[jeffreyH]

Think more like two toy boats whose paths cross. This disturbance (interference) is like the virtual particle.As an indication of what wave disturbances can be like take a look at the following on grid waves.
http://www.waitwow.com/grid-waves-along-french-coastline/

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #41

Think more like two toy boats whose paths cross. This disturbance (interference) is like the virtual particle.

I agree, and that is actually very much like the first example in the Strassler paper.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_18_7_30_05.jpeg

As an indication of what wave disturbances can be like take a look at the following on grid waves.
http://www.waitwow.com/grid-waves-along-french-coastline/

Yes, that is an unusual and interesting wave pattern. I’m a wave person myself, and when possible, I spend time looking out over water while I contemplate the universe. That view certainly encourages my thinking that everything is composed of wave energy, and wave patterns can have intricate complexities in three dimensions of space, and with time being the dimension across which change occurs. It isn’t surprising then that when I research what they are saying about quantum gravity, I see waves, wave-patterns, wave-particles, and wave-particle duality characterizations in all of the papers.

Virtual particles are no exception; they are portrayed as disturbances in the fields of QFT, and those disturbances are characterized as temporary wave patterns that appear, fade and disappear, while real particle wave patterns are smoother, and long enduring. In this thread, I would point the discussion in the direction of considering virtual particles as the starting point of a bottom-up layman view of quantum gravity.

There is one caveat that I want to bring up. QM/QFT talks of space as having the presence of multiple congruent fields that are standing ready, and it theorizes about how standard particles interact by way of virtual particles. However, we have to acknowledging that quantum mechanics, the standard model of particle physics, and the quantum field theories are built up of layers of rigorous theoretical physics and mathematics, by a variety of teams, over years and years, and are still incomplete; the solution, to quantum gravity remains elusive.

So the caveat I mentioned is about the big wait. While the professionals produce a new paradigm, layman science enthusiasts can participate in a layman discussion of their own. I’m talking about a fresh, bottom-up look at a quantum model, done with the expectation that a consensus on quantum gravity will be achieved by the professionals, and while we wait, we can keep up with what is going on by discussing scientific observations and explanations that laymen can now readily access on the Internet.

Of course there are “as yet” unknowns, gaps in the known scientific explanations about quantum mechanics and quantum gravity. As laymen, we can participate in forum discussion here while we wait. Doing so will not only involve learning some quantum physics, a little at a time, but we can also exchange our own research related to “what they are saying about quantum gravity”, so participate freely.


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #42

The question of “what is space” has come up earlier, in reply #9 and #10, but when you consider the complexities of de Sitter space, and the analog in Minkowski space, well, you can see we have some work to do to define space from the bottom up, instead of from the perspective of spacetime, or QM. So for now let me give a working definition of space that laymen can work from:

Space: The potentially infinite extension of the observable three-dimensional region that appears in our Hubble view, in which everything we see and know of exists, and where every event has, is or will happen.

The definition of space we began with also includes the following Wiki about the medium of space and what is in space, now conveniently broken down into nine bullet points and descriptions to allow us to add new and remove duplication, to boil the definition of space down to an efficient word set as the explanations are provided:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
1) 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) The energy that occupies the same volume, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, is the interstellar radiation field.
3) The interstellar medium is composed of multiple phases, distinguished by whether matter is ionic, atomic, or molecular, and the temperature and density of the matter.
4) The interstellar medium is composed primarily of hydrogen followed by helium with trace amounts of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen comparatively to hydrogen.
5)The thermal pressures of these phases are in rough equilibrium with one another.
6) Magnetic fields and turbulent motions also provide pressure in the ISM, and are typically more important dynamically than the thermal pressure is. In all phases, the interstellar medium is extremely tenuous by terrestrial standards. In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 10⁶ molecules per cm³ (1 million molecules per cm³). In hot, diffuse regions of the ISM, matter is primarily ionized, and the density may be as low as 10⁻⁴ ions per cm³. Compare this with a number density of roughly 10¹⁹ molecules per cm³ for air at sea level, and 10¹⁰ molecules per cm³ (10 billion molecules per cm³) for a laboratory high-vacuum chamber. By mass, 99% of the ISM is gas in any form, and 1% is dust.^[2] Of the gas in the ISM, by number 91% of atoms are hydrogen and 8.9% are helium, with 0.1% being atoms of elements heavier than hydrogen or helium,^[3] known as "metals" in astronomical parlance. By mass this amounts to 70% hydrogen, 28% helium, and 1.5% heavier elements.
7) The hydrogen and helium are primarily a result of primordial nucleosynthesis, while the heavier elements in the ISM are mostly a result of enrichment in the process of stellar evolution.
8 ) The ISM plays a crucial role in astrophysics precisely because of its intermediate role between stellar and galactic scales. Stars form within the densest regions of the ISM, which ultimately contributes to molecular clouds and replenishes the ISM with matter and energy through planetary nebulae, stellar winds, and supernovae. This interplay between stars and the ISM helps determine the rate at which a galaxy depletes its gaseous content, and therefore its lifespan of active star formation.
9) 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.”

