[Bogie_smiles]

That's pretty good.

[guest39538]

That's pretty good.

This ones better, shame I have not got some decent 3d software.


space-time1.jpg (354.6 kB . 848x652 - viewed 4000 times)

[Bogie_smiles]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_22_44.jpeg



I drew this long ago to depict some concept of how gravity works, but it also could depict a single node in the lattice structure. The yellow arrow would be the strongest inflowing directional density of the energy density profile of space. In the graphic you are working on, there would be at least six directional yellow arrows meaning that this arena would be intersecting with six or more adjacent expanding arenas, as the process of arena action plays out.

[guest39538]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_22_44.jpeg



I drew this long ago to depict some concept of how gravity works, but it also could depict a single node in the lattice structure. The yellow arrow would be the strongest inflowing directional density of the energy density profile of space. In the graphic you are working on, there would be at least six directional yellow arrows meaning that this arena would be intersecting with six or more adjacent expanding arenas, as the process of arena action plays out.

There could be more than the seven arenas I have drawn, it is only 2d, where the 3d version would be surrounded because I assume in your model that all arenas are attracted to each other and entangle ?

Can we consider individual wave particles to be micro arenas that make up a big arena?

p.s cool diagram, I take it that your inflow is a pole?

[Bogie_smiles]

There could be more than the six I have drawn, it is only 2d, where the 3d version would be surrounded because I assume in your model that all arenas are attracted to each other and entangle ?

Yes, there could be more than six, depending on the overall wave energy density of the universe, and depending on the several other considerations that have lengthy explanations.

Can we consider individual wave particles to be micro arenas that make up a big arena?

Yes, the concept is that the process of arena action that we are taking about at the macro lattice level, has a micro counterpart, the quantum action process, where the similarity between the macro and micro processes is striking.

p.s cool diagram, I take it that your inflow is a pole?

I don't have the same proclivity to say that there are poles everywhere. Charged particles, magnetic fields, dipoles, etc. are all pertinent in the arena space, and are important to the way wave-particles and objects interact, but in a lattice, I haven't been too concerned with poles, as much I am with directional bonds (gravitational influences).

[Bogie_smiles]

Do you live near a library. Our local library has several good graphics packages available for public use.

[guest39538]

Do you live near a library. Our local library has several good graphics packages available for public use.

I live near a library but it is rather basic I think.

[Bogie_smiles]

I live near a library but it is rather basic I think.

Maybe they would order a good package if you show some interest. Do they let you use their computers.


However, some of these graphic programs have steep learning curves, lol.

[guest39538]

I live near a library but it is rather basic I think.

Maybe they would order a good package if you show some interest. Do they let you use their computers.


However, some of these graphic programs have steep learning curves, lol.

I think they have computers, maybe they would let me.  I learnt to do basic CGI myself and also I did a bit of HTML coding to create a page.  I am sure I will workout a 3d program

[Bogie_smiles]

I think they have computers, maybe they would let me.  I learnt to do basic CGI myself and also I did a bit of HTML coding to create a page.  I am sure I will workout a 3d program  

I know it is a lot of work.

In the mean time, wave-particle duality seems like a topic that defaults to various rather exotic and math laden theories that thrill on the spooky action and vary depending on the various interpretations of QM that are invoked; QCD, QED, QEWD (quantum electroweakdynamics), it is hard to keep up, and don't get the idea that I advocate them. My model is wave mechanics for layman, and I can't discuss intelligently and don't even try to stay on top of such theories where they say the details are spooky and we just have to accept that fact. 

I'm more on Einstein's wave length when it comes to being skeptical of spooky action.

Here is another image that I worked up quite some time ago to depict a wave-particle. The black spots are quanta, and they have internal detail which involves tiny wave convergences resulting in numerous high density spots within the particle space; I refer to them as quanta, or high energy density spots, or hints of mass within the particle space. Together they make up the total mass of the wave-particle, and each of them are momentary gravitational wave convergences within the particle space. They are continually being refreshed within the wave-particle's complex standing wave pattern, based on the concept that the pattern has two components: 1) the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving at the wave-particle from various directions (i.e., gravitational waves emitted by distant particles and objects), via the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, and 2) the spherically outflowing gravitational emission from the wave-particle that is produced by the pulsing action of all of the refreshing quanta within the standing wave pattern. The outflowing gravitational wave energy component traverses space and becomes the inflowing gravitational wave energy component of distant particles and objects.

