CarlD

I already found a mistake. The formula for amplitude does not subtract the length if space was not curved, acting as if the whole photon affected curvature, not just the difference to uncurved space. The real amplitude is thus much higher. You can find the correct value and calculation under above link.

Here I am back again hoping for constructive feedback. I took criticism from the last post to heart, so this article is a little heavier on the math side. Enjoy! The article assumes photons are responsible for gravity in lighter objects like the sun (while in heavier objects, gravity waves or other mechanisms take over that role). The idea is losely based on an unsuccessful unified field theory which tried to combine electromagnetism with gravitation, but was too complicated (5 dimensional fields and such). It instead is based on the assumption (inspired by Maxwell) that all fields are (caused by) waves (or particles) moving around and that photons don't have electric or magnetic properties but rather just distort spacetime with their amplitudes, causing a curvature of spacetime. Gravitational, magnetic, electrical and other large scale effects are therefore caused indirectly by photons (and other waves/particles), through their amplitudes and the distortions of spacetime they cause, sometimes modified by interference and/or resonance (magnetism), circular movements (charge) and other emergent properties. The calculations are a rough sketch and still require lots of improvement. But if I didn't make a serious mistake, the results should be roughly in the correct order of magnitude. Improvement over current thinking is, among many others, that it explains why light is affected by gravity but not so much by magnetism (as far as I know). Following is the calculation of the amplitude of photons from observed bending of light by the sun. Curvature A(AU) = 4 * G * M / r / c^2 (Change in direction due to gravity, according to MS Chat) = 3.948E-8 m / s G = 6.674E-11 N * m^2 / kg^2 M(sun) = 1.9885E30 kg r(AU) = 1.496E11 m c = 299792458 m / s Energy P(AU) = 1360 J / s (W) (Photons per square meter and second at 1 AU from the sun) Photons N(PPh) = E * P / h / f (According to MS Chat) = 1.8E19 Ph / Watt (approximation for assumed average frequency of 5E14 Hz)* N(sAU) = 2.448E22 / s (Photons per second at 1 AU) E(ph) = 3.31E-19 J (According to MS Chat) * Could be refined with the integral of all emissions at Energy / frequency, incl. neutrinos Conclusion D(Ph) = A(AU) / N(sAU) m = 1.613E-30 m One photon lengthens space enough to move things sideways by ~1.613E-30 m A(PH) = D(Ph) / Pi / 2 = 2.567E-31 m W(Ph) = c / f m = 299792458 / 5E14 m = 5.9958492E-7m A photon of frequency 5E14 Hz or wavelength 6E-7 m has an effective amplitude of 2.567E-31 m. I presume that this is also it's real amplitude, or at least in a similar order of magnitude, but that remains to be shown conclusively. This means, individual photons are extremely flat. It fits well with the fact that light can be polarized. It also puts a hard limit on how fine a polarized grid can be before light will be strongly distorted by it. Updates on jam.free.nf/amplitude.htm Researched with the help of MS Chat and Bing.

Here now my first very primitive simulation, somehow cranked together in the little time I could spare. When you click on the button, it shows an objects emitting (light) waves and another object hopefully circling around the object. All the circling object does to determine it's direction is to add the increases in distance created by the photons in its vicinity while they pass the object, for each of the four directions. Due to the limited computing power, the photons are by magnitudes (10^20) less frequent than in a realistic setting and equally more "curved" to offset the difference. Also, it was running faster using "laser" light instead of simulating individual photons independently. You will find that despite the primitive form of the simulation (and the many shortcomings due to lack of time and resources), it is able to create real gravitational effects, as if there was some invisible "field" affecting the circling object, even though only the distances/curvature of the plane change. Further simulations will follow, if time permits. Check here: jam.free.nf I also attached the file for your convenience, so you can check it out, maybe help improve it. PS: A refresh is needed to restart the simulation - I did not fix all bugs yet. I only tested it on Edge. home_00019.htm

