https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab5CemUmAWs

The short answer is Yes; only these waves carry polarization-these aren't sound waves, that don't carry polarization. However what Wheeler was after was the quantum properties, whose classical limit could be identified with spacetime. What the quantum properties are is, still, not known.

What is known is that, when spacetime is curved, the quantum vacuum isn't unique; that's why referring to ``the'' quantum vacuum in this case is wrong.

I have developed an advanced theory of ether in which physical constants such as G, h, ε0, and μ0 are believed to show properties of this fundamental ether. This ether is made of, not matter, but a kind of anti-matter. That is to say, it has no mass and no charge while it is away from any matter through space. Nevertheless, it gets the physical values of the same or opposite sign as the matter nearby, i.e., the ether in a specific volume very close to the matter with mass +m and charge -q, holds mass -meth and charge -qeth. Therefore, we can deduce that this ether, with its always-negative mass, may be a better candidate for anti-matter rather than e.g., a positron for an electron with the same positive mass.

It is demonstrated that electrostatic and magnetic forces can also affect this developed ether, thus the distortion in light’s travel path is predicted at the first order, in contradiction to the Reissner-Nordström metric, which predicts a space-time-effect of the second order of accuracy for a charged particle.

Recall that the space-time curvature is replaced with the space-time density in my theory.

For further discussion/calculations, please see my book at:

https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Density-Alternative-Relativity-Mass-Charge/dp/147101066X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

to Mohammad Javanshiry,

it sounds quite like the Dirac sea of negative energy...

Basically, it is where everybody hit by assuming that an empty vacuum has 0 energy...then to make things work, out of the calculations, one has to accept negative energies and negative masses....

Article Quantum reality with negative-mass particles

then renormalization which is the final result of the "epicycles" etc...

then no wonder if unification with gravitation is lost...

John A. Macken

If as spacetime you mean the one implemented by Lorentz Transformations,

then it is a bit difficult to consider it an elastic medium for EM wave propagation...

LT implements the equivalence of inertial frames which single out any background, a local preferred frame that could act as you say as an elastic medium...

SPACETIME = LT ---> no background (medium like)

if background (medium like) ---> no Spacetime

Stam Nicolis

You say “these waves carry polarization-these aren't sound waves, that don't carry polarization.” When you talk about “sound waves” and “polarization” you are referring to sound waves propagating in a sonic medium such as a gas or liquid. It is true that sound waves in these mediums can only be longitudinal waves, not transverse polarized waves. For example, a sound wave in a gas has compression and rarefaction regions (high and low pressure regions). The compression region has an increased temperature and therefore an increased thermal velocity of the gas particles. This permits the gas molecules in compression to momentarily propagate slightly faster than the average speed of sound of the gas. Therefore, a longitudinal sound wave must have a portion of the molecules moving faster than the average speed of sound for the gas and achieve a longitudinal wave property.

A wave propagating at the speed of light cannot have parts of the wave propagating at slightly faster or slower than c. This means that longitudinal waves are not permitted in spacetime foam. Only transverse waves are permitted on the macroscopic scale.

The uncertainty principle permits a longitudinal wave if the amplitude is below the detectable limit permitted defined by quantum mechanics. This means that longitudinal waves are permitted if the amplitude is Planck length. This is important because the waves that form fermions in this medium have an amplitude of Planck length.

No. You must have somthing to act like a source.

But that then space can carry it there is no question. Space itself does not generate.

Juan Weisz

Space (the quantum vacuum) is continuously generating and annihilating virtual particles. The quantum vacuum also has dielectric properties we designate as vacuum permittivity, and magnetic properties we designate as vacuum permeability. There is a reason that electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light. It is the same reason that fundamental particles such as an electron have a speed limit and wave properties. If space was an empty void, there would be no speed limit on electrons or any other particles. The impedance of free space would be either zero or infinite, not 377 ohms.

The quantum vacuum is a wave propagation medium and everything in the universe is wave-based. This wave propagation medium (spacetime foam) is only one fundamental field. It makes the natural laws. For example, a molecule such as carbon monoxide, isolated in space always rotates at 57 GHz when it is in its lowest energy state. This is the molecule's zero-point energy. It has ħ/2 angular momentum. If you attempt to change this angular momentum, it only accepts integer multiples of ħ. This means the next highest rotational level is an additional 115 GHz. What enforces this everywhere in the universe?

The answer to these questions is that spacetime foam is Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency. These properties incorporate ħ, G and c. All fermions are soliton waves in this medium. They are fundamentally waves with particle-like properties. They cannot be made to move faster than the speed of light because their wave properties prevent this. The reason we perceive the speed of light to be constant in all frames of reference is that we and all our instruments are also soliton waves. Everything in the universe undergoes Lorentz transformations when there is relative motion. This is explained further in this preprint paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371724212_A_Single_Field_Model_of_the_Universe

The question is that space

is not totally empty. A few things at particle level can happen.

A gravitational wave will induce tiny displations say on the length of a rod

But that in itself sais nothing about

Space itself

Impossible to distinguish a field effect from a space distortion = newton vs einstein

Dear John A. Macken ,

If it was that way there cannot be room for any quantum vacuum with positive energy..

Stefano Quattrini

Stefano, I do not understand your answer. Relative motion is perceived to produce Lorentz transformations. This is special relativity. I do not see any connection to positive energy in the quantum vacuum.

Of course, the proposed opus does not answer all the questions posed here. But I think it can be useful when looking for answers.

Research Proposal ВАКУУМ ДИРАКА: ФЕРМИОНЫ МАЙОРАНЫ В ВИРТУАЛЬНОМ МЕТАЛЛИЧЕСКОМ...

