[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #80

Hi Bogie,

I look at the double slit experiment as a parlor trick, I leave those that disagree to their own opinion. I'm not into trying to change minds. lol

Right, right. Changing minds in the New Theories sub-forum is a futile goal. In spite of that though, I have learned a lot from participating in science forum discussions, and maybe even more by just being a guest and reading through threads. I have solved my own ignorance many times, and so though I wouldn’t call that having my mind changed, I would call it having my perspective shaped .

On another related topic, delayed time. Quantum theory reports entangled particles as engaging instantaneously over distance, acting as a single particle in two separate locations.

If you are talking about Bell’s Theorem, I think there is another explanation besides entanglement. That alternative explanation relates to the structure of particles, and if particles, in reality, are like the wave-particles discussed earlier, then they can display two states at the same time. That might have implications about the nature of the experiments that point to entanglement as the best explanation. Maybe the probabilities, expected outcomes, and the measured outcomes might have to be re-examined if the basic nature of particles turned out to favor the wave-particle structure. Bell inequalities. Just something to think about, lol.

QT also accepts that two or more particle fields can occupy the same time space location. These two positions share the attribute of particles simultaneously sharing multiple perspectives of time space in different formats. lol. Time delay represents a perspective of slowing time or time elongation. It's a perspective where time can be stretched, just as a light particle is stretched at the speed of light, but time carries no fermion or bosonic value. So, what does Quantum theory not address? Quantum time. lol

That is true, what you say about Quantum Field Theory, in regard to the same particle having different effects or being affected differently by different fields. But that is only a problem if you take QFT at face value, and invoke it as a precise explanation of reality. If I thought that, then the fact that it hasn’t yielded a consensus on quantum gravity would concern me more, lol.

As evident in entangled particles or particles sharing the same space/time location, a sense of time is absent. Being that time is non-existant in quantum it implies that any quantum argument used to explain time delay is invalid. Therefore,  the only cogent argument for explaining time delay falls strictly under the principles of Einstein's relativity.

Therefore, E=hv is the overriding principle and must be applied in the double slit experiments. lol

Maybe the perspective of time passing at the quantum level is skewed when viewed from such a distance. Perhaps if we could get down and dirty into the action at the quantum level, we could sneak in a clock and measure the passing of time in different wave-energy density environments. I am betting that we would find that the rate that time passes, as measured by clocks, is variable, governed by the local wave energy density, regardless of the fact that such a finding might require some theory to be superseded, lol.

[guest46746]

After rethinking quantum time, it maybe possible for quantum to have time progression. I previously posted about neutrinos being able to occupy the same S/T location. Neutrinos are the chameleons of quantum, in the post I postulated that instead of three lepton flavors of neutrinos that oscillate at three different levels, there was only a single flavor of neutrino that altered its oscillation level when another neutrino entered into its S/T location.  This sharing of the S/T field results in a higher oscillation that distinguishes it as a different type of lepton. When a third neutrino occupies  the same S/T  location as neutrino 1 & 2 , a third lepton oscillations forms. These progressing events would meet the definitions of a linear time marker.

If what i postulated was correct, quantum does have a time ingrediant. It also brings into light a mechanism for time regression, not time delay. As the neutrinos has the ability to change into any of the three varieties, it also has the ability to revert to any of its previous states. So, if the neutrino is thought of as a data form, its tranformation into a new data form and then back into its old data form can be thought of as a regregression of time. The linear time marker case can be made. The neutrino was a muon neutrino,  ...... then a tau neutrino, it is capble of reversing inself back in time from a tau .... to a muon neutrino.This capabilities to alter back into its orginal data form is time regression. The neutrino has successfully gone back in time, a real possibilty in quantum theory! lol

Do i think this can apply to time delay in a 3D Universe situation, no, but I must be open to a time element in quantum. lol

I have not read your post bogie, i will do now and comment as time permits.