We will refine those aspects of the ISM that fill our Hubble view and beyond as we go, but there is one key component of Space mentioned in bullet point 1) as simply radiation. Radiation clearly must include gravitational wave energy radiated as Einstein predicted, first observation of gravitational waves were detected in 2015 By LIGO, and later by the European Space Agency’s interferometer. Gravitational wave energy, it would seem, should be specifically included in the definition of space as a major component of the ISM.


Also included in the term "radiation" 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.^[3] The new measurements were accepted as important evidence for a hot early Universe (big bang theory) and as evidence against the rival steady state theory.^[4] In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint measurement.”

[roshkhanna]

This is very educational content and written well for a change. It's nice to see that some people still understand how to write a quality post.

[Colin2B]

This is very educational content and written well for a change. It's nice to see that some people still understand how to write a quality post.

Again, another pathetic attempt to spam us.
We’ve changed your website and signature to our’s, and as an extra bonus given you a permanent ban.
Goodbye

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #45

Having a layman definition of space in place, and as I concluded in reply #37, based on the perspective one gets from reviewing a variety of papers on QG, a good place to start a bottom-up look at a quantum gravity that laymen can appreciate is with observational evidence of the existence of virtual particles.

To do that, I recommend a look at this link:

https://www.quora.com/If-we-cannot-observe-measure-virtual-particles-is-their-existence-not-an-unverifiable-assumption

Read the responses to that question posted on Quora, and you will gain some enlightenment; it is worth the read.

Virtual particles have been detected/measured by experiments related to the Casimir effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

From the Wiki: Measurement
“One of the first experimental tests was conducted by Marcus Sparnaay at Philips in Eindhoven (Netherlands), in 1958, in a delicate and difficult experiment with parallel plates, obtaining results not in contradiction with the Casimir theory,^[30][31] but with large experimental errors. Some of the experimental details as well as some background information on how Casimir, Polder and Sparnaay arrived at this point^[32] are highlighted in a 2007 interview with Marcus Sparnaay.
The Casimir effect was measured more accurately in 1997 by Steve K. Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Laboratory,^[14] and by Umar Mohideen and Anushree Roy of the University of California, Riverside.^[33] In practice, rather than using two parallel plates, which would require phenomenally accurate alignment to ensure they were parallel, the experiments use one plate that is flat and another plate that is a part of a sphere with a large radius.
In 2001, a group (Giacomo Bressi, Gianni Carugno, Roberto Onofrio and Giuseppe Ruoso) at the University of Padua (Italy) finally succeeded in measuring the Casimir force between parallel plates using microresonators.”

To do a little research into how microresonators are used in the measurement, look at one more link for now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectromechanical_system_oscillator#Resonators
This is to introduce the concept of oscillations and vibrations related to the environment where real particles interact, and where virtual particles are shown to occur. The Wiki doesn’t say this, but it does start our thinking about why the microelectromechanical oscillations are used in the Casimir experiments. They are generated by resonators into the apparatus/systems where measurements of VP are carried out. Those artificial oscillations might be necessary to create the proper environment, including vibrations, at precise frequencies, that would normally be there during interactions between real particles that produce virtual particles.


