Just another Model (JAM)

[CarlD]

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.

[studiot]

Welcome Carl and congratulation on producing such a coherent set of ideas +1

I am saying plus one despite the fact that it is a pity that so many of those ideas are oversimplistic.

 

18 minutes ago, CarlD said:

econd 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.

 

 

As a for instance I expect you have been reading too many popsci articles and books.

 

The sort of waves we consider now and that are needed to explain wave - particle duality to the best of our ability are nothing like as simple as the ones you describe.

The study of non linear waves has led to something called soliton theory which the non linearity can create the entitieswe call particles with their quantum assignments in Quantum Field Theory.
We call these entities Solitons.

I also suggest that you review your ideas about spin because nothing is actually physically spinning in quantum spin.
In fact older mechanical spin theories yield results that so not match observation.

 

Anyway good luck with your investigations.

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, CarlD said:

No math is involved, as most formulas don't actually change

How does one test to see if your ideas are wrong?

 

Quote

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

This would seem to require math.

[martillo]

1 hour ago, CarlD said:

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...

If everything is waves how do you explain electric and magnetic forces? I mean, different waves can only exhibit interference between them what does not exert any force on the original waves. Two intersecting moving waves just crosses one through the other exhibiting interference and continue after their original movement. How can you explain, for instance the electrical attraction between a proton and an electron if you model them as waves? How can you explain the magnetic force between two magnets? How could you explain forces between macroscopic "material" objects this way? How could you explain mechanical elastic collisions between "material" objects this way?

Edited November 3, 2023 by martillo

[CarlD]

On 11/3/2023 at 8:56 PM, studiot said:

Welcome Carl and congratulation on producing such a coherent set of ideas +1

I am saying plus one despite the fact that it is a pity that so many of those ideas are oversimplistic.

 

 

 

As a for instance I expect you have been reading too many popsci articles and books.

 

The sort of waves we consider now and that are needed to explain wave - particle duality to the best of our ability are nothing like as simple as the ones you describe.

The study of non linear waves has led to something called soliton theory which the non linearity can create the entitieswe call particles with their quantum assignments in Quantum Field Theory.
We call these entities Solitons.

I also suggest that you review your ideas about spin because nothing is actually physically spinning in quantum spin.
In fact older mechanical spin theories yield results that so not match observation.

 

Anyway good luck with your investigations.

Finally, I can answer - I had some technical issues so I only pm'd people so far and was busy yesterday.

Thanks for the nice intro again. I appreciate the feedback.

Solitons seem to be a good idea to explain why photons stay together and move straight instead of dispersing like a usual wave. So they match my ideas about photons and similar waves, even if I may have used simpler wording. For more complex objects, like electrons, more is needed. 

I disagree with the idea that spin of electrons, for instance, doesn't have a real explanation. I do not believe in magical complex properties. If it quacks like a duck, it's more likely to be a duck than an abstract property. If waves can form solitons on their own, they can also form whirls, even if we may require some help (an obstacle in water, other suitable waves in electrons). A high enough frequency for the properties which make waves solitons to also make waves turn in a circle seems to be sufficient, however, from what I know so far. I'll happily look up the experiments about mechanical spin, though I'm not really talking about anything mechanical here, as that would require solid objects.

Cheers!

 

On 11/3/2023 at 9:09 PM, swansont said:

How does one test to see if your ideas are wrong?

 

This would seem to require math.

Hi SwansonT, I finally managed to answer in thread, with an old laptop I reactivated, as it did not work on my phone.

If simulations show waves can form complex objects under certain assumptions, and those then show the same properties as real world objects (magnetism, gravity and more) it should be a sufficient indicator and test. Also, I look forward to people trying to find anything which can be explained with other models but not mine.

I could only do it with simulations, as the levels of math I can do for now are not enough to calculate complex 4D resonance effects. Brute forcing them would be more like my cup of tea.

 

[CarlD]

On 11/3/2023 at 9:56 PM, martillo said:

If everything is waves how do you explain electric and magnetic forces? I mean, different waves can only exhibit interference between them what does not exert any force on the original waves. Two intersecting moving waves just crosses one through the other exhibiting interference and continue after their original movement. How can you explain, for instance the electrical attraction between a proton and an electron if you model them as waves? How can you explain the magnetic force between two magnets? How could you explain forces between macroscopic "material" objects this way? How could you explain mechanical elastic collisions between "material" objects this way?