[guest46746]

I am aware that their are 6 flavors of leptons, any condensation is for my convenience. lol

[guest46746]

Bogie, I'll keep poking where i think you need to be poked. I'am sure you'll do the same. lol

regards

[guest46746]

Back to quantum gravity, i use neutrinos because their diverse capabilities make them the easiest to use to represent examples of quantum theory. Neutrinos in a vacuum space elongate to their attribute limitation. This represents a lower quantum gravity between the density of a neutrino population within a vacuum area. As neutrinos enter dense fermion the momentum of neutrino's elongation shortens. At this time, the density of the neutrino population within an area is able to increase due to their shorten elongations. As the density in the neutrino's population increases in an area, quantum gravity is able to become effective. Quantum gravity finds its attraction force in particle oscillations. When traversing dense fermion, quantum gravity allows neutrinos to combine and in doing increase their rates of oscillation in order to open the fermion's atomic structure unimpeded without damage to the atomic structure of the fermion. In other words they are able to mimic the ionic bonding of an atom's energy structure. This is done with a 0 - 1/2 spin rate. The need for an increase in oscillations for the various neutrinos is attributed to the lengthening and shortening as they transverse different mediums.

Underground neutrino detectors capture light from neutrinos as they change oscillation rates in a medium that is not conducive to their metamorphosis! lol This change is caused by an abrupt breaking of the quantum gravity bond by the diametrically opposite mediums within the chamber. The opposing chamber mediums have different weighted structures of gas and liquid. The traversing first through a rock layer, then through a gas layer, into a liquid layer in rapid succession is able to break the neutrinos quantum gravity bonding in some instances, releasing a photonic light flash.     lol

[guest46746]

Hi Bogie,

I truly do understand your defense of the double slit experiment. The equations work out to a high probability, but this is were the mathematics of science sometimes goes down a rabbit hole. A statistical high probability >80%, is flawed by at least 20%. Lacking an alternative answer it is accepted as science. The problems are further compounded when a statistical high probability is used as a function in another experimental equation, an equation that itself contains a new statistical high probability as a function/algorithm in conjunction with a previous high probability from a different experiment. Scientist are sometimes too willing to accept such thinking and then expound upon it. In such cases as described above, it should be a scientist's duty to question or disprove such a theory or offer an alternative theory capable of providing an even more superior mathematical proof. lol


regards

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #86

After rethinking quantum time, it maybe possible for quantum to have time progression. I previously posted about neutrinos …

If what i postulated was correct, quantum does have a time ingrediant. It also brings into light a mechanism for time regression, not time delay.

I have not read your post bogie, i will do now and comment as time permits.

Noted. OK, it was off topic anyway, so let’s skip on down; read on …

Bogie, I'll keep poking where i think you need to be poked. I'am sure you'll do the same. lol

regards

That type of ongoing exchange would be great if it was productive, but I’m talking of steps toward a layman view of QG that you are balking at them, and progress is at a stand still, lol.

Back to quantum gravity, i use neutrinos …   

I don’t object to a neutrino approach, but that puts us on two separate paths. I will make a proposal to you below to try to go down one path.

Hi Bogie,

I truly do understand your defense of the double slit experiment. The equations work out to a high probability, but this is were the mathematics of science sometimes goes down a rabbit hole. A statistical high probability >80%, is flawed by at least 20%.
…

That response, and the mention of equations, statistics, probabilities, etc., leads me to believe that when you said, “I truly do understand your defense of the double slit experiment”, you have gotten my comments about Bell’s Theorem mixed up with my earlier discussion of the two-slit experiments. My fault for introducing too many of my pet ideas before we get things talked through.

Also, I think that your neutrino analysis, and my wave-particle analysis don’t suggest that we have a promising mutual path to ideas about the main topic.

I have a suggestion, and that is we try to agree on things one at a time in the spirit of working together, instead of poking at each other’s ideas and not being able to get past the differences. Let’s address one thing at a time, starting with the very well known two slit experiments.

It can be said that the two-slit experiments are sort of a parlor trick in that they can’t be explained using the characteristics of the fundamental particles of the standard model of particle physics. They are still very repeatable experiments, and there is not yet a consensus explanation as to what is interfering with what, and what kind of new thinking about the structure of particles would it take to reach a consensus on a proposed explanation.

So let’s not go forward until we either agree or disagree on the one point I just mentioned: The two-slit experiments are sort of a parlor trick in that they can’t be explained using the characteristics of the fundamental particles of the standard model of particle physics.

The ball is in your court: do you agree or disagree with the statement in bold?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

To be continued ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #88

So let’s not go forward until we either agree or disagree on the one point I just mentioned: The two-slit experiments are sort of a parlor trick in that they can’t be explained using the characteristics of the fundamental particles of the standard model of particle physics.

The ball is in your court: do you agree or disagree with the statement in bold?

I understand that no one likes to be put on the spot, and being asked to comply with rules set up by the OP isn’t going to be conducive to furthering the discussion, but I’m not known for inspiring much discussion at my best, so I’ll just move past that, lol.