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

[guest39538]

Here is another image that I worked up quite some time ago to depict a wave-particle. The black spots are quanta, and they have internal detail which involves tiny wave convergences resulting in numerous high density spots within the particle space; I refer to them as quanta, or high energy density spots, or hints of mass within the particle space. Together they make up the total mass of the wave-particle, and each of them are momentary gravitational wave convergences within the particle space. They are continually being refreshed within the wave-particle's complex standing wave pattern, based on the concept that the pattern has two components: 1) the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving at the wave-particle from various directions (i.e., gravitational waves emitted by distant particles and objects), via the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, and 2) the spherically outflowing gravitational emission from the wave-particle that is produced by the pulsing action of all of the refreshing quanta within the standing wave pattern. The outflowing gravitational wave energy component traverses space and becomes the inflowing gravitational wave energy component of distant particles and objects.

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

My version differs  in  drawing slightly  to yours , but we are on the same lines with our thoughts.  I agree in the inflow and outflow and core density.   I have considered this evening though that maybe Muon's fill the core?

[Bogie_smiles]

In the ISU, a layman science enthusiast level model, here’s the difference. Muons themselves are wave-particles, and have the structure of a complex standing wave pattern with  both components, inflowing and outflowing gravitational wave energy. Their spin is opposite of the spin of an electron according to the standard model, I think.

The core of all of the wave-particles in the ISU, muons, electrons, protons, photons, quarks, any particle in the standard model, is an accumulation of momentary high energy density spots at the convergence of the gravitational waves that are coursing through the particle’s space. That is in stark contrast to the fundamental particles of the Standard Particle Model which are said to have no internal composition, no internal wave convergences.

Here is how I depict a single high energy density post within the wave-particle space:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg

Note that in the ISU model, as the inflowing gravitational waves approach the particle boundary from outside, they slow down because the wave energy density increases. The gravitational wave action inside the boundary of the wave-particle is very significantly slowed due to the very high wave energy density within the wave-particle space.

[guest39538]

In the ISU, a layman science enthusiast level model, here’s the difference.

The comparison of your model is very strikingly similar to mine.

Except where you have drawn in the lines, I left my lines of inflow and outflow  invisible . 

Now the oscillation is representative of the inflow and outflow function. Expansion and contraction at a super fast speed causing space-time ''ripples''.  The outer ''ring'' of my model is a proton/electron shell/sphere, I see not reason why opposite polarity cannot occupy the same geometrical point.  The core of my model is filling and ''emptying'' constantly.
The inflow like you state slows down at the 'surface' boundary. 


I think apart from drawings and a few details, we are talking on the same level of thinking. 

I do not think you are a layman either, quite good in my eyes, better than most I might say.

Edit end...

[Bogie_smiles]

The comparison of your model is very strikingly similar to mine.

Except where you have drawn in the lines, I left my lines of inflow and outflow  invisible . 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGzYlRNzJug


Now the oscillation is representative of the inflow and outflow function. Expansion and contraction at a super fast speed causing space-time ''ripples''.  The outer ''ring'' of my model is a proton/electron shell/sphere, I see not reason why opposite polarity cannot occupy the same geometrical point.  The core of my model is filling and ''emptying'' constantly.
The inflow like you state slows down at the 'surface' boundary. 


I think apart from drawings and a few details, we are talking on the same level of thinking. 

I like the vibrating image. It looks like natural action, but is it at the wave-particle level, or at some order of magnitude below the fundamental particle level. Over the years I have contemplated my version of quanta and sub-quanta composition of wave-particles to try to conclude at what level the fundamental pulsing or oscillating action occurs.

For example, I mention the possibility of an oscillating wave energy background that assists in the advance of light and gravitational waves through space; I often reference the Huygens Principle and talk about “third wave” action in the advance of “meaningful” light and gravity waves.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg

In the ISU, I would portray that wave propagation image by flipping it and overlaying two opposite directions of wave propagation in the same space. Maybe I’ll try to produce that image later.

The ISU distinguishes between that oscillating action and the next level up, the process I call Quantum Action. The foundational oscillating background action is the most fundamental gravitational wave energy action going on in all space. If you were to remove all particles and objects that emit their outflowing gravitational wave energy into space, the oscillating background would still be there, oscillating away forever.

Quantum Action is the process at the next level above that, where the presence of wave-particles and objects exist and interact at the micro level, and of course then above the quantum action level comes the Arena Action level, where big bangs and big bang arenas fill the universal landscape of the greater universe, perhaps in a lattice structure.

