You have a very good intuition and I have actually visited Krasnoyarsk and K-26 and I liked Siberia very much. You suppose that a torroidal gravity wave is fundamental and that certainly sounds a lot like aether. Now...you also need a discrete action to complement that gravity wave and you will have it all.
Do include some differential equations in your model and do show the Shrodinger equation and how it affects your work...keep the faith...
I resist the notions of space and time because they both lead to infinitely continuous media that are then subject to annoying singularities. With discrete matter and discrete action, there are no annoying singularities and so physical space and time no longer pose the singularities of mainstream science.
Measurement already confirms the existence of slow decay of matter, but electromagnetic and gravity noise confuse the analysis. Discrete matter and action mean that there is both a decay of matter along with an expansion of force and that is what confounds mainstream science...
Interesting. Thanks for the detailed remark. Space and time are very useful notions and indeed, it is difficult to imagine a universe based solely on matter and action...and yet mathematically, it is easy to imagine.
You speak of "what is beyond" the universe, but that question presupposes the notions of space and time. You note that:
"Discrete events arise from the interaction between energy and matter. They are enabled by the prior existence of time and space that function as context. Only increments of time 'emerge' between events, which fact helps us distinguish each event from all others."
First of all, you use words that presuppose space and time. An event is necessarily defined by time and has no meaning otherwise. Once you accept the notion of an event, you accept the basis of space and time. If instead you say that matter and action define change, time and space emerge from that action of matter, not the other way around.
Since the math seems to work just fine, the simple approach of matter and action does seem to describe a simple fundamental duality.
Continuous spontaneous localization, CSL, is a very interesting conjecture that supposes that there is an inherent decoherence rate for quantum phase entanglement. My point here was very simple: The current CSL estimates are consistent with the intrinsic decoherence of aether entanglement. Aether entanglement decoherence is what drives and therefore unites both charge and gravity force...
The causal set gravity theory of Fay Dowker is really a theory of aether and action. There are three axioms that the universe is transitive, non-circular, and finite.
This is a granular theory of spacetime and concludes that there are 1e240 aether atoms in the in universe. Discrete aether supposes that there are 1.2e125 that make up the aether universe. The causal set universe seems to have a lot more aether.
Also, moments of time in causal sets are creations of aether but it is the decay of aether coherence that determines moments in discrete aether. Evidently granular spacetime has not been very well received because of some kind of edge effects that should show up in the CMB. There was a grant to Rideout in 2012 but not much since then on granular spacetime...too bad...
Steve. (copied reply from mine)
Thanks. I actually hit entanglement & superposition head on. but didn't dwell; Superposition is REAL, as the experiment confirms, but not what we expect. It's Maxwell's 'curl' with in inverse distribution to linear 'up/down', so NOT 'singlet' states!
'Entanglement' only needs to be retained parallel polar axes of the pairs. A,B 'measure' with rotatable field electrons; so each output is actually either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' at some amplitudes. Think hard; non-locality is then NOT REQUIRED!
The only thing I've found at all limited about "classical intuition of space and time" is my ability to get it's logic across to those with different beliefs embedded or their own focussed viewpoint. SR was fully logically resolved in past (top 10) essays with the discrete (space/'time') field model (DFM) of nested spaces defined by relative motion and bounded by 2-fluid plasma interaction. i.e. your 'action' concept is indeed at it's heart.
Just identify what parts you don't recall resolved in the DFM and I'll run though it again. Not sure we can now access long posts, (yours?) so I'll stop here.
Best, Peter
I must admit that I had to once again look up the discrete field model (DFM) in order to better understand where you are coming from. First of all, you intuition is really great...but your maths leave much to be desired.
It is confusing to say that a discrete field model is something new since quantum electrodynamics is a discrete field model as well. Feynmans's QED is the epitome of a discrete field model and yet you do not seem to acknowledge Feynman in your writing.
Anyway...you do propose a discrete plasma as the basis for a DFM, but you do not say much about space and time. Do space and time exist first and then the DFM fills space and time?
The universe is made up of discrete aether and action and now there is a theory of causal sets that seems to show how space and time emerge from matter and action. The notion of the universe as a causal set is really intriguing and allows the emergence of space and time for the simple causal principles of matter and action.
That to me is really cool...
Mainstream science believes very firmly in an expanding spacetime universe, but discrete matter and action are actually what make up the universe, not continuous space and time. Both charge and gravity forces emerge from the collapse of discrete aether and that is why gravity and charge expand over time. The red shifts of galaxies go back in time all the way to the very cold (2.7 K) CMB creation (cosmic wave background).
The increasing red shift of ever younger galaxies and the very cold CMB creation are both consistent with the weaker forces and increased matter of the younger universe. The collapse of the cold CMB creation is actually at the speed of light and instead of the being a constant for all time, the universe collapse is what determines the speed of light in every epoch. Thus the very cold CMB creation will always be visible and will steadily warm up as the universe collapses. The Hubble constant shows the mass of the shrinking universe from a cold creation.
Steve,
Which maths? I don't do it! What time!? I remove all the physical traits we endow 'time' with, so it's just a consequence of my fundamental relative 'motion', whereon 'space' emerges, not 'space/time' but ANY one or more fermions - re-emitting at local c. I see QED well founded but parked up a cul-de-sac, & blame Feynman for our "shut up and stop thinking" era of zero progress. I answered your post on mine viz;
Thanks, but I'm not sure where I've gone smooth. I confess I never really understood causal sets theory and didn't see how could be 'fractal'. To explain, In the 'Discrete Field' Dynamic all apparent 'smooth' Lagrangian behaviour is granular at the next scale down, naturally recursive, rather like the amplituhedron. Rotation is what DEFINES a discrete state or 'granule'
So; The 'vortex' state of a (Majorana?) fermion ('electron/positron pair') as the smallest 'condensed matter' state, is made of many smaller vortices, the 'pressure' distribution of which around the fermion (etc) is what we call 'gravity'. I feel that's more in line with granularity than continuity. No?
If you feel the two can combine for something greater than the sum... do advise.
Peter
Steve,
I assume that was you. As that's my department (not maths!) I can't help comment & question; "The Hubble constant shows the mass of the shrinking universe from a cold creation."!!?
I'm not wedded to doctrine, and can agree a shrinking universe, but from the Hubble constant? (I think unnecessary anyway) and with a 'cold' start? (I think NOT unnecessary!)
Just so's you know, the DFM suggestet a dead simple derivation of redshift over time as a natural function of the OAM of light and the Schrodinger sphere expansion. A recycling cosmology also emerges by the way. (videos ^ & published papers on both available if you wish)
Peter
You weave a nice story in your discrete field model. You use all of the right words like Schrodinger sphere and fraunhofer diffraction, but then your maths leave much to be desired.
Intuition is an important part of our subjective reality, but we must be able to agree with others about our objective reality as well as our subjective reality.
Your DFM seems much too subjective and does not give us the entropy of a black hole, for example. Any cosmology must give us the entropy of a black hole or it is not even work considering...