John A. Macken ,

the equivalence of inertial frames (pure relative motion) is embedded in Special relativity through the Lorentz Transformations, hence the space-time.

This has two consequences:

a) speed of light one-way must be measured equal in relative moving platforms which is what Lorentz Transformations provide

b) there is no background with a positive energy density, a preferred frame since it would be in contradiction with the equivalence of frames.

So either you refer to space-time or you refer to a Quantum background of positive energy density.

In General Relativity EFE equations distort space-time due to mass-energy presence....

Stefan Bernhard Rüster

Once a law of physics is expressed mathematically, it is next necessary to give a physical interpretation of the equation. You say, "the metric tensor is time-dependent, so that space-time itself oscillates". This is a description of a mathematical analysis. I am trying to go further and know more about your model of oscillating spacetime. Does spacetime have the properties of a medium that propagates waves? If so, is there a physical reason why waves in this medium propagate at the speed of light? Does this medium have impedance and bulk modulus? Does this medium also produce the laws of nature resulting in εo, μo, Zo, ħ, G, etc.?

Уважаемый Алексей Alexey Orlovsky

'Замечание 1. Отметим для дальнейшего, что в такой среде распространениепродольных (звуковых) волн должно подчиняться одновременнозакономерностям их распространения в металлах и газах '- Знаете ли вы, почему эта 'аксиома' верна?

'Д.И.Менделеев, в попытке трактовать химическую природу мирового эфира с химической точки зрения на уровне тогдашних (1902 год) знаний [1], выдвинул гипотезу о существовании двух химических элементов легче водорода – корония и ньютония – спектральные линии которых якобы наблюдались в излучении солнечной короны во время затмений. Атомную массу корония Менделеев предполагал в пределах 0,2 – 0,4 массы водорода [1, с. 483, 484], а ньютония – 9,6×10-7– 5,3×10-11 массы водорода [1, с. 493]. Позднее оказалось, что соответствующие спектральные линии принадлежат хорошо известным элементам (например, никелю) в высоко ионизированном состоянии. Было также выяснено, что ядро атома состоит из нуклонов (и, в частности, ядро атома водорода представлено единственным протоном), а масса нуклона никак не может быть во много раз меньше атома водорода. На этом основании гипотеза Менделеева была отправлена в архив как попытка, предпринятая с негодными средствами.' - Вы должны дополнить эту цитату недостающей частью, потому что тогда у нас не будет полного водорода. ...- Раньше я очень хорошо знал русский язык, но немного забыл его, поэтому воспользовался гугл-переводчиком(.

С уважением, Ласло

Stefano Quattrini

Your answer mentions that a preferred frame would be in contradiction with the equivalence of frames. I agree that there is no experimental proof that there is a preferred frame, but that does not mean that an untested ultra-relativistic frame must also have the same physical laws. Lorentz believed there must be a privileged frame.

Einstein postulated that the speed of light was constant in all frames and the laws of physics were invariant in all frames. These postulates have been experimentally proven correct in accessible frames. These assumptions are the foundation of special relativity. However, it is impossible to deduce these postulates from the currently accepted model of the universe. If you logically combine the currently accepted model of space and particles, you obtain Galilean transformations, not Lorentz transformations. You have to insert Einstein's postulates to get Lorentz transformations.

This is analyzed in detail in some articles referenced in the Introduction of the paper linked below. These referenced papers start with a thought experiment of a hypothetical universe that is based entirely on a massless sonic medium. Particles in this hypothetical universe would be sonic quasi-particles that are a stable soliton standing wave resonances in this medium. These referenced papers prove that instruments made from these sonic quasi-particles would indicate the speed of sound is constant in all accessible frames. Such a hypothetical universe generates Lorentz transformations without requiring any other postulates.

The paper referenced below builds on this concept and proposes that we live in a sonic universe where Wheeler's spacetime foam is the properties of spacetime. This model then generates a wave-based electron model. This model is supported because it generates an electron's gravitational and electrostatic forces.

This is a long introduction, but it leads to the prediction on page 30 of this linked paper that explains how all accessible frames of reference can be equivalent, but some ultra-relativistic frames can be different. The rest frame of the cosmic microwave background is the privileged frame in our sonic universe.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

Stefan Bernhard Rüster

Does inter-galactic spacetime, far from any mass (not curved), possess quantifiable energy density? Is this pristine spacetime also a sonic medium? Why does spacetime have a speed limit of c?

I have a model of spacetime with quantifiable properties and explanations. I am just attempting to see if anyone else has a model that attempts to explain and further quantify the properties of spacetime.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster

We each seem to be giving answers that do not address the other person's key points. The problem I am having is that I do not see what a non-zero scalar curvature, or a non-zero Lambda has to do with the question: Is spacetime an elastic medium that propagates waves?

You acknowledge that GWs propagate at c. I claim that a fixed wave propagation speed is a characteristic that supports the existence of a wave propagation medium. The fallacy of the Aether was that its only function was to propagate light. I am describing spacetime as being a wave propagation medium that meets the definition of being a "universal field". The spacetime foam model of spacetime is a quantum mechanical wave propagation medium that generates everything - all particles, all forces, all secondary fields and even all the natural laws. I claim there are numerous proofs for this, but we have missed them because this universal medium also generates the laws of nature.

The MM experiment is often cited as proof that there is no Aether. The assumption was that the interferometer usen in the experiment was independent of the medium (Aether) they were attempting to measure. However, if all rulers, clocks, interferometers, etc. are derived from the medium (universal field), then it has been proven that a null result is exactly the expected result.

