conclusion that God and the Invariant Natural Laws of the Universe are one and the same.

To be continued ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I could go to speculative lengths and still not improve on the idea that in this case, the word “fundamental” refers to natural invariant laws recognized in the ISU as part of the philosophy of Eternal Intent (see reply #108  https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158). In the ISU philosophy, we express the conclusion that God and the Invariant Natural Laws of the Universe are one and the same.

To be continued ...

And to quote from the philosophy of Eternal Intent:
Yet life is so undaunted that perpetually its found there ...

[guest39538]

Hi Bogie ,

My N-field theory and your ISU model had some comparisons . I've now totally changed my model and have a new theory and model .   I wondered if you would mind discussing your field convergence please ?

After a recent thought on Quantum leaping I remembered your convergence theory vaguely and considered that in my new model , time could converge with time if time is expanding in other realms too .

Do you think / consider in your convergence theory that when the universes converge , that can be seen as different times converging ?

[Kryptid]

I've now totally changed my model and have a new theory and model

Would that mean the old model was wrong?

[guest39538]

I've now totally changed my model and have a new theory and model

Would that mean the old model was wrong?

No ,it would just mean my old model has been revamped and advanced . My old model was fine but  I've improved it since . Anyway lets not disrupt this thread , Bogie has some great thinking skills and his notions are rather good .

[Kryptid]

No ,it would just mean my old model has been revamped and advanced . My old model was fine but my I've improved it since

So you didn't "totally change" it.

[guest39538]

No ,it would just mean my old model has been revamped and advanced . My old model was fine but my I've improved it since

So you didn't "totally change" it.

Not totally , it's just I've ''discovered'' lots of new things since . I also think my math is getting better because people do slip in the occasional hints and help .

[Kryptid]

Not totally , it's just I've ''discovered'' lots of new things since . I also think my math is getting better because people do slip in the occasional hints and help .

What's different about it now?

[guest39538]

Not totally , it's just I've ''discovered'' lots of new things since . I also think my math is getting better because people do slip in the occasional hints and help .

What's different about it now?

Well before I had my N-field model which is the basic version but now I have a 7d model N-field version . To be honest my head is that full of thought it would take forever to write it all down . I've also got improved math for it I think now . TBH though , I don't get much encouragement so I hardly try  although I ''try'' . 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Hi Bogie ,

My N-field theory and your ISU model had some comparisons . I've now totally changed my model and have a new theory and model .   I wondered if you would mind discussing your field convergence please ?

After a recent thought on Quantum leaping I remembered your convergence theory vaguely and considered that in my new model , time could converge with time if time is expanding in other realms too .

Hello TheBox. I think it is a fair statement that your N-theory is more about fields, while my ISU model is more about energy density environments. Nevertheless, what you are doing in the process of getting your mind around the nature of the universe is the same as I am doing. My model is an expression of my thoughts about known science, generally accepted theory, and the as yet unknown, and each of those categories is in a state of continual change.

The scientific community is continually advancing our knowledge on every front, and as that process unfolds, advances are made into the “as yet” unknown. Those advances are folded into the category of known science via the scientific method, where existing theory can be superseded by new ideas. We are bound by the scientific method, and it is always incomplete because of the “as yet” unknown.

The “convergence theory” as you call it, is part of the ISU model, for sure, and the point of convergence it is only half of the action in any given convergence event, because every convergence between energy density environments produces an overlap, and the overlap space becomes a “third wave”. That third wave expands into the space previously occupied by the converging “parent” waves as the result of the process of energy density equalization, and as such, becomes a new expanding energy density environment of its own.

The idea is that any two adjacent energy density environments will have different average energy densities by definition, and so the more dense environment will impose itself on the space occupied by the less dense environment, and as the imposition takes place, the energy density of the combined environment declines and trends toward equalization.

An example of one of nature’s smallest environments might be the point of convergence between two small gravitational wave fronts, and while among the largest environments are the big bang arenas that expand until their expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with an adjacent expanding big bang arena, i.e., by converging.

So whether we are talking about the convergence of two individual low energy wave fronts, or two expanding high energy big bang arena wave fronts, convergences are continually occurring everywhere, as energy wave fronts carry energy across space, and as convergences occur. The process is perpetuated by the formation of third waves that form at the point of each convergence.

Do you think / consider in your convergence theory that when the universes converge , that can be seen as different times converging ?

Yes.

[guest39538]

Hi Bogie ,

My N-field theory and your ISU model had some comparisons . I've now totally changed my model and have a new theory and model .   I wondered if you would mind discussing your field convergence please ?

After a recent thought on Quantum leaping I remembered your convergence theory vaguely and considered that in my new model , time could converge with time if time is expanding in other realms too .

Hello TheBox. I think it is a fair statement that your N-theory is more about fields, while my ISU model is more about energy density environments. Nevertheless, what you are doing in the process of getting your mind around the nature of the universe is the same as I am doing. My model is an expression of my thoughts about known science, generally accepted theory, and the as yet unknown, and each of those categories is in a state of continual change.