The resulting virtual particles do not have the characteristics of measurable frequency or oscillations, or charge, or energy level, because the Uncertainty Principle is in effect. Suffice it to say, the virtual particle disturbance in the QFT field is similar to an interference pattern, much like most laymen are probably familiar with already; the double slit experiments.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #46 (revised)

It is good to be a layman science enthusiast sometimes. We can propose solutions to things like quantum gravity or lesser quantum mysteries, and no one pays much attention. If we were professionals trying that, there would be peer reviews, accountability, and professional careers could be set back by the kinds of solutions that laymen come up with in science forums all the time. Consider that a disclaimer, lol.

Nevertheless, fearlessly, on the way to our learning about what they are saying about a QG solution on this thread, we now encounter a related prerequisite mystery of science: “The mystery” of the single particle two slit experiments.

A video along that line, Double Slit Experiment explained! by Jim Al-Khalili
The video introduces “The mystery” of the single-particle, two-slit experiments in a  9 minute, to the point video, but it doesn’t actually explain the solution to the mystery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ&index=58&list=WL&t=0s

At the time the video was recorded, the magnitude of the mystery might have been a little overstated, as you will see if you jump to minute 8:45. They suggest that a solution might bring a Nobel Prize. I don’t think so, for the simple solution might be found when adding some quantum thinking. I’m talking about the wave-particle nature of the fundamental particles.  Who isn’t familiar with de Broglie's proposed complex standing wave nature of the wave-particle? Of course, how we interpret that here is a layman science forum idea, and we will leave the real science work to the professionals. The wave-particle described in this thread is only offered in the layman level discussion of what the nature a complex standing wave pattern of the wave-particle might entail:

The idea isn’t too far removed from:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_01_18_1_34_06.jpeg

De Broglie’s extension of the concept of particle wave duality

This “mystery” that the video didn’t answer is as old as the two slit experiments themselves, but with the introduction of the single particle, delayed choice experiments, comes a huge hint. The hint is that in the results of the single particle, two-slit interference experiments, where photons, electrons, or neutrons (and even composite atoms and molecular structures like buckyballs) produce oscillatory interference effects as if they were waves. Whether they send through individual photons, electrons, any type of particle, they all gradually build up the interference pattern, one point on the screen at a time. Some people think of that as the weirdness of QM, but it isn't weird if you look at it from the wave-particle perspective.

The easy take-away is that each individual particle (wave-particle) must have characteristics that cause it to display both the particle state and the wave state at the same time. What would a particle that could display both its wave and its particle state at the same time look like?

The proposed answer is depicted in the following diagram of a typical wave-particle:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg






The explanation of the wave mechanics of that wave-particle diagram to follow …

[guest46746]

A zero sum environment where the below the well theshold potential, equals a negative aspect -0. This creates a substrata drop where the energetic less than potential vs greater potential is excluded, via a lack of potential barrier. The well bottom aspect of a -0 (no potential) creates the zero sum bottom line, a below the well bottom. The potential that exist is finite. This finite potential is dynamic, for the lack of a better term, it exist as aspects of the four fundamental forces of nature. It is a closed loop environment containing infinite growth probabilities. As a zero sum closed loop environment with infinite growth probabilities, it's attribute nature is expansive growth. However, expansive growth must rely on a mechanism that controls and governs growth so as to regulate it's potential, a seed of destruction, if you will.

So, what is quantum gravity? It may be easier to explain what quantum gravity does. Quantum gravity operates at the lowest level possible, it regulates every aspect/parameter of our physical and non-physical Universe. It regulates everything from the motion of the galaxies, to the shape of a star, to the growth of a flower, to the rules that govern light waves, to quantum rules that govern how quantum events alter each other to form new quantum events.
In regulating growth, both as life and "non-life" growth as we know it, quantum gravity influences and regulates everything. 