Clearly, I’m making a point about the characteristics of the fundamental particles of the standard particle model. They are said to be point-like with no internal composition. “In the Standard Model, gauge bosons are defined as force carriers that mediate the strong, weak, and electromagnetic fundamental interactions":
Here is the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
Here is a graphic:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_17_2_10_17.png

Basically, we have quarks, leptons, and bosons.

“Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent^[2] and has demonstrated huge successes in providing experimental predictions, it leaves some phenomena unexplained and falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model

“Physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) refers to the theoretical developments needed to explain the deficiencies of the Standard Model, such as the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, neutrino oscillations, matter–antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy.^[1] Another problem lies within the mathematical framework of the Standard Model itself: the Standard Model is inconsistent with that of general relativity, to the point where one or both theories break down under certain conditions (for example within known spacetime singularities like the Big Bang and black hole event horizons)."

I’m taking the thread “beyond the Standard Model” to support the point that there are many “as yet” unknowns. This is a common sense thread that addresses a few of the unknowns by adding some layman level quantum thinking … And the unexplained aspects of the double-slit experiments are shouting at us for some modification to the physical nature of particles beyond the standard model.

It is impossible to explain the single particle, two slit experiments, with or without the delayed choice set ups, unless the particles are non-standard, and non-fundamental. Particles must be both wave-like and particle like, and be able to display both of those states at the same time. The wave particle that I describe fills that bill.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

To be continued ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #90

But let’s not misunderstand the depth of the issue. The wave-particle is not a standalone solution for the two-slit experiments. Not only is it impossible for the fundamental particles of the standard model to explain the weirdness of the single-particle, delayed-choice, two-slit experiments, but it is just as unlikely that the wave-particle concept will mean much to you by itself.


It is a fact that no one has full knowledge of physics, classical, quantum, or otherwise, including a full grasp of all of the quantum thinking that has been accumulating for the last hundred years, within the scientific community. Some of the members of that community are up front, and say that no one understands QM as it exists now. I suggest that even if some computer somewhere had gathered all of the scientific data known to man, and even if a team of geniuses with full access to that data were to form an on-going conclave, it would still be insufficient knowledge and brain power to explain quantum gravity with what we know today. A solution to quantum gravity requires a paradigm shift.

You may know that the wave-particle concept of matter comes out of a new way of thinking about the universe that I call the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model. The ISU is a model of the universe that I have been expounding on since I showed up here eighteen months ago (May 2017). I am a self-proclaimed quantum thinker with no credentials to speak of, and so undertaking the task of presenting what I will portray as the new paradigm may go relatively unnoticed. That will give me the space and time it will take me to present the idea of quantum gravity as best I can, and I will eventually reach a point where I say, “There it is, what do you think?”.

At this point we are pretty deep within an obscure thread, out in a quiet section of TNS called “On the Lighter Side”, in a sub-forum named “New Theories”, and I simply plan to work alone for a while, and will not encourage your participation or comments quite yet.

Given the chance, the time, and the space, I’m going to post for you my layman solution to quantum gravity, step by step from the bottom up. When all is said and done, it may turn out that not even the most serious minded among you will get the slightest twinge of recognition of a potential new paradigm, but it is my compulsion to try to express my thinking. Feel free to falsify any and all, and I may or may not be persuaded by your arguments and objections.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #91

Reply #90

But let’s not misunderstand the depth of the issue. The wave-particle is not a standalone solution for the two-slit experiments. Not only is it impossible for the fundamental particles of the standard model to explain the weirdness of the single-particle, delayed-choice, two-slit experiments, but it is just as unlikely that the wave-particle concept will mean much to you by itself.

… You may know that the wave-particle concept of matter comes out of a new way of thinking about the universe that I call the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model.

It may sound trite to say this, but the new way of thinking is that everything about the universe is internally consistent, and not only does everything work together, but every aspect of the universe depends on every other aspect in order for the invariant laws of nature to be able to orchestrate every event.

The consensus view of cosmology is dynamic and evolving, but is still referred to as Big Bang Theory, whose main pillars are General Relativity and Inflation Theory, and along side of that consensus, is the compelling accuracy (and weirdness) of quantum mechanics, with its rude reality contained in the uncertainty principle, and in the inherent randomness of events at the quantum level.