Einstein had to postulate that the speed of light is constant in all frames and the laws of physics are invariant in all frames for him to obtain special relativity. These postulates are undoubtably correct, but they have to be manually inserted into the laws of nature. However, if spacetime is a wave propagation medium with the properties of spacetime foam, and if everything in the universe is derived from this single universal field, then Lorentz transformations can be logically derived from that model. I explained this in more detail in the answer I gave to Stefano about 4 hours ago. The MM experiment, Lorentz transformations, etc. are discussed in mode detain in references [1 to 4] in this paper.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

Dear John A. Macken ,

if one takes the time and effort to carefully analyze the Sagnac experiment including the large number of papers written since, he would understand that such local preferred frame exists instead despite some unlikely and poor explanation provided by whom insist in confirming the constancy of one-way SOL.

that is for sure, but unfortunately he was not the one to find the final version of the Lorentz Transformations but were Einstein and Poincarè.

Besides that it was not well understood that LT were in biunivocal implication with equivalence and only 40 years later Tangherlini invented the transformations which involved naturally the presence of a preferred frame which does not require any Lorentz Invariance.

Einstein had to postulate that the one-way speed of light was c since otherwise his synchronization procedure would not work in moving frames...

The postulate of one-way SOL has never been experimentally verified, what has been verified million of times is the constancy of SOL two-ways as c in vacuum (as experimentally verified in RADAR like experiences back and forth with one clock).

Einstein and Poincarè attemps in 1905 were aimed to comply with the Galilean postulate of the equivalence of inertial frames.

With a different SOL in different frames of references, it would be possible to distinguish one frame from another, so no equivalence, the first postulate would fall apart. The only solution to comply with "the only postulate" is to deduce, as a corollary, that SOL is invariant.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster

I believe we are coming together. My model of the universe allows the energy density of a gravitational field to be calculated. Therefore, even if you are skeptical, you can see if the model gives a useful result. In this model the quantum vacuum is a quantifiable sonic medium. Fundamental particles are rotating soliton waves with quantifiable frequency, amplitude, etc. and the predicted properties can be calculated. An electron will be used in the following example.

An electron's electric field is modeled as a quantifiable, first order, standing wave that surrounds the rotating soliton wave. An electron's gravitational field is modeled as a quantifiable second order (nonlinear) standing wave that distorts the surrounding medium. This analysis generates the correct gravitational force between two electrons. It also correctly predicts an electron's gravitational radius and predicts the mathematical connection between the electrostatic force and the gravitational force.

Another prediction is that an electron's gravitational field has an oscillating component. Therefore, the prediction is that the electron's gravitational field has quantifiable energy density of UG = Gm2/8πr 4. The numerical constant (1/8π) was not derived and may be wrong. When this is integrated, the total energy in the gravitational field, external to radial distance r from mass m is:

Eext = Gm2/2r.

We can test this to see if it is reasonable. The Schwarzschild radius of a black hole that is not spinning is rs = 2Gm/c2. However, the electron model is spinning at the speed of light. The Schwarzschild radius of a maximally spinning black hole is rs =Gm/c2 . Substituting r = rs into the Eext equation we obtain

Eext = mc2/2.

This is an amazing result because it says that half the mc2 energy of a black hole is in the energy density of the gravitational field external to the radius of a spinning black hole. Furthermore, since I am not sure of the numerical constant, it is possible that all of the black hole's energy is in its gravitational field.

I made some claims about the wave-based model of an electron yielding an electron's gravitational and electrostatic forces. The paper below supports these claims. However, this paper does not discuss the energy density of a gravitational field.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

May be you find some answers to your question in:

Preprint What gravitation really is

Concerning the existence of a cosmic field we have some common imaginations.

Space-time cannot exist without waves and waves cannot exist without space-time. In following article, space-time fabric of general relativity is replaced by a Fundamental Substance of the universe which is infinite, indivisible and motionless. When a small portion of it begins to move it apparently divides and makes waves. This is how motion, energy, space (wavelength) and time (period) are simultaneously created. This is possible because the Fundamental Substance is perfect elastic and does not divide. This is why we always have a field associated with a particle wave duality. The Fundamental Substance exists beyond the space-time.

Periodic relativity: the theory of gravity in flat space time

https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4539v13

• Preprint Periodic relativity: the theory of gravity in flat space time

Planck's constant might be considered the "stiffness" of space in E=hv, analogous to F=kx, where k is the spring constant. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plancks-constant-character-space-warren-frisina/?trackingId=Sl0esHs2RQKNfsOUAgTfJA%3D%3D

@John A. Macken,

You said this, "This question goes much further and probes whether space (the vacuum) is an elastic medium that propagates waves at the speed of light".

An elastic medium can propagate longitudinal waves and/or transverse waves, which kind of medium do you have in mind?

Akinbo Ojo

You say, "An elastic medium can propagate longitudinal waves and/or transverse waves, which kind of medium do you have in mind?"

It is true that solids can propagate both longitudinal and transverse waves. However, these waves propagate at much less than the speed of light. A medium that propagates waves at the speed of light can only propagate transverse waves if the wave amplitude is greater than Planck length. The reason is that a longitudinal wave has a wavefront that oscillates between propagating faster and slower than the bulk wave. Nothing can propagate faster than the speed of light - not even the longitudinal component of a wave. Therefore, only transverse waves are allowed if the wave amplitude exceeds Planck length.

The Planck length exception comes from the uncertainty principle. It allows a longitudinal wave to momentarily propagate faster than the speed of light if the amplitude does not exceed Planck length. This exception allows fundamental particles such as an electron to be a rotating soliton wave (longitudinal wave) with Planck length displacement amplitude.

John A. Macken "Nothing can propagate faster than the speed of light - not even the longitudinal component of a wave."