Quantum gravity as -0 potential creates boundaries for any and all potential. It creates a below the well bottom that attracts potential yet impedes and recycles it by means of release. Quantum gravity is not dynamic. It is however as constant and unchanging as Light itself. The question then becomes what came first, Light or Quantum gravity? Both exhibit close to infinite existence. If Light can be thought of as motion in it rudimentary condition, Quantum gravity can be thought of as embodying Light, allowing it to illuminate. In other words, without Quantum gravity, photonic Light wouldn't illuminate. In conclusion, without Quantum gravity there would be no charge, no spin, and no fields, the  parameters that  emcompass quantum and standard physics.

[guest46746]

Would you be opposed to it if I suggested a rewording of that to say, light wave energy and quantum gravitational wave energy could be potentially infinite in time and space? Then we might be able to get on the same page.

Thank you for your kind reply, Bogie.

I respect your point of view, as it demonstrates a curiosity that is pertinent to scientific pursuits. One can never discount a viable possibility when no evidence exist to discount it.  As such, I respect the need for further inquiry, However my personal thoughts on the matter is more spiritual. I take comfort in a beginning and an end of corporal existence.  To me, a beginning and an end, represents an all inclusive Set in it's nature. An all inclusive nature is a totality that everything, past, present and future share in. It is a closed Set of infinite possibilities within a time/space duration.

I believe that a catalyst, initiated a beginning by dividing a homogenous Light dimension. This catalyst possibly a Dark matter/energy dimension caused a rapid  currently  ongoing expansion of our current Universe. The  splitting of the Light dimension creates bubbles within the Universe that have Dark matter membranes. These Dark matter membranes encapsulate Light into distinctive regions that recycle within themselves. I would postulate that these Dark matter membranes trap Light and presents a almost impenetrable barrier for Light waves and Gravity waves to pass. The containment of both Light and Gravity waves supplement the cohesiveness of Galactic structures. 

When viewing gravitational lensing we may be seeing gravitational/light waves contained/molded by a Dark matter/Dark energy membrane.  This may suggest that quantum gravity is a by product of the merging of a Light and Dark matter dimensions. The Big Bang theory postulates that Gravity was the first component formed, and the three remaing fundamental forces followed. The three remaing fundamental forces all contain Light attributes, Gravity is the bastard child! lol.  Thank you for your time and interest. 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #52

Reply #47

The new mystery involves the explanation for gravitational wave energy that fills all space, …

Getting there involves a transition from the answer given in reply #46 to the “mystery of the single particle, two-slit experiments”. The answer was the “wave-particle”, as depicted in that post. All of the types of single particles sent through the various delayed choice, two-slit apparatuses, one at a time, will all have to have an internal composition that will fit the description of wave-particles. Wave-particles are composed of a complex standing wave patterns that physically contain both the wave state and the particle state, in a fashion at allows both states to be displayed in the experiments at the same time.

I acknowledge that the Standard Model of particle physics does not say anything about the fundamental particles having various complex standing wave patterns, but then, the standard model, and  QFT, don’t yet give us a path to quantum gravity, so we expand the scope and apply quantum thinking.

The path we are heading down requires particles to have multiple internal quanta, and the high energy density spots in the core of the standing wave-particle (complex standing wave patterns), are those individual quanta. In addition, within the invariant laws of nature, there has to be a quantum action process that describes the quantum wave mechanics of particle formation, and particle interaction.

For that reason, it will be appropriate to say that our discussion of a layman version of QG will follow the path of physical wave mechanics. Let’s start by taking a look at:
http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys201/WaveMechanicsLectureSlides.pdf

Given those slides from the Phys201 Lecture, we are considering the proposition that particles are composed of waves, in quantum increments, and that the quantum increments are the individual quanta that comprise the energy contained in the wave-particles …

Given that proposition, then each high density spot depicted as a round dot in the high density core in the image of a wave-particle (posted in reply #46) is actually completely composed of wave energy. Let’s look how that could be the case. Look at the following image and see if you can equate the depicted wave convergences that make up the high energy density spots, with the round dots in the image of the wave-particle:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg


To be continued …

[guest46746]

The simplest answer to penetrating a -0 potential barrier in space/time is found within quantum itself. Quantum tunneling may be an illusion of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement a single potential existing in separate time/space local. lol

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #54

The simplest answer to penetrating a -0 potential barrier in space/time is found within quantum itself. Quantum tunneling may be an illusion of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement a single potential existing in separate time/space local. lol

I wish I understood where you are coming from with that. Would you explain what a -0 potential barrier in space/time is? You seem to be invoking space/time at the quantum level, and shouldn’t we require some evidence of that in the scientific papers before we go there?

