Butch

While it is explained in my blog, I neglected to state it here... if the phase difference between "a" and "b" is 180 degrees, "i" does not change, however if the phase difference is other than 180 degrees "i" oscillates, please do not confuse "i" with a part of the system, it is simply a scalar value indicating the strength of the tensor "ab", "c". You can adjust the "P" slider to see the effect that a phase shift has on "i". Also, I misrepresented "i" as a tensor, the tensor has no specific designator... The tensor is "ab", "c"... "i" is the strength of the tensor. "i" also is not a photon, its oscillating value however indicates a wave in the tensor which is a photon. I apologize.

Have you met desmos? I have found it quite helpful for developing mathematical models, I can help you to learn to use it.

It doesn't, my problem with string theory is the need for extra dimensions, however, though I am not a fan, does not mean I discount it.

I refer to polarity only in terms of the orbital orientation of the pair "ab". Yes, the comparisons to Higgs and strings were knee jerk reactions without much thought behind them and very little actual understanding of my model.

Even an amoeba has some awareness, does it not? What about a virus? It does react to stimuli in a way, but is that awareness?

In discussions with others, my hypothesis has been called Higgs and string theory... I get the drift, but this is more primal than either, in my opinion. (BTW I am not a fan of string theory at this time.) Agreed, it is a scalar indicator of the relative strength of the tensor "ab","c" it is my hope that with further investigation (by myself and with the assistance of others) that real units can replace the scalars. No EM here yet, just polarity due to the orientation of the orbital pair... I think charge is there someplace, however, as I have stated, so many ideas are raised in my mind by this model, I try to focus on one at a time. If you desire, feel free to explore the EM aspect... I believe you will need to look at a longer term shift of phase in the "ab" pair, this could be a shift due to framing... Very introspective! I have leap frogged, that is the crux of this hypothesis and is stated in my blog. I have chosen to start at the micro end of inspection, rather than from our station looking to the micro and the macro. My model is built upon the simplest function of gravitation, attraction diminishing at the inverse square. I want to thank you all for your attention to this post, I am very grateful!

a,b,c are all gravitationally coupled, the model however focuses just on the relationship of the pair ab and the gravitational influence it has on c. Good question, how can a single point have gravitation... why is light speed c? Some things just are. a and b are not particles, they do interact, the interaction produces other properties, dimension, polarity etc. In my graviton universe, everything is gravitons all with tensor relationships to all others. All would be seeking a quiescent rest state, and that rest state constantly being disturbed by interactions between them. Mass the result of the summing of those relationships.

Very well expressed! If there were nothing there would be no concept of it, for the concept to exist there must be something! Boundary probably is not the correct term...

spin 2 Everything I have found indicates that the spin of a graviton must be spin 2 or spin 0, it is assumed to be spin 2 since a particle must have spin... my graviton is not a particle. I am not deciding that the oscillation of "i" is a photon, I am proposing it as an avenue of investigation. I may be wrong about the whole thing... but perhaps I am right? I think the hypothesis is valid enough for investigation. I ask questions here because as I have stated, isolation of thought can lead one to deceive ones self. All I have put into the model is point sources of gravitation. If by some miracle I am correct about the nature of the graviton, the rest of the universe remains to be investigated from here... a rather big job for just me. Please, if you want me to explore in a particular direction (some behavior of a photon?) direct me! This hypothesis begins at one end(the micro end) rather than from the middle looking to the micro and the macro from our station of observation. If you see any validity in this hypothesis and have the inclination, do some thought exploration. If you see no validity here, fine also. My gravitons are massless, the system of "ab" has dimension not the gravitons. "The currently accepted one" is a correct statement. Yes, an alternative as far as the graviton is concerned, and an alternative path to investigation. This is covered in my blog, I'm me if you would like a link.

We have the concept of nothing... and that is something. North is a direction in 3 dimensional space... much more than nothing.

First time I have encountered the term "virtual particle" can you educate me? Are we talking point properties? Not a barrier, a border... not a border as in a line, a border between "is" and "is not'... If you are a "big bang" believer, what existed before the big bang? Before time and space... that kind of nothingness... what primal difference defines existence?