Sorry, but this is wrong. You must differentiate between phase- and group velocity of a wave. Only the group velocity is bound to the light speed limit. The phase velocity can be arbitrarily high.

Wolfgang Konle,

You are correct that interacting waves can have a phase velocity that is faster than the speed of light. I have written about this and shown how this effect produces an electron's de Broglie waves in the preprint paper below (Figure 2). However, I do not consider the superluminal speed of an interference effect to actually be something propagating faster than light. No energy or information can be transferred faster than light by an interference effect (superluminal phase velocity). For another example, I can scan a laser beam so that the illuminated spot on a distant object moves faster than the speed of light. However, this superluminal moving light spot is not a propagation velocity.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

Hi John A. Macken ,

In the theory of what type of waves can or cannot propagate in an elastic medium, the elastic properties of such a medium are fundamental and fix what is to be expected.

For a medium, no matter its nature, to be capable of carrying longitudinal waves, that medium must have a bulk modulus of elasticity, K.

For a medium, no matter its nature, to be capable of carrying transverse waves, that medium must have a shear modulus of elasticity, μ.

Some mediums have both K and μ, while some may have only one of the two. E.g. gases have only K, and have no μ.

In other words, while considerations surrounding wave speed and wave amplitude are important, those considerations are not primary, and cannot exclude the elasticity properties possessed or not possessed by the medium. Is this line of thinking about your question logical, or do you disagree with it?

John A. Macken

What remains is that longitudinal wave propagation with the speed of light cannot be excluded.

Wolfgang Konle Akinbo Ojo

In the book titled, Einstein and the Ether, the author shows that there was only a 5-year period in Einstein's life where he did not believe that an ether-like medium fills all of space and propagates waves. He thought of it as an essential medium to create the properties of special and general relativity. Today, the concept of anything similar to the ether is taboo. This attitude even blocks us from quantifying the quantum vacuum properties such as virtual particle formation. The only function of the ether was to propagate light. The medium I am talking about is the single field (the "Universal field") that creates everything in the universe. This concept requires that fundamental particles be rotating soliton waves that exhibit wave-particle properties but are fundamentally quantized waves in this wave propagation medium.

The concept is that spacetime itself is a sea of Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency. This was originally proposed by John Wheeler and designated "quantum foam". I have expanded this concept and calculated its properties. For example, it would have impedance of c3/G and bulk modulus of Fp/ƛ2 (Planck force divided by the square of the propagating angular wavelength ƛ). In the limit of ƛ = Planck length, the bulk modulus equals Planck energy density: c7/ħG2 ≈ 10113 J/m3.This is a quantum mechanical medium that generates the natural laws and virtual particles but is only observable when quantized angular momentum is introduced.

These properties are so enormous that a rotating wave with undetectable Planck length amplitude can form fundamental particles such as an electron. The paper below shows that this soliton wave model of an electron achieves many of the electron's properties (its energy, spin, wave properties, etc.). Most important, this wave-based electron model, rotating in the oscillating field, is shown to generate an electron's gravitational properties.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

John A. Macken "The concept is that spacetime itself is a sea of Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency. This was originally proposed by John Wheeler and designated "quantum foam"."

Your concept leads to a universal energy density of 1.0E+113J/m³. But this is too much energy density.

We must consider the fact, that the enenergy density of gravitational fields is negative and that an absolute negative energy density cannot exist.

This fact leads to a cosmic energy density in the range of W0=1.0E+34J/m³. The Energy density W of gravitational fields of strength g then is given by:

W=W0-g²/(8πG). We derive W0 from the gravitational field strength around neutron stars. W0 defines an upper limit for the strength g of gravitational fields. The existence of such an upper limit leads to a new cosmology.

See Preprint What gravitation really is

Dear John A. Macken ,

light propagates in 3D space. The preferred frame of propagation on Earth is the ECIF where it is possible to establish an absolute synchronization of GPS.

In ECIF light is isotropic up to a very good approximation.

It is possible to understand that by considering the Michaelson-Gale-Pearson experiment. WIth a rectangular interferometer stationary on the surface of earth it was detected the Sagnac effect and it was measured the speed of rotation of earth of .5Km/s :

(1) v ≃ Δφ λ c/(4πL) where L is the lenght of the closed path of the light.

Same thing happens with GPS base stations communicating with signals at light speed. One base station A to be synchronized with B, at distance H, to share a common time t, has to consider the Sagnac effect. The light time to connect A and B is H/c, the difference of light time which comes from sagnac effect is vH/c2 where v is the tangential speed of a point of earth's surface, the same which appears in (1).

Space-time is a mathematical construction based on LT which has its good points but does not provide an ontology at all and has different interpretations.

Einstein was not so wrong in affirming that with LT one had to consider inertial motion only.

Wolfgang Konle

I stated "that spacetime itself is a sea of Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency." You say "Your concept leads to a universal energy density of 10113J/m³. But this is too much energy density." In the referenced paper, I explained that the 10113 J/m3 is a quantum mechanical medium that has units of energy density but is not the same as 10113 J/m3 of observable energy density. The key difference is that the Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency are oscillating between a positive energy distortion and a negative energy distortion of spacetime that almost cancels on the macroscopic scale. The word "almost" implies that there is a residual, almost observable effect. These Planck length fluctuations are the physical cause for the uncertainty principle. John Wheeler determined that this fluctuation would produce the uncertainty principle. These fluctuations are happening at the speed of light, and this is the reason that waves in this medium propagate at the speed of light. Gravitational waves propagate in this medium and encounter impedance of c3/G. This impedance is also calculated from this medium. The paper referenced below gives much more support for this medium.