Neither the consensus cosmology, nor the current quantum thinking is being touted to be the theory out of which quantum gravity will emerge. The peer reviewed papers I have reviewed and reported on earlier in the thread call for a new paradigm. From one layman’s perspective, that is where the ISU comes in.

Earlier I said that a good place to start the mechanics of quantum gravity was with the concept of the virtual particle, and that is true. However, it is not the best point to begin if we are presenting a bottom up, step by step scenario. Therefore, I’m going to go back, haphazardly, to get to a point where the nature of the universe and the invariant natural laws can be introduced. Here is where we jump from the simple introduction of the nature of the wave-particle that has been presented above, through a mind bending flurry of reverse facts about the ISU invariant natural laws, and axioms, to take the presentation back to the point where we are talking about the definition of the word “Universe”.

The wave-particle, for example, is composed of wave energy. Wave-particles are quantized, and so they will be composed of wave energy in quantum increments. Energy is carried across space by gravitational waves and light waves. Those waves are both emitted and absorbed by particles with mass. Gravitational waves are emitted and absorbed by all particles and objects, whereas light waves are emitted only by photon wave-particles. Light waves are the out flowing gravitational wave energy of the photon wave-particles. Wave energy can be absorbed by all particles and objects under a precise set of circumstances, and it is those circumstances that cause matter to be composed of wave energy in quantum increments.

We can’t understand the nature of the wave-particle, and all of the laws that it is dependent on, without being aware of the axioms that the ISU model invokes. These axioms are considered necessarily true, in order for the descriptions of the mechanics of the ISU that are derived from them, to be true. The axioms are not self-evident, but they are not falsifiable either.

To be continued ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #92

Let’s get the definition of “Universe” established for talking purposes.

Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.

“Universe” is the logical opposite of “nothingness”.

Nothingness: No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.

You can see the axioms that come into play using the ISU definition of "Universe":

There is just one universe, and in the case of the ISU, it is a multiple big bang arena landscape.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_14_53.jpeg

The universe is infinite, and therefore there is no issue with what is beyond. The beyond is just more space, filled with more big bang arena landscape. Where there is landscape, there is energy in the form of waves that carry energy across space, that fill all space, and everything physical is composed wave energy.

The universe has always existed, and thus we invoke the axiom that time has always been passing and will always be passing at all points across the big bang arena landscape.

"Always existed" means there was no beginning, and thus there was no first cause.

No first cause eliminates the need for the origin of the universe, and so there is no issue of having to deal with the impossible concept of something from nothing, nor with the unscientific concept of creation.

The Invariant Natural Laws are invoked, meaning that the laws have always been in effect, and always will be, and there is no evolution of the laws of nature, no grand scale changes of state; they are now as they always have been.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

To be continued ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #94

Given that definition of “Universe” and the axioms that are invoked in such a universe, we can say that space is everywhere and is infinite. Because space is everywhere, it does not stretch or bend, but instead, when taken with what is in space, it displays a characteristic called sponginess; hence the Infinite Spongy Universe. It is an open universe, meaning that energy is free to enter and leave local systems in the landscape, within galaxies, between galaxies and galactic structure, and between big bang arenas via arena waves that are emitted by the crunch/bang collapse of big crunches.

The sponginess of space is determined by what is called the gravitational wave energy density (G-wave) profile of space, and the variable aspect of the density of space locally is governed by its local wave energy density.
According to the definition of “universe”, space includes matter and energy (and that’s everything, lol). In the ISU, we go on to say that matter is composed of wave energy in quantum increments, because the process of quantization occurs as matter, composed of wave-particles, absorbs and radiates wave energy.

Matter absorbs wave energy from space at only specific frequencies, depending on the frequencies of the wave-particle make-up of the matter, and radiates energy only at given frequencies into surrounding space, also depending on wave-particle emission frequencies of the wave-particles that make up the object. Both radiation and absorption maintain, and determine changes to, the local wave energy density profile of space. Gravitational wave energy is coming and going in all directions, at all points, and at all times in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

One important characteristic of the ISU model should be emphasized along with the discussion of wave energy emission and absorption, and that is the distinction between the gravitational wave emissions (Quantum Gravity radiation) and electromagnetic radiation (EM or light radiation). In the ISU, all matter emits gravitational wave energy (QG), and the gravitational wave energy emitted by the photon wave-particle is not just gravitational wave energy, but is also light wave energy.