What is the spin of a graviton? I did not corrupt my model by producing just what I wanted, this model is an investigation, not a proof. "I " is the measure of a tensor property. Photons have properties, and those properties are evident in this model. "a" "b" and "c" are points, they have no dimension, they have one property, gravitation. They are not particles. The interacting pair is a particle, although at this point I cannot say what particle, perhaps a neutrino?

It is a strange concept, but certainly there is an ultimately primal entity which defines existence? Absolute nothing is a strange concept, hard to get ones head around.

Okay, suppose the graviton is not a quanta, it has no spin, no wave function, no dimension etc. it is simply a point source of gravitation. If "a,b,c" represent gravitons and "i" is the tensor between the center of gravity of the pair "ab" and "c" then an oscillation in "i" must represent a photon. I deduce this because the scale of this system is among the smallest possible, thus the orbital period of "ab" would be very short, hence the frequency of the gravitational wave in the tensor would have a very high frequency. Once the phase difference of 180 degrees between "a" and "b" has been disturbed they would tend to return to a quiescent state of 180 degrees out of phase. The produced photon would have a wave nature and a particle nature since the wave medium is a spacial single dimension entity. Because "ab" return to a quiescent state the photon would be a packet. I could elaborate on the return to a quiescent state, but my hope is that it is obvious to you. What obviously is missing here is mass, however I do explain this in my blog. If you would like a link, pm me. P.S. The pair "ab" is a particle, it has dimension, spin, polarity etc. Many other ideas are arising for me out of this first model, for example: The pair "ab" demonstrates polarity, but what about charge? Could it be that a phase shift produces charge? There are so many ideas springing from this model, I hope some of you take an interest, I am just one old man.

There is a boundary between nothing and something, and obviously the existence of our universe demonstrates the boundary has been crossed, but what sort of entity exists at that threshold?

No, Imo you make a valid comparison. How does that electrochemical/mechanical process that produces "awareness" differ so much from what the internet is?

I have to believe (as much as I dislike the concept) that free will is an illusion, if there is am omnipotent presence, it knows our future... we have no choice, our destinies are what they are, we are just biological entities responding to stimulus. The internet is an electronic and mechanical entity, responding in a rational manner to stimuli. I built a robot in 1976, that learned. It surprised me when it would demonstrate that it had learned to deal with "situations". It's basic task was the left hand turn exploration of my apartment... it devastated me when it got stuck underneath a wicker chair, could not reach its charging port and "died".

This forum is a wonderful place to learn, the lessons may be harsh at times, but almost always valuable.

Unless it is possible to travel in excess of c, the influence would be zero.

It may already be aware... from a physics standpoint awareness is just an entity responding in a rational manner to stimulus, correct?

I have been investigating a hypothesis, but in my opinion one can be mislead by ones own thinking. I am not an academic so colleagues are rare. I have a model in desmos and would like to hear what functioning of "i" might represent. I am not looking for conformation or rejection of my hypothesis, and the model is just a small part of the whole. I will gladly accept critique. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/0evw4mw05u So, what is "i"?

Saw it that way myself... had some problem programmatically, don't recall what it was exactly, thx for taking a look.

In this desmos graph: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/f607tsq5ux I need to find max for the elliptical paths of rab and rcd so that I can determine the foci... I have researched on the web finding max of a function, but just cannot seem to get my head around it. Would greatly appreciate some help.

Thanks, very good, pretty much what I have so far... but just 2 dimensional. I have to resolve to an average influence, I believe that means finding the point in the elliptical of "equal areas in equal time"... opinions? This is going to be tough one for me... any advice appreciated.

If you view the above link, the resultant influence of "AB" and that of "CD" (rab and rac) follow an elliptical path... since the constituents of the systems are 180° out of phase and the influences are at same theta, I would expect total influence of both systems to remain on x axis... but I cannot find my error, perhaps I have been staring at it to long? Okay, error was my expectations(thetas are not equal)... I think all is correct, I need to resolve the elliptical paths of rab and rcd according to Newton... I would greatly appreciate another mind reviewing what I have to this point before proceeding, thank you.