The scientific community is continually advancing our knowledge on every front, and as that process unfolds, advances are made into the “as yet” unknown. Those advances are folded into the category of known science via the scientific method, where existing theory can be superseded by new ideas. We are bound by the scientific method, and it is always incomplete because of the “as yet” unknown.

The “convergence theory” as you call it, is part of the ISU model, for sure, and the point of convergence it is only half of the action in any given convergence event, because every convergence between energy density environments produces an overlap, and the overlap space becomes a “third wave”. That third wave expands into the space previously occupied by the converging “parent” waves as the result of the process of energy density equalization, and as such, becomes a new expanding energy density environment of its own.

The idea is that any two adjacent energy density environments will have different average energy densities by definition, and so the more dense environment will impose itself on the space occupied by the less dense environment, and as the imposition takes place, the energy density of the combined environment declines and trends toward equalization.

An example of one of nature’s smallest environments might be the point of convergence between two small gravitational wave fronts, and while among the largest environments are the big bang arenas that expand until their expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with an adjacent expanding big bang arena, i.e., by converging.

So whether we are talking about the convergence of two individual low energy wave fronts, or two expanding high energy big bang arena wave fronts, convergences are continually occurring everywhere, as energy wave fronts carry energy across space, and as convergences occur. The process is perpetuated by the formation of third waves that form at the point of each convergence.

Do you think / consider in your convergence theory that when the universes converge , that can be seen as different times converging ?

Yes.

Thank you for your reply , my model did/does consider field density and  of late also energy density .  I really like your convergence theory , to be honest probably the best piece of science I've ever read .  I assume your third wave is twice as dense when first converged to then expand to its original density ?

  = t

[Kryptid]

That equation isn't right. (t+t)/t does not equal t. It equals 2. When you add together the "t"s on the top, you get "2t". The "t" in the denominator then cancels with the "t" in the numerator, leaving only the 2 behind.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Thank you for your reply , my model did/does consider field density and  of late also energy density .  I really like your convergence theory , to be honest probably the best piece of science I've ever read .

It is quite alternative, and relies on my speculations to fill the gaps in the “as yet” unknown. But I like it too, thanks

I assume your third wave is twice as dense when first converged to then expand to its original density ?

Yes, if the parent waves are of equal density at the point of convergence.

The expansion of the third wave, after the point of intersection occurs, is subject to many variables, but you have tuned in on the fact that the density at the point of intersection would be the combined density of the two parent waves for the first instant.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Thank you for your reply , my model did/does consider field density and  of late also energy density .,,

I didn’t acknowledge this part of your reply, but charge and field go hand in hand in the ISU model. A charged particle has an electric field, and as a charged particle is accelerated relative to the field, a perpendicular magnetic field is produced.

In my model, the electric charge of a particle at rest occupies the same space as the electric field, and corresponds with the outflowing gravitational wave energy component of the wave-particle (the other component being the inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving from surrounding space). As you may recall, in the ISU model, the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon particle is light, and those light waves carry energy, relative to the energy of the particular photon, across space (at the speed of light and gravity).

This means that the photon wave particles always traverse space at the local speed of light (which is determined by the local gravitational wave energy density), and always receive their inflowing gravitational wave energy component (to replace the spherically out flowing wave energy) from the direction of motion, hence they follow an essentially straight path over short distances, and will have a curved path over longer distances, influenced by the presence of massive objects that lie ahead.

[guest39538]

Thank you for your reply , my model did/does consider field density and  of late also energy density .,,

I didn’t acknowledge this part of your reply, but charge and field go hand in hand in the ISU model. A charged particle has an electric field, and as a charged particle is accelerated relative to the field, a perpendicular magnetic field is produced.

In my model, the electric charge of a particle at rest occupies the same space as the electric field, and corresponds with the outflowing gravitational wave energy component of the wave-particle (the other component being the inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving from surrounding space). As you may recall, in the ISU model, the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon particle is light, and those light waves carry energy, relative to the energy of the particular photon, across space (at the speed of light and gravity).

This means that the photon wave particles always traverse space at the local speed of light (which is determined by the local gravitational wave energy density), and always receive their inflowing gravitational wave energy component (to replace the spherically out flowing wave energy) from the direction of motion) hence they follow an essentially straight path over short distances, and will have a curved path over longer distances, influenced by the presence of massive objects that lie ahead.

Uncanny how our models compare ,  I love your model because I love my model and our models make really good sense .  You do explain your model better than I explain mine though .

Have you ever considered your parent arena to be  a huge single photon  and within the photon is all the information of a visual Universe ?

Added - A ,  cannot see B and vice versus . Because in our infinite universe models , we can zoom out and anything of any size becomes a relative point .


abb.jpg (12.49 kB . 665x323 - viewed 4111 times)

Same pic zoomed out .


abbb.jpg (6.18 kB . 665x323 - viewed 4117 times)

The math says internal energy U divided by an unspecified volume of real coordinate space . 



Edit finished .

[guest39538]

Added- I can't remember , did you have/give name to the empty space between arenas in your model ?  I've called this space in my model the never ever space .


neverever.jpg (21.9 kB . 665x323 - viewed 4067 times)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Thank you for your reply , my model did/does consider field density and  of late also energy density .,,

I didn’t acknowledge this part of your reply, but charge and field go hand in hand in the ISU model. A charged particle has an electric field, and as a charged particle is accelerated relative to the field, a perpendicular magnetic field is produced.