The photon wave-particle always has the forward velocity of the local speed of light. Because the photon travels forward at the local speed of light, and keeping in mind that the wave fronts of the light are emitted spherically, the light emission in the forward direction turns out to be an expanding, flattening, curved plane wave front. (It is those flattened curved plane wave fronts of light wave energy that go through both slits in the two slit experiments, while the photon wave-particle's dense core can only go through one or the other, or neither of the slits . Here is a hand drawn image to depict the idea of the expanding, flattening, curved plane wave front of a photon wave-particle: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_29_48.jpeg



To be continued ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #96


I'm getting ready to post an update to the definition of "space" previously posted in reply #42, to incorporate characteristics of the ISU model into the definition.

You should go back and read the posts from around reply #88, where I stated I am taking the thread beyond the standard model. I have introduced an alternative model called the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model; it is a layman level alternative to the consensus Big Bang/Inflation model of cosmology. I also mentioned that my focus would be on the ISU version of quantum gravity until I have presented it for consideration, so take that into consideration as the thread moves forward in that direction.

[guest46746]

Bogie,

I will respect your wishes and allow you to work on by yourself.

regards

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #98

Bogie,

I will respect your wishes and allow you to work on by yourself.

I was rude, for sure, and am still interested in your views. You should feel free to add content on your quantum thinking in regard to a neutrino based QG, and I will read with interest, as I continue on my QG path at the same time.



At this point we must update the definition of space from how it was described in reply #42, so that it reflects the quantum thinking of the ISU model of cosmology.

The updated definition of space in the ISU refers to space as “the medium of space”. This is the place to point out that the three physical dimensions of space are filled with wave energy that takes various forms and occurs at various wave energy densities. The following definition of the medium of space will elaborate on this complex concept.


The Medium of Space (MoS): The potentially infinite extension of the observable three-dimensional region that appears in all directions in our Hubble view, including interstellar space (ISM) and intergalactic space (IGM). In addition, the medium of space includes the as yet unobserved but predicted space (predicted at least by the ISU model), referred to as inter-arena medium (IAM). Inter-arena space is the very low density space that fills the corridors of continuity, i.e., the space between all of the active big bang arenas that make up the arena landscape of the greater universe.

To be followed by a few particulars about the Medium of Space (MoS)…

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #99
A few particulars about the Medium of Space (MoS):


1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium The Interstellar Medium (ISM) is the matter and radiation that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy, which includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, as well as dust and cosmic rays. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space.


2) https://www.universetoday.com/30280/intergalactic-space/
Intergalactic space (IGM) fills in between the galaxies, and hosts the galaxies and galactic structure, and all forms of wave energy that are characteristic of mature big bang arenas.


3) According to the ISU model of cosmology, there is also the space that exists between the big bang arenas, the inter-arena medium (IAM) that hosts the infinite landscape of the greater universe.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_07_10_18_1_21_17.jpeg


4) The energy that occupies the medium of space includes wave energy in the form of both electromagnetic radiation and gravitational radiation. Matter and wave-energy produce magnetic fields and turbulent motions, and along with gravitational and electromagnetic radiation, various energy density differentials build up locally. Within big bang arenas, where those density differentials build up, there also exists a force recognized in the ISU as the force of energy density equalization, that acts to equalize local densities within galaxies and across intergalactic space.


5) On a grand scale, it is the force of energy density equalization that accounts for the rapid expansion of the hot dense balls of energy that emerge from the collapse/bang of big crunches.


6) Each big bang is the result of the intersection and overlap of two or more “parent” arenas that converge to produce a big crunch out of their combined galactic material, and each crunch in turn collapse/bangs into and expanding big bang arena. The collapse/bang initiates a series of events similar to all big bang arenas, from initial expansion at near the speed of light, to a period of the decay of the hot dense ball of energy into the formation of a series of exotic particles, that themselves decay into the more stable particles that we are familiar with the observable portion of our expanding big bang arena.


7) Also included in the term “medium of space” is the cosmic microwave background energy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
“The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation constitutes a major development in modern physical cosmology. The cosmic background radiation (CMB) was measured by Andrew McKellar in 1941 at an effective temperature of 2.3 K using CN stellar absorption lines observed by W. S. Adams.^[1] Theoretical work around 1950^[2] showed that the need for a CMB for consistency with the simplest relativistic universe models. In 1964, US radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson rediscovered the CMB, estimating its temperature as 3.5 K, as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna. The new measurements were accepted as important evidence for a hot early Universe (big bang theory) … In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint measurement.”