Not to disrespect the idea of space/time at the macro level, because the Einstein Field Equations (EFE) really give us the best macro level mathematical quantification of gravity we have so far, but we are talking now about a quantum level, and about a quantum solution to gravity. Such a solution might shed a new light on a macro level space/time; not superseding it, but giving us a more precise explanation of the wave mechanics at the quantum level.

So far, I notice you tend to ignore the content of my responses to you in replies #49 and #51, and you come back with additional ideas without providing the requested support, and without consideration for the step-by-step methodology we are employing here.

I don’t want to discourage any participation, so please address the content of this response point by point:
1) Would you explain what a -0 potential barrier in space/time is?
2) Am I mistaken that you seem to be invoking space/time at the quantum level, and if so, a link supporting that would help.
3) Do you agree that the EFEs are the best tool for predicting the macro level relative motion of objects, but that they have not been shown to apply at the quantum level yet?
4) In regard to reply #49, did you understand the idea of the wave-particle depicted in reply #46 as a possible solution to the mystery of the two-slit experiments, and do you have any comment about the wave-particle structure it portrays?
5) In regard to reply #51, do you think I was off target when I equate your comment, “However my personal thoughts on the matter is more spiritual”, to being philosophical, and is there any reason you don’t want to discuss that on my thread in the New Theories sub-forum where my link would take you?

Finally, when you have a comment that pertains to some content already posted, can you use the quote function to show what you are responding to?

Don’t let me discourage you, but help me get where you are coming from.

[guest46746]

Virtual electron-positron pairs production in a zero sum vacuum energy environment.

The creation of virtual particles produces a mutual gravity that results in their mutual annihilation.

A -0 is a rounded number approaching zero.  -0 approaching infinity.

Cosmic inflation is driven by virtual pair annihilation.

Dark matter membranes (-0) are conducive parameters in containing a vacuum energy environment. lol

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #56

Virtual electron-positron pairs production in a zero sum vacuum energy environment.

The creation of virtual particles produces a mutual gravity that results in their mutual annihilation.

A -0 is a rounded number approaching zero.  -0 approaching infinity.

Cosmic inflation is driven by virtual pair annihilation.

Dark matter membranes (-0) are conducive parameters in containing a vacuum energy environment. lol

At least you’re not discouraged, lol. Anyway, here we are in New Theories for the broader discussion.

I'm one who prefers the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which means that wave energy has always existed. The discussion of the mechanics of wave energy can start with the fact that both gravitational and electromagnetic wave fronts carry energy. Therefore, when wave fronts converge, the energy carried by the wave fronts at the point of convergence doesn't cancel out, it instead results in the sum of the energy in the two (or more) wave fronts being present at the point of convergence. Thus the wave energy of the parent waves is being conserved by forming a peak in energy at the point of convergence.

The peak of energy is obviously surrounded by a valley or low point in the amount of wave energy, relative to the momentary peak at the point of convergence. The energy consolidated momentarily in that peak immediately begins to be disbursed spherically from the point of energy convergence, back out into the space occupied by the temporary valley in the wave energy surrounding the peak, and that spherical out flow from the point of convergence is called a third wave.

Third waves and the conservation of wave energy go hand in hand, because the energy of the parent wave fronts forms the peak, and the peak forms the new third wave that carries the sum of the energy of the converging parent waves. Wave energy is thus conserved.

