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.