For example, general relativity postulates that mass causes the gravitational curvature of space. However, the physical mechanism that achieves this curvature is not described. The paper makes the first step in deriving the gravitational properties of an electron from first principles that does not require this postulate. In a short post, I cannot give a more complete answer.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

John A. Macken , Wolfgang Konle

The importance of the value ≈ 10113J/m3 lies in the fact that this is the energy density that corresponds to a temperature 1032K, the Planck temperature. In the Big Bang theory, this is the model temperature that the universe must have at the Planck epoch. Any temperature higher than this will not allow primordial nucleosynthesis to take place, as it will be far above the amount of ambient energy that can allow stable bonds to form. However, as the universe expanded, this energy density will correspondingly fall. It is estimated that today, it may not be more than 10-9J/m3, about 10122 times smaller than at the Planck epoch. Sometimes this is referred to as the cosmological constant problem. My contention is that the observable energy density of the medium today is 10-9J/m3, which corresponds to the data from the Planck Collaboration.

The 4D spacetime of GR is not a physical entity but just an Abstract Mathematical construct like a complex plane.

General Theory of Relativity is an Abstract Mathematical Model and not a theory of Gravitation.

The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in General theory of Relativity (GR) implies the spacetime continuum to be a physical entity which can even be deformed and curved. Albert Einstein had asserted in a matter-of-fact way, "the world in which we live is a four-dimensional spacetime continuum." According to GR, "mass curves spacetime, and spacetime tells the mass how to move."

The notion of physical space implies the spatial extension of the universe wherein all material particles and all fields are embedded or contained. For the study and analysis of physical space and the material particles and fields embedded in it, we do need the structure of coordinate systems and coordinate spaces as a quantification tool. Whereas the metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance are associated with physical space.

The notion of invariance of the arc element ds in all admissible coordinate transformations is most crucial in the representation of a rigid 3D continuum. Since representation of vectors and tensors in the Euclidean geometry rely on the invariance of arc element ds, it implies that the Euclidean 3D space is effectively treated as a rigid 3D space continuum. Any specific coordinate system in use is essentially characterized by the metric coefficients gij.

When a surface is represented in the parametric form by 2D surface coordinates, the intrinsic geometry of the surface is described by its 2D metric tensor. The Riemann tensor composed from the 2D metric coefficients is non-zero for a curved surface and zero for a plane surface. Unfortunately this notion of curvature applicable to 1D curve and 2D surfaces has been wrongly carried over to a 3D space and 4D spacetime manifolds. Strictly speaking, the notion of curvature is just not applicable for 3D space just as the notion of volume is not applicable to 2D surfaces. The notion of curved space, as used in GR, actually implies a deformed space or strained space.

The GR is based on Riemannian 3D space in which the points of the space continuum are not considered invariant. In GR, the coefficients of metric tensor [hij] are obtained from Einstein’s Field Equations (EFE) and the Riemann 'curvature' tensor Rijkl computed from hij is non-zero. On the other hand, the Riemann tensor computed from the metric tensor [gij] of the Euclidean space, is always zero. As such the Riemannian 3D space of GR is defined to be a deformable space which is wrongly presented as 'curved' space. However, such Riemannian metric induced physical deformation of the space continuum, leads to discontinuities and voids in the continuum which are physically not valid.

Actually, in GR, the pseudo-Riemannian 4D spacetime manifold is used as a mathematical differential scale template manifold for getting the trajectories of particles as geodesic curves. The differential scale or metric coefficients of this 4D template manifold are correlated through EFE with the mass-energy density in the physical space, to simulate the particle trajectories in a gravitational field with geodesic curves. However, the Riemannian metric coefficients, that govern the scaling factors of associated coordinates, are only mathematically linked (through EFE) with mass-energy density in physical space. Actually of course, no law of Physics can permit the mass-energy density (a physical entity) to influence or govern the coordinate scaling factors (a mathematical abstract entity) as claimed in GR.

Hence, the abstract 4D spacetime model of GR has been used as a 4D template manifold to simulate gravitational phenomenon. The mystic connotations associated with this spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious notion that depicts spacetime as a physical entity. The notion of curvature has been wrongly associated with Riemannian 3D space where a non-zero Riemann tensor actually implies invalid deformations induced in the space continuum.

For detailed explanations and proof that 4D spacetime of GR is not a physical entity, and that spacetime model is just an abstract mathematical model which does not constitute theory of gravitation, you may refer to my paper titled "Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity".

Article Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity

Akinbo Ojo "My contention is that the observable energy density of the medium today is 10-9J/m3, which corresponds to the data from the Planck Collaboration."

Taking into account that an absolute negative gravitational energy density is not possible leads to W=W0-g²/(8πG). We get W0 from the gravitational field strength around neutron stars to be in the range of 1.0E+34J/m³.

An energy density of 1.0E-9J/m³ is negligible and does not have any noticeable effect.

Wolfgang Konle, Gurcharn Singh Sandhu, Akinbo Ojo Virtual electrons and virtual photons exist everywhere in spacetime - even volumes where there are no photons or electrons. Therefore, the electromagnetic field and the electron field must continuously exist in all of spacetime. I propose that these fields are merely lower frequency resonances in a single Universal Field consisting of Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency. This contention can be theoretically tested. If this medium exists, it should have impedance of c3/G and bulk modulus of Fp/ƛ2 where Fp = c4/G = Planck force. It should also have a "quasi-energy density" of c7/ħG2 ≈ 10113 J/m3.

