ntnghiep Thanks for clarifying what you mean by the photon-free condition. That makes the proposed comparison much easier to evaluate. I think there is an important distinction between our frameworks at precisely this point.
The approximately 411 photons per cubic centimeter background density you reference corresponds closely to the conventional cosmic microwave background photon density. However, within NVM I cannot identify those photons with bare substrate particles, nor can I presently interpret electromagnetic radiation as requiring a particulate carrier medium in the classical mechanical sense. Those would be additional physical hypotheses that would first need independent justification.
There is also an important mathematical distinction in translating your proposed experiment into NVM. Setting electromagnetic gauge fields or external electromagnetic sources to zero would not, by itself, mean that the NVM substrate has been removed from the region. In fact, the substrate is precisely what NVM treats as underlying the effective electromagnetic description. A region with no electromagnetic excitation could therefore still possess the equilibrium NVM substrate.
Similarly, setting an electromagnetic source term to zero does not automatically force the orientation field n into geometric confinement. That behavior would have to follow from the NVM field equations and specified boundary conditions.
This distinction becomes particularly important regarding your proposed instantaneous global adjustment. I cannot put such a response into NVM as an assumption. If the NVM equations possess some collective or nonseparable response then its propagation properties must emerge from the principal and characteristic structure of the equations themselves.
There is also a dimensional issue that would need clarification with the expression “response speed greater than or equal to c to the fourth power.” Since c is a velocity, c⁴ does not itself have the dimensions of velocity. If this represents a different physical quantity in your theory then we would first need its precise definition and units before attempting a mathematical comparison.
For me, the most scientifically interesting version of your proposal would therefore be slightly different from the one you describe.
Instead of instructing the NVM system that removing the electromagnetic background must produce an instantaneous response, we could eventually define a region with vanishing effective electromagnetic excitation, introduce a mathematically specified localized perturbation, and then simply allow the NVM equations to tell us what happens.
Does the perturbation radiate?
Does it remain localized?
Does it generate a new stable or metastable configuration?
How rapidly does information about the disturbance propagate through the NVM fields?
Does the characteristic structure remain regular?
And most importantly, do any unexpected nonlocal correlations or propagation effects emerge without having been imposed beforehand?
That would make the proposed phenomenon a genuine prediction and not an input.
I think this also highlights an interesting difference between our approaches. Your model currently supplies a specific mechanical interpretation of what the background consists of and predicts what should happen when it is removed. NVM is deliberately more agnostic at this stage. I want the equations to determine which microscopic interpretations are actually justified.
So I would not translate “photon-free” into “NVM-free.” I would translate it more cautiously as a candidate boundary-value problem involving the absence of effective electromagnetic excitations while leaving the underlying substrate intact.
That version could potentially be formulated mathematically and tested without assuming the outcome in advance.
Best regards,
Mike