When thinking through the mechanics of my version, there were a few considerations:

Does the entire wave-particle pulse as a whole, and thus does the rate of the pulsing represent the frequency of the particle?

Or is there a constant locational pulsing within the particle space, with pulsing at numerous locations where each internal high energy density spot forms and gets disbursed as an internal third wave?

If so, each third wave produces a very localized pulse within the particle space, however the outflow of energy of that localized pulse doesn’t get very far before it is interrupted, because each high density spot is surrounded by other adjacent high density spots, themselves pulsing and producing third waves with each pulse.

Another consideration is the ISU force of energy density equalization, which in this example is the continual third wave outflow at each location within the wave-particle; that is the action that serves to move the wave energy around as in the sequence, convergence/third-wave/convergence, which would trend toward equalization of wave energy density throughout the wave-particle space, and perhaps result in a synchronized pulsing within the particle space. One can begin to see a lattice structure to the internal pulsing action.

Given the internal action of the wave-particle, the internal wave energy is coursing its way deep into the particle space and back out to the surface where it intersects with inflowing gravitational waves from the surrounding space.

So where is the synchronization of the pulse, maybe at the surface … or do the pulses trend toward synchronization internally…

This is where the ratio between the number of surface quanta and the number of quanta in the entire wave-particle becomes a consideration (which is a useful relationship in calculating a ball park estimate of the actual number of quanta in wave-particles like the electron and the proton, which yields figures in the billions and billions).

Each point on the surface has quantum action to push out wave energy and pull in replacement wave energy, so the individual quanta produce a pulsing action like the vibration video displays, but on an individual basis quantum by quantum at numerous (but orderly) locations at the particle surface.

But unless all of the surface third waves are synchronized, then the wave-particle’s overall frequency does not correspond with the individual third wave pulses from around its 3D surface.

Which suggests that each surface pulse is a beat in the overall frequency …

Or are all the individual beats from around the surface merged into a synchronized pulse just outside the particle space, aided by the advance of the individual pulse waves through the surrounding oscillating background.

We are contemplating a few options: 1) Is the frequency a whole wave-particle synchronized pulse, or 2) a merged pulse as the surface pulses are equalized in space, or 3) simply a series of individual pulses one from each surface quanta?

My conclusion is that it seems most logical that the frequency is a whole-particle pulse, and that the trend toward internal equalization of the rate of localized pulsing takes place to produce the synchronized internal lattice type pulse action, and that internal synchronization results in a synchronized pulsing action at the surface, representing the frequency of the wave-particle to the outside world,

[guest39538]

I like the vibrating image. It looks like natural action, but is it at the wave-particle level, or at some order of magnitude below the fundamental particle level. Over the years I have contemplated my version of quanta and sub-quanta composition of wave-particles to try to conclude at what level the fundamental pulsing or oscillating action occurs.

I will answer first to this , deal with your post in sections.
The vibration applies on a wave particle level and on a whole level, i.e ''event horizon''

For example, I mention the possibility of an oscillating wave energy background that assists in the advance of light and gravitational waves through space;

I consider the wave ''background'' is the consequent of the wave particles vibrations.  In other terms, a static field that is oscillated as opposed to oscillates.

Does the entire wave-particle pulse as a whole, and thus does the rate of the pulsing represent the frequency of the particle?

I would say yes that is correct.   I have some friends arrive will continue later on, below is how I see the particle ''rippling'' the background.


rst.jpg (135.11 kB . 1474x745 - viewed 3951 times)


Whoops sorry, wrong diagram , but I will leave you that to observe. 

[Bogie_smiles]

I consider the wave ''background'' is the consequent of the wave particles vibrations.  In other terms, a static field that is oscillated as opposed to oscillates.

I would say yes that is correct.   I have some friends arrive will continue later on, below is how I see the particle ''rippling'' the background.




Whoops sorry, wrong diagram , but I will leave you that to observe. 

I notice that your review was interrupted by friends, but it is shared logic that the wave-particle emits a spherical outflowing wave with each pulse, and that repetitive pulse represents the frequency of the wave-particle.

As for shared logic between us in regard to the foundational oscillating gravitational wave energy background, we have taken different paths. Let me explain how I address it.

Unlike what I gather from your model, my model is not a spacetime model, meaning it doesn’t invoke Einstein’s field equations, though it recognizes the mathematics of GR as the best we have to predict the motion of objects through space.