The same way that we do not detect the presence of virtual particles in the quantum vacuum, we also do not interact with this medium in the way we would expect if this was observable energy density. The "excitation" required to make observable objects such as a particle is the addition of ħ or ħ/2 quantized angular momentum. However, the evidence for the existence of this medium is everywhere. It creates the physical laws and the physical constants of G, c, ħ, εo, μo, etc.

All fundamental particles are rotating soliton waves in this medium. This combination explains Lorentz transformations and special relativity. This is also a nonlinear medium because it has a maximum frequency boundary at Planck frequency. The previously cited paper derives gravity from this nonlinearity. This wave-based model of the universe also provides an alternative model for students to visualize quantum mechanics.

John A. Macken "It should also have a "quasi-energy density" of c7/ħG² ≈ 10113 J/m³."

No, this extremely high energy density would degrade everything what exists to sheer nothingness.

Wolfgang Konle

You said this, “An energy density of 1.0E-9J/m³ is negligible and does not have any noticeable effect”.

What kind of noticeable effect do you have in mind?

Akinbo Ojo "What kind of noticeable effect do you have in mind?"

Any possible effect on simply everything what happens in our universe.

Hi John A. Macken

Since you make use of common terms, you may need to clarify the physical consequences.

You say, “If this medium exists, it should have impedance of c3/G”

What do you mean by impedance? What is being impeded?

You say, “If this medium exists, it should have bulk modulus”

Does this differ from the ordinary meaning? If not, firstly, the possession of such a property implies that energy is propagated through spacetime as longitudinal waves, whereas all the waves that travel at c, light and gravitational waves, are said to be transverse waves. Secondly, the possession of this property also implies some degree of resistance to compression, no matter how small. We do not see this in the motion of bodies such as planets for example. Note that if your equation is to give us a value, the bulk modulus will be very high and consequently bodies can hardly move through such a medium for any significant period of time.

What we currently seem to observe is that spacetime (or space) appears compatible with a medium having Bulk modulus, K = 0, thereby eliminating longitudinal waves and resistance to rectilinear motion.

Hi Wolfgang Konle

In reply to my question, you say, “Any possible effect on simply everything what happens in our universe.” This answer appears to be vague. Does this effect include temperature?

If it does, an energy density in the range of 1.0E+34J/m³ amounts to temperatures about 1012K around neutron stars. This can be correct. But there are vast amounts of space distant from neutron stars, so what effect can such high energy density have in those locations? Far from Earth, but within our Solar system, CMBR temperature is about 3K, showing the insignificance of an energy density applicable to neutron stars in our vicinity.

Akinbo Ojo

My answer has been related to the energy density of 1.E-9J/m³, you mentioned in your question. This answer means that we cannot expect anything from this low background.

Wolfgang Konle Akinbo Ojo To understand my model, you have to start by realizing Lorentz transformations are incompatible with the model of the universe you have been using. For example, for the speed of light and physical laws to be invariant in all frames of reference, it is necessary for physical objects (rulers, protons, etc.) to undergo Lorentz-FitzGerald contractions. Also, there must be time dilation. Einstein made these bold postulates in order to derive special relativity. His postulates are correct, but physicists have ignored the implications required to achieve Lorentz transformations.

The only model of the universe that logically generates Lorentz transformations requires that spacetime is a sonic medium and all particles are soliton waves in this medium. This is proven in references [1, 2] in the paper below. When all physical objects are standing soliton waves, then it is proven that it is impossible to do an experiment that reveals the presence of the sonic medium. For example, a Michelson-Morley experiment would give a null result.

Figure 1 in this article shows an example of rotating soliton waves in a superfluid exhibiting wave-particle properties, including repulsion. When instruments are made of standing sound waves in a superfluid medium, they move effortlessly trough the sonic medium. The medium required to be the Universal Field that makes all particles and forces must have a tremendous impedance. The calculated impedance for a medium with Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency is c3/G. This is supported by gravitational waves encountering this same impedance. This medium also has bulk modulus of Fp/ƛ2. This is supported by the derivation of gravitational effects from this medium. The 10113 J/m3 quasi energy density is not observable energy density because it lacks quantized angular momentum. It is a mathematical property of the medium that should not be confused with observable energy density. For example, 10113 J/m3 of photons would be Planck temperature.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

John A. Macken "To understand my model, you have to start by realizing Lorentz transformations are incompatible with the model of the universe you have been using."

Sorry, but Lorentz transforms are compatible with the model of the universe I am using.

Wolfgang Konle Perhaps I could have chosen a better word than "incompatible". It is impossible to derive the Lorentz factor γ = (1 – v 2/c2)-1/2 from the currently accepted model of particles and space. At least one of Einstein's two postulates are required to artificially introduce Lorentz transformations into a model of the universe. Without accepting Einstein's postulates, we would have Galilean transformations (addition of velocities). Einstein's postulates are:

1) The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant in all inertial frames. 2) All the physical laws are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

These postulates are demonstrably correct, but until about 10 years ago, there was no physics theory to explain the underlying physics that achieved Lorentz transformations. Then a few technical articles were published that mathematically analyzed a universe based on a single sonic medium. In such a "sonic universe", particles would be sonic quasi-particles and forces would be transferred through the sonic medium. These articles prove that sonic particles achieve Einstein's two postulates and therefore they naturally generate Lorentz transformation. The two key articles are 1) “A Real Lorentz-FitzGerald-Contraction” by Barcelo and Jannes and 2) “Sonic Clocks and Sonic Relativity” by Todd and Menicucci.

This sonic universe model fits perfectly with spacetime being Wheeler's spacetime foam. Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency describes a sonic medium with the properties of a universal field.

You will not be able to understand these concepts by merely reading my short statements. However, the big picture is that treating spacetime as a quantifiable Universal field simplifies all of physics. Mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity become conceptually understandable. The model makes testable predictions about gravity and electric charge.