The mechanics of it would be that the two (or more) converging wave fronts would carry energy as they expand through space. When their simultaneous expansion results in a convergence from two (or more) directions, the directional expansion of the wave fronts through space is interrupted, and the energy at the point of convergence is equal to the positive sum of the directional energy of the converging parent wave fronts. The energy carried to the point of convergence is therefore equal to the sum of the energy carried by the parent wave fronts, and is the sum of those energy amounts. Thus the sum is higher than the energy of either of the converging wave fronts, resulting in a momentary peak of energy at the point of convergence. That peak has nowhere to go but away from the point of convergence, and "away from the point of convergence" is directional in all directions, i.e., spherical. Thus a "third wave" forms and carries the sum of the energy contributed by the parent waves spherically out into the valley, i.e., into the space occupied by lower value of energy surrounding the peak.

The third wave has an expanding wave front that carries the energy until its expansion is interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent third wave, and the process is perpetuated.

To be continued ... 

[guest46746]

I apologize! lol. But, if wave fronts peak at convergence they must have a barrier that produces a path for convergence. to be rejected from.  Without a barrier for two spiral wave fronts to converge, waves would simply converge with each other or. diverge from each other. I question whether intertwined waves of light and gravity could produce a strata barrier capable of not absorbing but rejecting light. The scattering of light waves in the slit test, requires a barrier. Even then the product of a peak is the result of the scattering of two waves in a bell formation. The slit test, due to it's limited confine area, only demonstrates light reacting in an observable confined setting. Light concentration in a larger setting wouldn't produce the same results. The scattering effect would void any confined area results. So,. without a barrier, two converging light wave would dissipate, scatter or assimilate in all directions as  its does in nature; the sum of the two waves would have no basis to accumulate.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #58

I apologize! lol. But, if wave fronts peak at convergence they must have a barrier that produces a path for convergence. to be rejected from.  Without a barrier for two spiral wave fronts to converge, waves would simply converge with each other or. diverge from each other. I question whether intertwined waves of light and gravity could produce a strata barrier capable of not absorbing but rejecting light. The scattering of light waves in the slit test, requires a barrier. Even then the product of a peak is the result of the scattering of two waves in a bell formation. The slit test, due to it's limited confine area, only demonstrates light reacting in an observable confined setting. Light concentration in a larger setting wouldn't produce the same results. The scattering effect would void any confined area results. So,. without a barrier, two converging light wave would dissipate, scatter or assimilate in all directions as  its does in nature; the sum of the two waves would have no basis to accumulate.

No need to apologize when questioning the validity of something I say, and then I won’t feel I need to apologize when I try to defend what I said. Hopefully I will learn by the process of discussing it with you.

Would a 3D spherically expanding wave front carry energy through space, equally in all directions, with the amount of energy being carried by the entire spherical wave front remaining unchanged, but with the amount of energy gradually declining at each point across the entire wave front in proportion to the inverse square law?

[guest46746]

Would a 3D spherically expanding wave front carry energy through space, equally in all directions, with the amount of energy being carried by the entire spherical wave front remaining unchanged, but with the amount of energy gradually declining at each point across the entire wave front in proportion to the inverse square law?

At some point change in the initial force cannot be maintained. The elongation of light waves in space diminishes intensity. A gamma wave could theoretically be stretched to it's limits over a billion years and be seen by us as a blip. A spherical wave is still constrained by gravity as such it is under the auspicious of the strength of that particular gravitational force. Is the cause for the elongation of light waves a product of it's strength at the time of release eg: super nova, the gravitational force restraining it, or the pull of an expanding Universe?  lol

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #60

At some point change in the initial force cannot be maintained. The elongation of light waves in space diminishes intensity. A gamma wave could theoretically be stretched to it's limits over a billion years and be seen by us as a blip. A spherical wave is still constrained by gravity as such it is under the auspicious of the strength of that particular gravitational force. Is the cause for the elongation of light waves a product of its strength at the time of release eg: super nova, the gravitational force restraining it, or the pull of an expanding Universe?  lol

Ok, let’s talk about an expanding spherical wave of light energy, such as the light emitted spherically from an energetic source like a super nova.