A few additions to my model (JAM), as I thought about it or saw or read related information: Mathematical concepts like fields and symmetry always follow physical occurrences, they do not in any way influence or cause them. They are just our interpretations or logical consequences of physical phenomena. For instance, if we have compression waves, we logically have a compressing part and (if the place goes back to the original state) decompression (a symmetry), and the possibility that the compression comes first and then the decompression, or the possibility that the decompression comes first and then compression (another symmetry). Some exotic stuff is also possible, like compression and decompression moving sideways, but, for logical reasons, that would point to a more complex mechanism of their creation, i. e., multiple waves. Similar applies to more complex objects. A whirl (my idea of an electron or positron), for instance, can only be left handed or right handed (which defines their charge which is also symmetric for that reason). If we have lots of waves with (potential) effects on their surroundings, we have a field. They do not exist without such measurable occurrences. Considering polarization, it appears that photons aren't (only) compression waves, but rather bend space in one of the 3 spatial dimensions. I am not decided whether photons in the visible light spectrum are pretty flat and have a width, so a polarizing filter lets them through sideways, or whether they are thin, as would be the usual way to describe them. Considering their small individual influence and the rather coarse polarization masks, I tend more to flat. Polarization filters would work either way and turn the filtered out waves into different waves, which can then partially influence following filters, leading to some of the fun stuff one can get with 3 and more filters at different angles. The main difference between gravitational waves and similarily long radio waves is the massive amplitude of gravitational waves. They may even bend space in more than one dimension - all three dimensions, and they might be described as compression waves. Radio waves usually have their energy stored in the frequency, and even the overlapping of many of them at one frequency and any polarization with a powerful radio emitter doesn't make much of a difference compared to gravitational waves, due to the differences in energy involved. I'm also working on some very primitive simulations, which should have enough simulating power to illustrate and demonstrate the possibility of selected parts of my model, so look forward to it. They will not be physically realistic, however - that would require more time and resources than I have available.

That's a very interesting concept. My current idea (speculative somewhat) is that everything already moves at the speed of light, due to what occurred during the Big Bang. Speeds of spinning objects can only increase by adding waves in one direction (which, unlike heat, become invisible until a collision occurs as they move along and/or make all molecules move in the same direction, reducing their apparent frequency or collisions), where the resulting speed is the average of all involved speedvectors, therefore never faster than any participant. However, your idea might be the reason why we got c during the Big Bang.

No answers to the previous discussion, so it looks as if you just throw intelligent sounding (to you) words to see what sticks, but without any real meaning. The point of the graviton is to explain gravity with a particle which already possesses gravitation or mass. This is in analogy to attributing electric and magnetic properties to radio ("em") waves to make electric and magnetic fields work. No gravitons have been detected, so physics moved on to an even more elusive Higgs field. They can't attribute gravity or mass to light because light doesn't act like that, even if we ignore it moving at c. My point is that the idea of attributing complex physical forces or properties directly to physical objects is wrong. Everything more complex than geometric (spacetime) distortion is the result of the one sticking point of yours, complex behaviors from simple interactions.

I'm more than happy to see any of them, if you can point me to them. So far, I'm only aware of unified theories based on em-waves, which get quite convoluted as they look for the needed properties in the waves or in many dimensions which we don't see in the macroscopic world. I'm also not aware of a theory which invokes the graviton to, say, explain magnetism.

Maybe I'll find people who'll help. Won't be possible without posting it first... There are also unified theories which I think I could go into. Just not without time or resources... Good luck with your attempt, though!

I wouldn't be answering your and other posts if I wasn't interested in feedback. But goodnight and pleasant dreams, as well

I thought you meant a model based only on particles. And as said, all particle properties can also be explained with spinning waves, and those also explain lots more.

You are trying to go down to a level which even the best physicists would have issues with. No-one knows exactly what the fabric of space below the physical objects is. We could be trapped in the event horizon of a black hole or, similar, the shockwave of an expanding universe, likely 4D with a 3D surface in either one. In this case, waves/disturbances would be any movement in the event horizon or present. We could also be part of an automaton, spitting out ever more complex zero-sum games, in which case waves would just be new variations in the whole. And many more. As all stars and planets lose mass over time (with temporary reversals due to influx of new mass from elsewhere), gravitational fields do vary over time. Also, what do you measure when you measure the gravity at a point? You measure the changes in movement of that object. What causes this change? An abstract field? Nope, it's obviously some physical occurences. So regardless of definitions (the details of which are unimportant), we always come back to physical happenings, which define those fields, not the other way around. Isn't this the materialist model, which has already been disproven?

Unluckily, I don't have enough time right now to flesh out according simulations... Those should make things clearer. But if you have suggestions which parts to improve, I'm open to them.