8 ) Voyager 1 reached the ISM on August 25, 2012, making it the first artificial object from Earth to do so. Interstellar plasma and dust will be studied until the mission's end in 2025.”


9) Though the presence of the CMB is suggested as evidence against the rival steady state theory, that steady state universe is nothing like the ISU. The Wiki describing that erroneous steady state model says that “in cosmology, the steady state model is an alternative to the Big Bang theory of the evolution of our universe. In the steady state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter …”. That Wiki goes on to say that, “While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the mid-20th century (though less popularity than the Big Bang theory), it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady state model does not predict.


10) The Wiki reference to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe brings us to one of the main differences between the ISU model of cosmology and the standard version of Big Bang Theory with Inflation. That main difference is that the ISU is infinite in space and time while BBT is finite in space and time. Further, in the ISU, the infinite landscape of the greater universe is composed of a potentially infinite number of active on-going big bang arenas, while BBT predicts that there is just one big bang event.


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


11) In the ISU model, gravitational wave energy is radiated by all matter, i.e., all particles and objects with mass. It is radiated as Einstein predicted; the first observation of gravitational waves were detected in 2015 By LIGO, and later by the European Space Agency’s interferometer. Gravitational wave energy, as noted above, is included as a major component of the Medium of Space (ISM, IGM, and IAM).


12) In today’s version of cosmology, gravitational wave energy is the most under recognized component of the medium of space due to the general acceptance of the standard cosmological model, BBT, and its explanation of gravity as the curvature of spacetime, which is predicted by Einstein. The curvature of spacetime is theorized as an effect of the presence of matter, as quantified by Einstein’s Field Equations (EFE). In General Relativity (GR), spacetime has come to be associated with the curvature of spacetime, as poetically expressed by the statement,
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/matter-tells-matter-how-to-move.242061/
“Matter tells Spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move” in the spacetime model of Big Bang Theory (BBT).


13) In the ISU model, the alternative to curved spacetime of GR is contained in the complex nature of the medium of space (MoS). It is hypothesized that all particles are quantized wave-particles that are composed of two components, inflowing and out flowing of gravitational wave energy. The inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy that maintains the presence of wave-particles according to the ISU model, is the result of a continual exchange of wave energy between wave-particles and the ever present and changing gravitational wave energy density profile of space.


14) It is that gravitational wave energy density profile of space in the ISU model that equates to and replaces the GR model’s curvature of spacetime. Much like the curvature of spacetime governs the velocity of light and objects (matter) via geodesics, the gravitational wave energy density profile of space in the ISU model, governs the velocity of objects through the MoS due to the fact that the velocity of light and gravity through space varies in direct relationship to the wave energy density of the local space.


15) The lengthy description of the medium of space isn’t complete though, until the means of wave propagation through space is included. Any given volume of space contains wave energy in the form of wave fronts that intersect as they traverse space.The mechanics of wave propagation deals with wave front convergences in a method that is reminiscent of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens
Christiaan Huygens and especially the Huygens' wavelets and the Huygens-Fresnel principle. Huygens theorized that each point on a propagating wave front could be characterized as a new spherical wave. He called them secondary spherical “wavelets”, which are quite like the “third waves” in the ISU model. Every point along the surface of a wave front that intersects with the surface of another wave front acts like a tiny pinhole, and a spherical wave emerges from each such pinhole.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg



16) There is however, limiting factor that keeps everything that happens in space from happening at the same time, lol. That limiting factor is that the pinhole action associated with the advance of gravitational and light energy wave fronts is not instantaneous because when wave fronts intersect, there is that momentary time delay that occurs because the wave fronts have encountered an increase in the local wave energy density at the point of intersection.


17) The time delay constrains the lower limit of the volume of space that is required for each pinhole event to occur. The fact that there is a minimum volume of space required for each pinhole event has significant implications on the speed of light and gravity waves through space. The main implication is that the velocity of light and gravity waves through space is governed by the gravitational wave energy density of the local space.


18) Each pinhole event in the propagation of a gravitational wave front or a light wave front produces a third wave that emerges out of the space where the wave front convergence occurred. At that point of convergence, a peak of energy formed to initiate the pinhole event. At the foundational level, all of those tiny pinhole waves are referred to as the oscillating wave energy background that fills all space at the tiniest scale. Here is an artists depiction of the foundation oscillating wave-energy background that fills all space:


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg






So you see, “Space” is quite complex when you define it in accord with the ISU definition of “Universe”.


To be continued …