Hi Martillo,

Thanks for your feedback.

Magnetic forces I thought I already explained well: Atoms swim in a sea of waves, constantly absorbing and emitting them, passing through them and being passed through by them. When atoms are close and have the right properties (similar to how a beachball and a surfboard will act differently in ocean waves), resonance happens between the objects, causing standing waves (similar to the ones in the double slit experiment, but in 3D and more complex). There are 3 possible reactions, depending on geometry and internal movements of the atoms (mostly the electron shell(s)): None, trying to stay in a position within the standing waves, or making the standing waves move around, which can obviously only be in 1 direction (which also depends on the geometry/movements of the atom), which causes the magnetism to have a direction and therefore polarity.

Electricity I'm not as certain about, but I assume it works the following way: Objects like electrons and protons are similar to whirls in water, but in 3D space. When an object spins one way (left-handed, for instance), it's one charge, when it spins the other way (right handed, in this case), it's the other charge. Same charges bounce off one another, except under extremely calm/cold conditions, where they can unify in more fragile ways. Opposing charges can whirl together easily, thus making them neutral for the rest of the world. This explains also the more erratic nature of electricity, compared to magnetism.

An atom, in my model, is just a bunch of "whirls" (waves moving in circles). Otherwise, it works exactly the same as if parts where solid.

For elastic collisions between two objects, two things need to come together: Atoms on the two surfaces which do not tend to merge or stick, and enough cohesion in them to make shockwaves from the impact travel around and bounce back when they find nowhere else to go to. This is the same regardless of whether solid things exist, or whether all solid things are just made of (circling) waves.

[martillo]

1 hour ago, CarlD said:

Hi Martillo,

Thanks for your feedback.

Magnetic forces I thought I already explained well: Atoms swim in a sea of waves, constantly absorbing and emitting them, passing through them and being passed through by them. When atoms are close and have the right properties (similar to how a beachball and a surfboard will act differently in ocean waves), resonance happens between the objects, causing standing waves (similar to the ones in the double slit experiment, but in 3D and more complex). There are 3 possible reactions, depending on geometry and internal movements of the atoms (mostly the electron shell(s)): None, trying to stay in a position within the standing waves, or making the standing waves move around, which can obviously only be in 1 direction (which also depends on the geometry/movements of the atom), which causes the magnetism to have a direction and therefore polarity.

Electricity I'm not as certain about, but I assume it works the following way: Objects like electrons and protons are similar to whirls in water, but in 3D space. When an object spins one way (left-handed, for instance), it's one charge, when it spins the other way (right handed, in this case), it's the other charge. Same charges bounce off one another, except under extremely calm/cold conditions, where they can unify in more fragile ways. Opposing charges can whirl together easily, thus making them neutral for the rest of the world. This explains also the more erratic nature of electricity, compared to magnetism.

An atom, in my model, is just a bunch of "whirls" (waves moving in circles). Otherwise, it works exactly the same as if parts where solid.

For elastic collisions between two objects, two things need to come together: Atoms on the two surfaces which do not tend to merge or stick, and enough cohesion in them to make shockwaves from the impact travel around and bounce back when they find nowhere else to go to. This is the same regardless of whether solid things exist, or whether all solid things are just made of (circling) waves.

Seems like the Vortex Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_theory_of_the_atom.

Not easy to grasp by me and your theory would be also based on the assumption of the existence of an aether which has been already well experimentally disproved by Michelson-Morley experiment.

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by martillo

[swansont]

2 hours ago, CarlD said:

Hi SwansonT, I finally managed to answer in thread, with an old laptop I reactivated, as it did not work on my phone.

If simulations show waves can form complex objects under certain assumptions, and those then show the same properties as real world objects (magnetism, gravity and more) it should be a sufficient indicator and test.

A test would be a physical experiment.

 

2 hours ago, CarlD said:

Also, I look forward to people trying to find anything which can be explained with other models but not mine.

That would be all that current physics explains.