I have to start somewhere, as I would not be able to do the maths alone... I'd be very happy if it did get serious reviews - passing is not the goal for now...

I answered your question about waves as well as I could. Maybe you want to rephrase it if you were going elsewhere? Gravitational fields vary with the mass of objects. So I assume you call them time varying? Similar with magnetism and charges. The charge of an electron is pretty stable. And would be in any model - Standard, String, mine, etc. I think I can even explain why - or at least move the explanation to a more fundamental level. Either way, regardless of how you define and differentiate them, we know all physical fields are based on physical happenings. And even the ones appearing to be static have to be based on something occuring - just in a steady way. I think I did all I can in that regard. You may want to look at recent experiments with sound waves to see how something as simple as waves can create very complex interactions.

Is there a single physics book saying something else for the first part? The last part is pretty obvious from the fact that stars bend light, combined with some unified theories which postulate the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism long before I was even born.

I'm pretty sure my definitions are compatible not only on the level of language, but also on the level of physics, where people often imagine fields as an abstract thing, even though we know already since Maxwell that they are related to waves. Similar to resonance - it's the same waves coming together as in guitar bodies, pianos, laser light creation and many more. I just apply it in an area where, afaik, people didn't do it yet. Though string theory may actually already hint at it. Waves are disturbances spreading out in the otherwise more or less flat geometry of something. In the case of photons, disturbances of spacetime, moving at the speed of light.

Each photon has a structure, probably similar to a sinus curve, but in 3D. It deforms space where it passes. Thus, it increases distances for anything crossing it at exactly the right time. The different distribution/density of photons thus create more or less bumpy areas of space, with higher chances of hits the more there are. The bumpier, the more curved. Similar to how an ant has to cross larger distances through an egg carton than through a flat piece of cardboard.

Waves moving through an area. The waves have a form, thus they slightly increase distances for anything crossing them. Which gives us curvature of spacetime or gravity, and is responsible for more where frequencies are higher or other factors apply. In a wider sense, any physical effect from such waves which works at distances (probably all). Like resonance creating magnetic properties/fields or spin creating electric properties/charges.

I do not see any connection between my ideas and the vortex idea. For one thing, my model does not require an aether. It is just based on normal wave movement, as in photons, and attributes all properties to the waves themselves. Additionally, so far, nothing moves toroidal, though that's actually an interesting concept. Nor are there any "knots" in my model. Unluckily, I'm not aware of anything for which the other models don't also provide explanations, but I'll try my luck: - Spikes in ferrofluids are nice to illustrate magnetic fields, but shouldn't really happen in the smooth geometry which is usually ascribed to magnetic fields. If magnetic fields are based on resonance effects, it's also clear where the spikes come from. There might be more ways to measure the resonance waves postulated and I'd be more than happy to bring them in line with a simulation explaining them. - Photons get affected by gravity but not by magnetism. - The clear differences between magnetic and electric behaviors. - My model fully explains motion and where the energy released during a collision was stored. While other models, as far as I'm aware, only describe it as impuls and ignore how impuls works. - My model generally doesn't require any magical complex properties but still explains all effects equally well. - If a radio system could be made to generate waves of any frequency, it should be possible to show that either we always get electrons once we increase the frequency enough, and without losing as many electrons from the system, or we can generate them with the right mix of frequencies. And we can then as easily create positrons with the same system. Generating protons this way is probably too far out of our technological capability, but might happen in the future. I'll try to come up with more.

Hi Martillo, Thanks for your feedback. Magnetic forces I thought I already explained well: Atoms swim in a sea of waves, constantly absorbing and emitting them, passing through them and being passed through by them. When atoms are close and have the right properties (similar to how a beachball and a surfboard will act differently in ocean waves), resonance happens between the objects, causing standing waves (similar to the ones in the double slit experiment, but in 3D and more complex). There are 3 possible reactions, depending on geometry and internal movements of the atoms (mostly the electron shell(s)): None, trying to stay in a position within the standing waves, or making the standing waves move around, which can obviously only be in 1 direction (which also depends on the geometry/movements of the atom), which causes the magnetism to have a direction and therefore polarity. Electricity I'm not as certain about, but I assume it works the following way: Objects like electrons and protons are similar to whirls in water, but in 3D space. When an object spins one way (left-handed, for instance), it's one charge, when it spins the other way (right handed, in this case), it's the other charge. Same charges bounce off one another, except under extremely calm/cold conditions, where they can unify in more fragile ways. Opposing charges can whirl together easily, thus making them neutral for the rest of the world. This explains also the more erratic nature of electricity, compared to magnetism. An atom, in my model, is just a bunch of "whirls" (waves moving in circles). Otherwise, it works exactly the same as if parts where solid. For elastic collisions between two objects, two things need to come together: Atoms on the two surfaces which do not tend to merge or stick, and enough cohesion in them to make shockwaves from the impact travel around and bounce back when they find nowhere else to go to. This is the same regardless of whether solid things exist, or whether all solid things are just made of (circling) waves.

Finally, I can answer - I had some technical issues so I only pm'd people so far and was busy yesterday. Thanks for the nice intro again. I appreciate the feedback. Solitons seem to be a good idea to explain why photons stay together and move straight instead of dispersing like a usual wave. So they match my ideas about photons and similar waves, even if I may have used simpler wording. For more complex objects, like electrons, more is needed. I disagree with the idea that spin of electrons, for instance, doesn't have a real explanation. I do not believe in magical complex properties. If it quacks like a duck, it's more likely to be a duck than an abstract property. If waves can form solitons on their own, they can also form whirls, even if we may require some help (an obstacle in water, other suitable waves in electrons). A high enough frequency for the properties which make waves solitons to also make waves turn in a circle seems to be sufficient, however, from what I know so far. I'll happily look up the experiments about mechanical spin, though I'm not really talking about anything mechanical here, as that would require solid objects. Cheers! Hi SwansonT, I finally managed to answer in thread, with an old laptop I reactivated, as it did not work on my phone. If simulations show waves can form complex objects under certain assumptions, and those then show the same properties as real world objects (magnetism, gravity and more) it should be a sufficient indicator and test. Also, I look forward to people trying to find anything which can be explained with other models but not mine. I could only do it with simulations, as the levels of math I can do for now are not enough to calculate complex 4D resonance effects. Brute forcing them would be more like my cup of tea.