Assuming space meets the definition of an interstellar medium (ISM) like in our definition of space in reply #42, at some distant point in space, an observer would see the super nova as a mere blip, as you suggested.

1) Do you think that there is some distance beyond that at which the blip of light will fade in intensity to the point that there is no visible energy left in the wave front for an observer to see?

2) Do you think that there is some distance beyond that where there is no energy left at all in the wave front, i.e., where the expanding wave front of energy is diminished to zero, meaning that the wave energy is completely absorbed by the composition of the interstellar medium?

Then, for talking purposes, let’s assume that the spherical light wave is advancing into otherwise empty space, no ISM at all. In that case let’s ask a question:

3) Do you think that there is some distance beyond which there is no energy left at all in the wave front, i.e., where the energy is diminished to zero, meaning that the wave energy is not conserved?



Yes or No
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No

To be continued ...

[guest46746]

1) Do you think that there is some distance beyond that at which the blip of light will fade in intensity to the point that there is no visible energy left in the wave front for an observer to see?


Light travels at the speed of light in a vacuum, or if it is contained via black hole gravity or via human experimentation then it's speed is altered. An altered velocity indicates light's life cycle duration is like anything else in nature. Some light photons may last to 10 to the 18th power but some may not last half that time. Our estimate of the age of the Universe is 14 billions years, that is minute in comparison to 10 to the 18th power. Photons do and can decay into lighter particles.

#1 yes


2) Do you think that there is some distance beyond that where there is no energy left at all in the wave front, i.e., where the expanding wave front of energy is diminished to zero, meaning that the wave energy is completely absorbed by the composition of the interstellar medium?Then, for talking purposes, let’s assume that the spherical light wave is advancing into otherwise empty space, no ISM at all.

Light is observable  as a reflection to a barrier if there is nothing to reflect it, it's presence is obscure. Do i believe that a wave front loses its integrity via a lack of mass?  lol.
My previous example to you however in regards to light elongation was for a gamma ray which is more of a highly concentrated beam of light. Being such, it's origin is not spherical but Birkeland current like. Gamma rays in this notable form, originate from the center of galaxies, is their observable, visible mass finite?  Yes, they appears to be. Does this preclude that their energy dissipates without their mass husk? No, but their mass husk are traveling at approx. the speed of light. We do know that neutrino proceed gamma ray burst. What relation is there between lighter particles neutrinos acceleration and photons traveling at the speed of light? Decaying photons! lol. Decaying photons releasing into neutrinos lift the speed of light limits for neutrinos! lol.  So, photonic mass is containable by gravity, neutrinos are not. I do believe that dark matter membranes are impervious even for neutrinos. I do believe that the Universe's background radiation is a reflection of this condition of recycled containment? Do I believe it is possible to expand without containment? No. I believe growth to be cellular process even for Universe. Does Universe growth require division? Multi-Universe theorist may believe so! lol

#2 yes


In that case let’s ask a question:3) Do you think that there is some distance beyond which there is no energy left at all in the wave front, i.e., where the energy is diminished to zero, meaning that the wave energy is not conserved?

To have a light wave traveling at the speed of light you need photonic energy. Neutrinos do meet this criteria. Light decays into lighter particles, neutrinos. Wave energy as I believe you are defining it, is not conserved. Containment in the form background radiation is. lol

Does energy exist without a structure to produce it? No. So, sub-elementary that have no structure are incapable of producing or sustaining energy production. An analogy would be amino acids, they are the building blocks of life but without DNA structure they are just amino acids. lol

#3 yes, decayed photons, neutrinos, do not possess the structure necessary to produce energy, so the potential without structure is 0. lol

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #62

Light travels at the speed of light in a vacuum, or if it is contained via black hole gravity or via human experimentation then it's speed is altered. An altered velocity indicates light's life cycle duration is like anything else in nature. Some light photons may last to 10 to the 18th power but some may not last half that time. Our estimate of the age of the Universe is 14 billions years, that is minute in comparison to 10 to the 18th power. Photons do and can decay into lighter particles.