John A. Macken : You wrote, "It is impossible to derive the Lorentz factor γ = (1 – v 2/c2)-1/2 from the currently accepted model of particles and space."

In this regard, kindly see the attached small note based on mass-energy equivalence.

John A. Macken "This sonic universe model fits perfectly with spacetime being Wheeler's spacetime foam"

What observation does this model explain, which is not yet explained?

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu Wolfgang Konle Gurcharn - The reference you cite has a hidden assumption that the speed of light (c) is invariant in all frames of reference. If this assumption was not made, then the Galilean transformation of the speed of light (c ± v) would be required and the calculation would not yield the Lorentz factor. Thank you for pointing out this subtle point.

Wolfgang - You ask, What observation does this model explain, which is not yet explained? I will answer this by assuming that spacetime is a sonic medium consisting of Planck length (LP) oscillations at Planck frequency (ωp). John Wheeler determined this model would explain both the uncertainty principle and vacuum zero-point energy (not currently explained without this medium). This spacetime foam model of the quantum vacuum gives spacetime both a time component tp = 1/ωp and a speed component c = Lpωp. For example, when gravity slows the rate of time near a mass, the properties of spacetime itself change (not currently explained). The coordinate speed of light slows, and the rate of time associated with this volume of space slows. This is accomplished by a change in the oscillation frequency and displacement amplitude. An empty void does not have an internal time or speed property.

Next, when spacetime has the properties of a sonic medium that can create sonic quasi-particles, this creates a constant speed of light and Lorentz transformations (not currently explained without this medium). You will not understand this point without reading at least part of reference [1 and 2] in the attached preprint paper. This medium has a privileged frame of reference, but motion relative to this frame of reference is undetectable because this medium and sonic particles create Lorentz transformations that make the laws of physics the same in all frames of reference. Also, the referenced papers prove that the Michelson-Morley experiment should give a null result when the interferometer is made of sonic quasi-particles. These particles undergo the same distortion as the light propagation medium.

Finally, the attached paper shows that a plausible model of an electron can be made from this medium. The electron model distorts the surrounding spacetime foam and creates the approximate spatial and temporal properties predicted by general relativity. Einstein had to postulate that matter causes space curvature. The physical mechanism of how this is accomplished has never been explained. When this medium is introduced, the explanation becomes obvious. This medium has a boundary condition (maximum frequency of ωp) that creates a nonlinearity. This nonlinearity is shown to be the source of gravity. This model makes predictions that can be proven correct without requiring a new experiment.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

John A. Macken

You made these statements...

(1) “This medium has a privileged frame of reference,…” TRUE

(2) “but motion relative to this frame of reference is undetectable because this medium and sonic particles create Lorentz transformations that make the laws of physics the same in all frames of reference.” NOT TRUE. Evidence from the dipole anisotropy in the CMBR demonstrates the absolute motion of Earth at ~370km/s. This evidence contradicts your statement (2). It is also contrary to Lorentz transformation, but supports Galilean transformation and your statement (1).

Akinbo Ojo The Earth is moving at about 370 km/s relative to the CMB rest frame. However, this neither disproves nor proves my earlier statement relating to detection of motion relative to the rest frame of the Planck length oscillations of spacetime. This oscillating medium fills all of space and creates the constant speed of light. The photons that form the CMB are different and detecting motion relative to CMB photons is different.

In this short statement, it is not possible to explain all the subtleties required to create a universe that exhibits Lorentz transformations. The introduction of the paper below summarizes the concepts, but the real explanation is contained if references [1 and 2] in this paper.

If you look over these references, I will be happy to discuss this further.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

John A. Macken "If this assumption was not made, then the Galilean transformation of the speed of light (c ± v) would be required and the calculation would not yield the Lorentz factor."

The Doppler effect and the photon energy hf in their combination exclude (c ± v) for electromagnetic waves. Due to the Doppler effect incoming electromagnetic waves already have an increased power. An additionally enhanced power by an increased flow velocity would violate energy conservation.

Waves with a propagation velocity below c do not show any relation between energy content and Doppler effect. For those waves the flow velocity is responsible for the transported power.

John A. Macken

I get the impression that you are looking for a Single universal field. If this is so, and you appear to accept that CMB exists and has a rest frame, and may agree that it is universal in extent. If light/radiation is wave, it means that what is oscillating as CMB radiation is a medium. Don’t you think it would amount to duplication of mediums for you to have another? Can two different mediums be universal simultaneously?

The references you asked me to look at are books. But then, I think you can argue your case here against the issues pointed out. Thanks.

Akinbo Ojo "If light/radiation is wave, it means that what is oscillating as CMB radiation is a medium. Don’t you think it would amount to duplication of mediums for you to have another?"

What kind of medium is electromagnetic radiation? A medium has something like a consistency. It is a medium for something. This implies an internal interaction between components of the medium.

With perfect mirrors you would be able to compress such a radiative medium and you then get a reaction on the compression. But the medium itsself does not show any internal interaction between its components.

There is no photon/photon scattering. Without photon/photon interaction, radiation is not a medium for anything.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

In some of your writings you make use of these two words when describing Space, viz. “Deformable” and “Continuum”. Can you briefly define what these words mean to you and the implications of the meanings?

Wolfgang Konle

Re: "What kind of medium is electromagnetic radiation?"

Electromagnetic radiation such as light is a disturbance of a substance. EM radiation is itself not a substance, but its existence as a disturbance implies the existence of a substance.

Akinbo Ojo

Physical Space is an Elastic Continuum. It can undergo infinitesimal elastic deformations.