 

 

[CarlD]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Seems like the Vortex Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_theory_of_the_atom.

Not easy to grasp by me and your theory would be also based on the assumption of the existence of an aether which has been already well experimentally disproved by Michelson-Morley experiment.

 

 

 

I do not see any connection between my ideas and the vortex idea. For one thing, my model does not require an aether. It is just based on normal wave movement, as in photons, and attributes all properties to the waves themselves. Additionally, so far, nothing moves toroidal, though that's actually an interesting concept. Nor are there any "knots" in my model.

 

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

A test would be a physical experiment.

 

That would be all that current physics explains.

 

 

Unluckily, I'm not aware of anything for which the other models don't also provide explanations, but I'll try my luck:

- Spikes in ferrofluids are nice to illustrate magnetic fields, but shouldn't really happen in the smooth geometry which is usually ascribed to magnetic fields. If magnetic fields are based on resonance effects, it's also clear where the spikes come from. There might be more ways to measure the resonance waves postulated and I'd be more than happy to bring them in line with a simulation explaining them.

- Photons get affected by gravity but not by magnetism.

- The clear differences between magnetic and electric behaviors.

- My model fully explains motion and where the energy released during a collision was stored. While other models, as far as I'm aware, only describe it as impuls and ignore how impuls works.

- My model generally doesn't require any magical complex properties but still explains all effects equally well.

- If a radio system could be made to generate waves of any frequency, it should be possible to show that either we always get electrons once we increase the frequency enough, and without losing as many electrons from the system, or we can generate them with the right mix of frequencies. And we can then as easily create positrons with the same system. Generating protons this way is probably too far out of our technological capability, but might happen in the future.

I'll try to come up with more.

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, CarlD said:

I'll try to come up with more.

 

 

what exactly do you imagine  field to be ?

[CarlD]

Just now, studiot said:

 

 

what exactly do you imagine  field to be ?

Waves moving through an area. The waves have a form, thus they slightly increase distances for anything crossing them. Which gives us curvature of spacetime or gravity, and is responsible for more where frequencies are higher or other factors apply.

In a wider sense, any physical effect from such waves which works at distances (probably all). Like resonance creating magnetic properties/fields or spin creating electric properties/charges.

[Bufofrog]

2 minutes ago, CarlD said:

Waves moving through an area. The waves have a form, thus they slightly increase distances for anything crossing them. Which gives us curvature of spacetime or gravity, and is responsible for more where frequencies are higher or other factors apply

That does not make any sense to me.  Could you explain a bit more how waves cause the curvature of spacetime?

[CarlD]

13 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

That does not make any sense to me.  Could you explain a bit more how waves cause the curvature of spacetime?

Each photon has a structure, probably similar to a sinus curve, but in 3D. It deforms space where it passes. Thus, it increases distances for anything crossing it at exactly the right time. The different distribution/density of photons thus create more or less bumpy areas of space, with higher chances of hits the more there are. The bumpier, the more curved. Similar to how an ant has to cross larger distances through an egg carton than through a flat piece of cardboard.

Edited November 5, 2023 by CarlD

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, CarlD said:

field has a special meaningWaves moving through an area. The waves have a form, thus they slightly increase distances for anything crossing them. Which gives us curvature of spacetime or gravity, and is responsible for more where frequencies are higher or other factors apply.

fields have a special meaning iIn a wider sense, any physical effect from such waves which works at distances (probably all). Like resonance creating magnetic properties/fields or spin creating electric properties/charges.

I thought you might be using unusual definitions for your words.

In both Mathematics and Physics the term  the term field has special meaning, (unfortunately different in each) but neither meaning is the same as yours, whcih is more like a rolling mist.

I also do not think your use of the term resonance is the usual one.

 

Just as a matter of interest what do you think is 'waving' when you speak of waves ?

 

It is very difficult to hold a sensible conversation when you are not both speaking the same language.

 

[CarlD]

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

I thought you might be using unusual definitions for your words.

In both Mathematics and Physics the term  the term field has special meaning, (unfortunately different in each) but neither meaning is the same as yours, whcih is more like a rolling mist.

I also do not think your use of the term resonance is the usual one.

 

Just as a matter of interest what do you think is 'waving' when you speak of waves ?