#1 yes


Light is observable  as a reflection to a barrier if there is nothing to reflect it, it's presence is obscure. Do i believe that a wave front loses its integrity via a lack of mass?  lol.
My previous example to you however in regards to light elongation was for a gamma ray which is more of a highly concentrated beam of light. Being such, it's origin is not spherical but Birkeland current like. Gamma rays in this notable form, originate from the center of galaxies, is their observable, visible mass finite?  Yes, they appears to be. Does this preclude that their energy dissipates without their mass husk? No, but their mass husk are traveling at approx. the speed of light. We do know that neutrino proceed gamma ray burst. What relation is there between lighter particles neutrinos acceleration and photons traveling at the speed of light? Decaying photons! lol. Decaying photons releasing into neutrinos lift the speed of light limits for neutrinos! lol.  So, photonic mass is containable by gravity, neutrinos are not. I do believe that dark matter membranes are impervious even for neutrinos. I do believe that the Universe's background radiation is a reflection of this condition of recycled containment? Do I believe it is possible to expand without containment? No. I believe growth to be cellular process even for Universe. Does Universe growth require division? Multi-Universe theorist may believe so! lol

#2 yes


To have a light wave traveling at the speed of light you need photonic energy. Neutrinos do meet this criteria. Light decays into lighter particles, neutrinos. Wave energy as I believe you are defining it, is not conserved. Containment in the form background radiation is. lol

Does energy exist without a structure to produce it? No. So, sub-elementary that have no structure are incapable of producing or sustaining energy production. An analogy would be amino acids, they are the building blocks of life but without DNA structure they are just amino acids. lol

#3 yes

, decayed photons, neutrinos, do not possess the structure necessary to produce energy, so the potential without structure is 0. lol

1) That just seems like an imponderable to me, lol. Does your estimate of the age of the universe track back only 14 billion years to the Big Bang, or could the universe have always existed, and could space be infinite, and therefore could the occurrence of Big Bang events be commonplace:




... caused by the intersection of two or more expanding parent big bang arenas in the infinite and eternal landscape of the greater universe; a multiple big bang event landscape?  Yes or no? Yes.

2) I’m cautious about taking all of that at face value, and would be comfortable if we boil it down to say that there is known science, and there is “as yet” unknown science. But there is one thing we should be able to agree on and that is that light waves and gravitational waves carry energy across space.  Yes or no? Yes.

3) Ok, question three was asked along with the premise that the light energy was expanding into empty space, which at best is a cheap thought experiment if we go with the definition of space in reply #42. Based on your answer, I’m willing to say the thought experiment was a failure, so lets forget #3 to save bandwidth.

Let’s boil all of that down to the premise that in the medium of space, wave energy (light energy and gravitational wave energy) is emitted and absorbed by particles and objects, and is thus conserved, and in the space between particles and objects, there is wave energy (light and gravitational waves) traversing space, based on a potentially infinite history of emission and absorption? Space is therefore filled with wave energy coming and going, to and from all directions, . Yes or no? Yes.

I guess none of that really gets to the original issue you brought up, which is … that you take exception to the idea that two wave fronts, whether light or gravitational, would form a peak of high energy at the point of intersection, and that peak would be surrounded by a valley of lower energy density.

I don’t know if we will resolve the issue between us, but describing the nature of a spherical light wave front, might be in order. I’ll go first, lol.

Would you accept the definition that a spherical wave front, as it advances, is marked by a wave energy density differential between the energy of the advancing wave front, and the energy of the space into which the front is expanding?


Further, when a wave front encounters another wave front, does the idea that there would be a momentary interruption in the advance of the two wave fronts, and a resulting disturbance in space at the point where the energy of the two wave fronts merge, and that disturbance would be resolved by the formation of a “third wave” that disburses the energy disturbance spherically?

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

If you have studied the theory of light, Christian Huygens, this is from Reply #130 from the thread, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bang events?”
“We are talking Huygens 17th century, and Fresnel and Kirchhoff from the 19th century. 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.”



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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens–Fresnel_principle

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