In place of the gravitational fields defined by GR and the EFEs, I use the gravitational wave energy density profile of space to govern the motion of objects through space. Because I portray that energy density profile as being the alternative to GR and spacetime, my model can’t literally invoke spacetime, GR, or the EFEs. The energy density profile of space, combined with the process of quantum action, is supposed to support the same motion, and maybe some alternative is justified because of a small degree of impreciseness that exists with GR.

I mentioned that the background would oscillate forever, even without the presence of wave-particles and objects, but that is simply a thought experiment, contingent on the axioms of the model, i.e., that space, time and energy are the three infinities of a universe that has always existed. That is my approach anyway. You explain that wave particle vibrations are rippling the static background, and my scenario is the foundational oscillating gravitational wave energy background of space. How are they different in your view?

[guest39538]

In place of the gravitational fields defined by GR and the EFEs, I use the gravitational wave energy density profile of space to govern the motion of objects through space. Because I portray that energy density profile as being the alternative to GR and spacetime, my model can’t literally invoke spacetime, GR, or the EFEs. The energy density profile of space, combined with the process of quantum action, is supposed to support the same motion, and maybe some alternative is justified because of a small degree of impreciseness that exists with GR.

Ok, I am saying the same thing but bare with my explanation. 

Imagine two particles in any positions in a ''void''. Obviously it is not a void because the particles are in it .  Now imagine each particle emits a field that ''inflates'' infinitely.   

Now consider your field is this field rather than an independent spacial field.

Can you imagine that ?   

A sort of deception ?

[Bogie_smiles]

Ok, I am saying the same thing but bare with my explanation. 

Imagine two particles in any positions in a ''void''. Obviously it is not a void because the particles are in it .  Now imagine each particle emits a field that ''inflates'' infinitely.   

Now consider your field is this field rather than an independent spacial field.

Can you imagine that ?   

A sort of deception ?

There is a problem Will Robinson.

There is no void and never was in the ISU model. If you start with a void, your two particles in the void will soon have emitted all of their contained energy, and will dissipate into the void long before they inflate infinitely to express the gravitational field that fills the void. That is why I was pressing you for a choice as to the explanation for the existence of the universe. If it hasn’t always existed you have to have an explanation for how particles appear out of nothing.

If you refer to my “field”, you should call it the “energy density profile of space” to distinguish it from what would be called a gravitational field in GR. Particles and objects moving through the profile of space don’t react to it based on their charges.


Case in point, there are many particles and objects in space that don’t carry an electric charge at all, and that includes most atoms in their ground state, that are not ionized. And yet those uncharged particles, and objects composed of them, in regard to their relative motion, respond exactly the same way to the gravitational wave energy density profile of space as do charged particles and objects.

Charged particles do produce fields that other charged particles react to, but the gravitational profile is not a magnetic/electrical field. It is completely compatible with them, but the profile is the source and repository of gravitational wave energy that flows into and out of wave-particles.

Wave-particles, whether they are charged particles or neutral, contain gravitational wave energy. The proportion of energy to volume of space increases as the mass of the particle increases, and as the density of the particle increases, the rate that the gravitational waves that are traversing the inner particle space slows down, relative to the velocity of the gravitational waves that are arriving to the particle from the profile of space. Accelerated particles experience an increase in mass, relative to particles at rest, because they are exposed to a higher gravitational wave energy density in their direction of motion.

[guest39538]

There is no void and never was in the ISU model. If you start with a void, your two particles in the void will soon have emitted all of their contained energy, and will dissipate into the void long before they inflate infinitely to express the gravitational field that fills the void

I know you have not edited fully yet but I ''grabbed''  this part because you have just described my pre-big bang notion in a void.  Now consider what you have just said, but also please consider that the manifestation of zero point energy is continuous over time, time beginning from the first manifestation that starts filling the void.
I will comment again later when you have done your edit , just needed to write that down in case I forget it.

[Bogie_smiles]

I know you have not edited fully yet but I ''grabbed''  this part because you have just described my pre-big bang notion in a void.  Now consider what you have just said, but also please consider that the manifestation of zero point energy is continuous over time, time beginning from the first manifestation that starts filling the void.
I will comment again later when you have done your edit , just needed to write that down in case I forget it.

Are you saying that there was a void before the continuous manifestation of zero point energy over time? Are you saying that zero point energy equates to the continual creation of energy, as opposed to the old saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed?