Just another Model (JAM)

[martillo]

21 minutes ago, CarlD said:

But if you have suggestions which parts to improve, I'm open to them.

Currently the wave-particle duality model is the mainstream. You are trying to model everything as waves. I'm in the opposite direction thinking in improving the particles' model so I can't actually give you any help in that direction.

[CarlD]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Do you mean  this ?

Just what is a disturbance of spacetime ?

If you don't understand something ask don't guess.

Of course I don't call them time varyiing. Why would I ? Is there any evidence of gravitational field varying with time ?

A gravitational field is however a good example to make my point.

When viewed as a field (it can be viewed or described in other ways) the quantity of interest is called the gravitational potential. This potential has a definite, measurable value at every point in the gravitational field. It is an example of a potential field, with some special properties, one being that it is a conservative field.
Other fields may also be assigned to the region of space occupied by the gravitational field.
One such is the field of gravitational force acting on a material body. Another is an example of a direction field as force is a vector and as such has a direction at every point in the field.

So you see, fields can be pretty complicated things, and so far we have just opened the book at static fields.

The answer to my question 'what is waving' is the quantity of interest. This quantity may be a field quantity (ie part of a field) or it may not. It may be a material quantity such as water or it may be non material such as displacement or amplitude.

 

 

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.

 

Just now, martillo said:

Currently the wave-particle duality model is the mainstream. You are trying to model everything as waves. I'm in the opposite direction thinking in improving the particles' model so I can't actually give you any help in that direction.

Isn't this the materialist model, which has already been disproven?

[martillo]

3 minutes ago, CarlD said:

Isn't this the materialist model, which has already been disproven?

I don't know what do you mean by "materialist model" in Physics. The particles model haven't been disproved at all. Currently it works together with the waves model together in the wave-particle model. Some things are well modeled with the concept of particles and other are well modeled by the concept of waves. The "wave-particle duality" you know...

[CarlD]

1 minute ago, martillo said:

I don't know what do you mean by "materialist model" in Physics. The particles model haven't been disproved at all. Currently it works together with the waves model together in the wave-particle model. Some things are well modeled with the concept of particles and other are well modeled by the concept of waves. The "wave-particle duality" you know...

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.

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, CarlD said:

You are trying to go down to a level which even the best physicists would have issues with

Since you clearly think you know better than anyone else and are not interested in what they have to say I wish you goodnight and pleasant dreams.

[CarlD]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Since you clearly think you know better than anyone else and are not interested in what they have to say I wish you goodnight and pleasant dreams.

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

[martillo]

1 hour ago, CarlD said:

And as said, all particle properties can also be explained with spinning waves, and those also explain lots more.

That is what you say. You have to demonstrate that to the Physics' community.

1 hour ago, CarlD said:

I thought you meant a model based only on particles.

Yes, I'm working in a particles' model that seems could explain the wave-like behavior of them but I'm well aware it is a huge task. You seem to still be at the state of "storm of ideas" and you can't be so sure your model will really work as you insist to say. You have to demonstrate that.

Edited November 5, 2023 by martillo

[studiot]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

That is what you say. You have to demonstrate that to the Physics' community.

Yes, I'm working in a particles' model that seems could explain the wave-like behavior of them but I'm well aware it is a huge task. You seem to still be at the state of "storm of ideas" and you can't be so sure your model will really work as you insist to say. You have to demonstrate that.

You are definitely moving forward.   +1

[martillo]

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

You are definitely moving forward.   +1

Thanks! Nice if I could have moved a little bit. Is being about twenty years I'm on this try. @CarlD reminds me my first state of thinking about a new model and I can comprehend him.

3 hours ago, CarlD said:

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Do you mean  this ?

Just what is a disturbance of spacetime ?

I think @CarlD would need to move into "Perturbation Quantum Field Theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory_(quantum_mechanics)

But also he is including gravity in his model so he would also need to move into "Gravity Perturbation Theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity

Too far from my area of expertise. Not to mention I'm an engineer not a physicist. A lot of time time incurring in the Physics' area but still with an engineering approach...

Edited November 5, 2023 by martillo

[CarlD]

11 hours ago, martillo said:

That is what you say. You have to demonstrate that to the Physics' community.

Yes, I'm working in a particles' model that seems could explain the wave-like behavior of them but I'm well aware it is a huge task. You seem to still be at the state of "storm of ideas" and you can't be so sure your model will really work as you insist to say. You have to demonstrate that.

Maybe I'll find people who'll help. Won't be possible without posting it first... 

9 hours ago, martillo said:

Thanks! Nice if I could have moved a little bit. Is being about twenty years I'm on this try. @CarlD reminds me my first state of thinking about a new model and I can comprehend him.

I think @CarlD would need to move into "Perturbation Quantum Field Theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory_(quantum_mechanics)

But also he is including gravity in his model so he would also need to move into "Gravity Perturbation Theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity

Too far from my area of expertise. Not to mention I'm an engineer not a physicist. A lot of time time incurring in the Physics' area but still with an engineering approach...

There are also unified theories which I think I could go into. Just not without time or resources... Good luck with your attempt, though!

[martillo]

1 hour ago, CarlD said:

Maybe I'll find people who'll help. Won't be possible without posting it first... 

I think you could find people that could like to work in developing your model further only if you could convince them your model would really work. You already posted your current ideas, right. People in the forum is pointing out to you which problems each one is finding for the model to work. While you solve those problems in a convincing way you are moving further in the development of your model. You must take each criticism and refute it with good demonstrations that your model actually works. This way you are moving further. That would be the way I think. You must be also always prepared to find that your model could actually not work...

I don't like the "wave-particle duality" model. I think is an unfinished model. I don't see how something could be actually be a wave and a particle at the same time. There could be both wave-like and particle-like behaviors, fine, but the thing must be solved for the waves-only or the particles-only model at the end. 

 

1 hour ago, CarlD said:

Just not without time or resources...

Of course.

Edited November 6, 2023 by martillo

[Engineeer]

On 11/3/2023 at 2:39 PM, CarlD said:

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.

This is nothing new, it is quite common to aspire to explain away all the forces as one force (mostly gravity). The elusive graviton could be the building blocks of all particles. 

[CarlD]

7 hours ago, Engineeer said:

This is nothing new, it is quite common to aspire to explain away all the forces as one force (mostly gravity). The elusive graviton could be the building blocks of all particles. 

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.

[Engineeer]

15 hours ago, CarlD said:

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.

You'd have to set conditions for it and graph them and see if they behave like the other 3 interactions. Assuming you set what gravity is. Generally it just pulls stuff in but obviously with gravity waves, and gravitons, gravity becomes more complex than just a field that tugs. 

[CarlD]

8 hours ago, Engineeer said:

You'd have to set conditions for it and graph them and see if they behave like the other 3 interactions. Assuming you set what gravity is. Generally it just pulls stuff in but obviously with gravity waves, and gravitons, gravity becomes more complex than just a field that tugs. 

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.

[Engineeer]

On 11/8/2023 at 2:02 AM, CarlD said:

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.

The point is UFTs exist purely in a mathematical concept. A condition set such as what you're saying, "all fundamental interactions are manifested from the electromagnetic interaction" would be an equation 

My equation has set conditions of spherical coordinates that evolve on their own that state that gravity is the only interaction in the universe and that particles arise from graviton interactions and light are these particles moving at a velocity equal to the rate at which the local quantum gravity decreases by the inverse square law. Which is why light has so many different frequencies. c just has something to do with initial diameters (these spherical coordinates in planck units)

Edited November 10, 2023 by Engineeer

[CarlD]

3 hours ago, Engineeer said:

The point is UFTs exist purely in a mathematical concept. A condition set such as what you're saying, "all fundamental interactions are manifested from the electromagnetic interaction" would be an equation 

My equation has set conditions of spherical coordinates that evolve on their own that state that gravity is the only interaction in the universe and that particles arise from graviton interactions and light are these particles moving at a velocity equal to the rate at which the local quantum gravity decreases by the inverse square law. Which is why light has so many different frequencies. c just has something to do with initial diameters (these spherical coordinates in planck units)

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.

Edited November 10, 2023 by CarlD

[CarlD]

On 11/3/2023 at 8:39 PM, CarlD said:

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.

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.

[CarlD]

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