 

It is very difficult to hold a sensible conversation when you are not both speaking the same language.

 

I'm pretty sure my definitions are compatible not only on the level of language, but also on the level of physics, where people often imagine fields as an abstract thing, even though we know already since Maxwell that they are related to waves.

Similar to resonance - it's the same waves coming together as in guitar bodies, pianos, laser light creation and many more. I just apply it in an area where, afaik, people didn't do it yet. Though string theory may actually already hint at it.

Waves are disturbances spreading out in the otherwise more or less flat geometry of something. In the case of photons, disturbances of spacetime, moving at the speed of light. 

Edited November 5, 2023 by CarlD

[Bufofrog]

23 minutes ago, CarlD said:

Each photon has a structure, probably similar to a sinus curve, but in 3D. It deforms space where it passes.

Do you have any evidence in support of this?

[CarlD]

Just now, Bufofrog said:

Do you have any evidence in support of this?

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.

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, CarlD said:

I'm pretty sure my definitions are compatible not only on the level of language, but also on the level of physics, where people often imagine fields as an abstract thing, even though we know already since Maxwell that they are related to waves.

People used to imagine the atom as a plum pudding before Rutherford.

I asked you what was waving., but received no answer.

My question was not a joke but a subtle hint as to the proper definition of a Field.

A Field is a region of 1, 2, or 3 dimensional space where some quantity can be defined and assigned a definite value.

Most primary fields are static which means that these values do not vary.

If the values are functions of another parameter such as time they are called time (or whatever) varying fields.

 

 

 

 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, CarlD said:

In a wider sense, any physical effect from such waves which works at distances (probably all). Like resonance creating magnetic properties/fields or spin creating electric properties/charges.

Is really difficult to understand your model/theory mainly because you pretend to develop it without any mathematics. 

I don't get how "resonance creating magnetic properties/fields or spin creating electric properties/charges" could take place.

Hard to follow you.

[CarlD]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

People used to imagine the atom as a plum pudding before Rutherford.

I asked you what was waving., but received no answer.

My question was not a joke but a subtle hint as to the proper definition of a Field.

A Field is a region of 1, 2, or 3 dimensional space where some quantity can be defined and assigned a definite value.

Most primary fields are static which means that these values do not vary.

If the values are functions of another parameter such as time they are called time (or whatever) varying fields.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

12 minutes ago, martillo said:

Is really difficult to understand your model/theory mainly because you pretend to develop it without any mathematics. 

I don't get how "resonance creating magnetic properties/fields or spin creating electric properties/charges" could take place.

Hard to follow you.

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.

 

[martillo]

14 minutes ago, CarlD said:

I think I did all I can in that regard.

Seems is not enough. You can't present your model to Physics Science this way. You know, it must pass scientific reviews...

Edited November 5, 2023 by martillo

[CarlD]

1 minute ago, martillo said:

Seems is not enough. You can't present your model to Physics Science this way. 

I have to start somewhere, as I would not be able to do the maths alone...

4 minutes ago, martillo said:

Seems is not enough. You can't present your model to Physics Science this way. You know, it must pass scientific reviews...

I'd be very happy if it did get serious reviews - passing is not the goal for now...

[martillo]

9 minutes ago, CarlD said:

I have to start somewhere, as I would not be able to do the maths alone...

Is not only in doing the maths. Even in a conceptual level you must present it in a way everybody can understand you without so much problems. I can't follow you even at the conceptual level.

Edited November 5, 2023 by martillo

[CarlD]

Just now, martillo said:

Is not only in doing the maths. Even in a conceptual level you must preset it in a way everybody can understand you without so much problems. I can't follow you even at the conceptual level.

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.

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, CarlD said:

I answered your question about waves as well as I could. Maybe you want to rephrase it if you were going elsewhere?

Do you mean  this ?

1 hour ago, CarlD said:

Waves are disturbances spreading out in the otherwise more or less flat geometry of something. In the case of photons, disturbances of spacetime, moving at the speed of light. 

Just what is a disturbance of spacetime ?

18 minutes ago, CarlD said:

Gravitational fields vary with the mass of objects. So I assume you call them time varying?

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.