In my model, the electric charge of a particle at rest occupies the same space as the electric field, and corresponds with the outflowing gravitational wave energy component of the wave-particle (the other component being the inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving from surrounding space). As you may recall, in the ISU model, the outflowing gravitational wave energy from the photon particle is light, and those light waves carry energy, relative to the energy of the particular photon, across space (at the speed of light and gravity).

This means that the photon wave particles always traverse space at the local speed of light (which is determined by the local gravitational wave energy density), and always receive their inflowing gravitational wave energy component (to replace the spherically out flowing wave energy) from the direction of motion) hence they follow an essentially straight path over short distances, and will have a curved path over longer distances, influenced by the presence of massive objects that lie ahead.

Uncanny how our models compare ,  I love your model because I love my model and our models make really good sense .  You do explain your model better than I explain mine though .

Have you ever considered your parent arena to be  a huge single photon  and within the photon is all the information of a visual Universe ?

The imagination can keep us entertained endlessly, , but I get where you are coming from. A big bang arena has a finite amount of energy, and so why not equate it with a massive photon that has its energy organized to contain the precise information that is contained in a single big bang arena?

Added - A ,  cannot see B and vice versus . Because in our infinite universe models , we can zoom out and anything of any size becomes a relative point .

The math says internal energy U divided by an unspecified volume of real coordinate space . 
Edit finished .

The difference is that in the ISU model, there is just one universe, but it contains a potentially infinite number of possible expanding big bang arenas at any given time. So arena A and arena B can co-exist, but each will be expanding, and no matter how far they are apart, left to expand independently, they will eventually intersect and overlap, and produce a new big crunch out of their combined galactic material. When that big crunch reaches critical capacity, it will collapse/bang into a new expanding big bang arena in its own right (a new third wave).


Energy fills all space.

You might think, “How can that be, if there are particles separated by space, then you might think of that surrounding space as being empty, but in the ISU model there is no empty space. So you might ask, “ What fills all of the surrounding space if it isn’t empty?

All space contains energy in the form of wave fronts that carry energy across space, and so in between detectible particles and objects that occupy space, is undetectable gravitational wave energy. That wave energy in surrounding space is emitted and absorbed by particles and objects that occupy space.

You might think that a particle that emits gravitational wave energy would quickly “evaporate” as it runs out of internal wave energy, but no, that does not happen. Gravitational waves are continually converging in space, and each convergence produces a momentary high energy density spot at the point of convergence. All of those spots in otherwise empty space, have a hint of mass, and the number (density) of “spots” or hints of mass is higher as you approach particles and objects in space, because those particles and objects are the source of the gravitational waves that fill all space.

That means that the space immediately surrounding particles and objects has higher energy density, and as you go deeper in the surrounding space by moving away from the local particles and objects, the energy density of the surrounding space naturally becomes less energy dense.

But no matter how far you go into deep space, you can never reach a place that is free of wave energy, because a gravitational wave front has higher energy density behind it than it has in front of it, enabling it to intrude on the lower energy density space that it is encountering as it expands. That differential of energy density behind vs. in front of the advancing gravitational wave energy front accounts for one of the two main forces in the ISU model, the force of energy density equalization; a higher energy density environment will advance through the surrounding space by imposing itself on the space occupied by the lower energy density surrounding space, and the volume of the overlap space will increase, and its density will trend toward equalization between the overlapping wave fronts.


(The overlap is actually a wave in its own right, which” is designated as a “third wave”, as you know.)

In an infinite and eternal universe filled with wave-energy, no overlap-space can expand until its internal energy density is equalized with the surrounding space, because its expansion will be interrupted by encountering higher energy density environments expanding toward it, to interrupt its expansion along various points on its expanding wave-front.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

In an infinite and eternal universe filled with wave-energy, no overlap-space can expand until its internal energy density is equalized with the surrounding space, because its expansion will be interrupted by encountering higher energy density environments expanding toward it, to interrupt its expansion along various points on its expanding wave-front.

That paragraphs captures the gist of the ISU wave energy mechanics that  apply to all actions, from the cases in which the ISU model acknowledges that in our infinite and eternal universe there are, have been, and will always be an infinite number of multiple big bangs and their associated expanding arena waves filling all space at all times, to the cases of the tiniest impulse waves that carry the most insignificant involuntary sub-conscious human thoughts, as our lives play out. That summarizes the thinking that has all of the attributes that are necessary to advance the conclusion that God and the Universe are one and the same, mentioned in the poem:

God and the Universe are One and the Same

If at first there was nothing, not even God,
Then nothing could ever be,
But just look around at the many fine things,
As far as the eye can see.
So say with certainty, one of two things,
It seems to make sense to proclaim;
God, or the Universe, has always been here,
And maybe they’re one and the same.

[fjoosk]

It sort of defeats the objective to be honest, defining the beginning can only have one first action, although multiple BB's could of followed.