Here my attempt to create another model of how the world of waves and particles work (JAM). No math is involved, as most formulas don't actually change. It's just a different, and in my opinion more realistic, way to look at things. It breaks down most physical forces into simpler forces, especially space/time distortions, instead of just calling them a (magic?) property, as in the Standard Model. The same forces which cause gravity may also be responsible for all else: magnetism, electricity, and so on, just as different ways of waves to work out. Discussions are welcome, as long as they are fact based, not based on authorative or other such rhetoric. I believe every experiment, measurement and visualisation can be explained with it. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure about predictions. Feel welcome to suggest anything where my model would work differently. First is the base level, which is fairly speculative: Everything is just random fluctuations ("blips") of space deformities. The "blips" don't just affect the looks of an area, they also affect its geometry and number of dimensions. Thus, they can affect one another: for instance, if a space large from curvature becomes simpler and thus smaller, it releases its hitherto normally distributed blips into an atypically small space, leading to the illusion of movement when new blips pop into and old blips vanish out of existence and change the distribution back to normal over time (entropy). Movement then means irreversible changes across an ever widening space. Thus, we get time and spatial differentiation, and physical laws based on probabilities and geometry. Second is the wave level, which I'm fairly certain about, and which is the actual model (JAM): Everything in the universe is just waves at this level, all moving at the speed of light, probably through 4D spacetime, all with these main properties: compression or decompression of spacetime at different intensities (maybe instead directly curving of space into a fourth dimension). Waves can move in different directions and in different orientations, they define the space they pass through: Lots of such waves make the space more "bumpy", thus increasing distances and creating the apparent curvature of spacetime around objects with lots of such waves. Because they recursively affect space, they will move in circles when the amplitude gets too big relative to the wavelength, which happens at the wavelength of beta radiation. We get electrons. At extreme frequencies or extremely short wavelengths, they even form little black holes with an event horizon. This happens at the (Compton) frequency of protons or quarks. The event horizon of an atom usually vibrates at the frequency of electrons (or positrons in antimatter) due to the movement of quarks, protons, neutrons etc., which also explains why their charges are identical, just with opposite sign. It may be possible for waves to move straight beyond those frequency limits. One or more other waves moving in the right way may then be needed to cause circling of the combined wave pattern. A Higgs field or such is not needed. Further properties are mostly, maybe all, derived from those basic characteristics: Gravity is the curvature of space from waves moving through it. Thus we get not only the 4D spacetime needed for relativity, but also a reason for why it happens (Sidenote: If neutrinos and such have a significant effect, parts of gravitation may move slower than the speed of light. A testable hypothesis). All this would be fairly easy to simulate on a computer, to see whether it's feasible and works as well as current models. Magnetism is standing waves between two objects (similar to the standing waves seen in the double slit experiment) caused by resonance effects, which are different depending on the geometry of the objects affecting each other, especially the electrons and electron configurations. This is similar to ocean waves having different effects on surf boards or beach balls. The complex geometry of the standing waves in 3D space, already hinted at in the 2D space of the double slit experiment, creates the torus form of the magnetic field. You may also have noted the spikes in ferro fluids. This would explain them. The fact that only some geometries (mostly electron configurations of atoms) are affected, and by (slight) movement of the standing waves or of the atoms and electron shells in the the standing waves, is why magnetism has two poles: Atoms can only 'wiggle' in one direction in the field (if they are affected), which works a little like pulling a screw into a cork (both ways) through changes in the resonance patterns with changing distances. If the two groups are configured and oriented in a compatible way, they will move towards each other. If they have opposite configurations or directions, they will move away from each other or change direction. Similar applies to other such scenarios (like copper slowing down magnets, or like superconductors), which easily follows from the above. This, too, can relatively easily be demonstrated with computer simulations and thus proven to be based on the same wave properties as gravity, just applied differently. There are also some experiments with sound waves producing similar effects, though simpler. Photons or em-waves do not have any magnetic (or electric) properties. Magnetism is just an effect of waves and objects influencing each other through spacetime curvature and resonance. Which is why they are much more powerful at short distances (resonances break down at larger distances) and why light does not get affected by magnetism, unlike gravitation (the "bumpiness"/curvature is the same regardless of resonance effects). Spin is exactly what it says it is: waves moving in circles under certain circumstances. This also helps create properties like mass (through resistance against changing the speed of circling objects) and electric charge (through two different possible directions of according "whirls", left or right handed). I'm not going into different types of spin here - let's just say things get more complex the more complex or high frequency the objects are. Some more speculative additions: Electrons, while popping in and out of existence as disturbances in the event horizon of protons, being able to take up a life on their own as circling waves (whirls), and sometimes following very complex paths, appear to partially follow a "race track" around atoms. In this "race track", some numbers of electrons fill the track fully and in a fairly stable way. Specifically numbers which relate to pi minus some for the size of electrons, a value around 2 to 2.5. Thus, we get full orbits at 2 (2x1), 10 (5x2), 18 (6x3) and so on. It's easy to show (also in a computer simulation) that numbers inbetween would leave such a "race track" or band in an "odd" constellation, with some electrons being free to do other movements, which could influence neighboring atoms disproportionately: chemical reactions. This movement along a preferred "track" and ability to influence neighboring waves and atoms through different geometries also explains most of the differing magnetic properties of different materials. Complex objects are also complex waves. Similar to how one can get a wave on an oscilloscope to move by adding another wave to it, all physical objects move by adding waves with an impuls in the right direction to it. This is easiest done by pushing mass the other way (action/reaction), as this gives us the whole power of e=mc^2 as a "lever", plus the impuls. Using photons directly also seems possible, but requires a lot of photons for similar effect without this "lever", probably to the tune of e=mc^2, and maybe even then with limits. The wave nature of speed is also another reason we can't go faster than light: We can only add more waves of the speed of light, so that the total of them can only approach c, never reach it. With circular movement, there's also at least one photon's worth going more or less the opposite way, so the speed will stay below c, regardless how many more photons get put into the acceleration. For instance, providing a ship with gigawatts of laser power probably only provides the acceleration of the according mass (E=mc^2, plus speed/impulse) of matter using conventional propellant. It is limited in effectiveness at any speed, so that one can't get more kinetic energy than was used for acceleration. While the speed "vectors" are stored in the moving object similar to heat, they are invisible to the moving object, because for it, their frequency is zero, due to moving in the same direction. Only in a collision or such does the energy of the speed/impuls get released and it becomes possible to observe.