A large rigid body cannot possess the property of elasticity. For a body to be elastic, it must support infinitesimal elastic deformations. Consider a very large sphere of metal. To study strain wave propagation through this body, we represent all atoms or molecules of that body by points and attribute all atomic or molecular properties to these points. That way we represent the whole body by a continuum of points which can be used for study of all bulk properties of that body.

Physical space or the good old aether is well known for more than a century, to support propagation of transverse waves. It is also well known that transverse waves can propagate only through an elastic solid or an elastic continuum and certainly not through any fluid medium. Still, NO SCIENTIST is prepared to accept the physical space or aether to be an elastic solid or elastic continuum just because it is extremely difficult to imagine the existence of matter, our own existence and motion of matter particles through any solid like elastic continuum. And this deadlock is persisting - propagation of transverse waves demands the physical space to be an elastic continuum but we are mentally not prepared to accept it.

Physical Space

Whereas the metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the physical measurable properties of permittivity ε0, permeability μ0 and intrinsic impedance Z0 are only associated with physical space. In reality, various notions of physical space, empty space, vacuum, aether and their modern reincarnation, the quantum vacuum, all mean the same entity – call it by any name. A significant point to be highlighted here is that just like the intrinsic impedance Z0=Sqrt(μ0/ε0), the speed of strain wave propagation c=Sqrt(1/(μ0.ε0))is also a measurable property of the physical space. Since these four parameters are inter-related, only two of these are independent. Characteristic parameters ε0 and μ0 of Physical Space also represent mechanical properties of Physical Space. The propagation of transverse waves in a continuous media is essentially a feature of mechanical phenomenon, because of which we interpret these physical properties in mechanical terms as elastic constant 1/ε0 and inertial constant μ0. That is why we prefer to view Physical Space as an 'Elastic Space Continuum'.

Status of Matter and Fields.

Let us now examine the next pertinent question as to how exactly particles of matter could move through an elastic space continuum without any resistance. At subatomic scale the primary constituents of matter, namely the electrons and nuclear particles are known to occupy an extremely small volume fraction of the order of 10-12 percent of the physical volume of any material body. As such we need to view material particles as a sort of lumped up strain energy, or, a sort of localized strain wave packets. For the elastic space continuum, the equilibrium equations of elasticity can be shown to be identical to the vector wave equation. The study of dynamic deformations in the space continuum, through a detailed study of time dependent displacement vector U, along with corresponding strain tensor and stress tensor fields, provides a more fundamental level of investigation into the workings of Nature, in comparison to the fields currently employed for the purpose.

Particular solutions of these equilibrium equations as functions of space-time coordinates, satisfying appropriate boundary and stability conditions within a bounded region, can be shown to represent various strain wave fields and strain wave packets. The electromagnetic field as well as all other forms of energy and matter can be shown to exist in the elastic space continuum as strain wave fields or strain wave packets. The energy density associated with these stress/strain waves in any particular region of the space continuum will be proportional to the square of the intensity of such waves. The matter particles essentially exist in this elastic space continuum as packets of standing strain wave oscillations whose total strain energy remains conserved in the absence of any interaction with other strain waves or packets. Hence matter and EM field do not have any independent existence separate from the characteristic dynamic deformations of the Physical Space.

Strain Waves and Elementary Particles.

A matter particle moving in the space continuum will always be accompanied by a localized strain wave field, something like De Broglie waves, or induced EM fields. Kinetic energy of a particle in motion in the elastic space continuum can be viewed as the strain energy stored in the accompanying strain wave field. These 'material particles' concentrated in a small volume fraction of entire space, consist of so called 'elementary particles' and are essentially characterized by their 'mass', 'charge' and interaction properties. In the parlance of strain bubbles existing in the Elastic Space Continuum, the clusters of pure and composite strain bubbles depicting 'elementary particles' are essentially characterized by their 'strain energy content', 'strain wave fields' if any, and their interaction properties. In principle, there could be a large number of different types of strain bubbles occurring in the Space Continuum, that may be correlated with equally large number of stable and unstable elementary particles.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu Akinbo Ojo Wolfgang Konle I want to thank all of you for challenging my model. I wanted to stress test it and you are providing lots of tests. I will answer two objections that can be stated concisely.

The first objection is that only solids can transmit transverse waves. It is true that in our common experience, only solids can propagate transverse waves. However, the sound waves we experience always propagate at much less than the speed of light. I propose that a medium that propagates waves at the speed of light can only propagate transverse waves if the wave amplitude is greater than Planck length. The reason is that a longitudinal wave has a wavefront that oscillates between propagating faster and slower than the bulk wave. Nothing can propagate faster than the speed of light - not even the longitudinal component of a wave. Therefore, only transverse waves are allowed if a wave propagates at the speed of light with amplitude exceeds Planck length.

The second objection is: The Doppler effect and the photon energy hf in their combination exclude (c ± v) for electromagnetic waves. I am not claiming that Galilean transformations give reasonable answers for photons. My claim is that the currently accepted model of spacetime and particles implies we should experience Galilean transformations, even when we observe the speed of light. For example, if we observe a bullet from different frames of reference, we discover the bullet appears to have a velocity dictated by Galilean transformations. However, if we observe light from different frames of reference, it always has the same speed. The only explanation is that our “rulers” must undergo length contraction and our “clocks” must undergo time dilation. This is not noticeable for the bullet, but it dominates the speed of light measurement.

Then the question becomes: What model of rulers and clocks gives Lorentz transformations? This question has been addressed in the following two papers: “A Real Lorentz-FitzGerald-Contraction (Barcelo) and “Sonic Clocks and Sonic Relativity” (Todd). A brief summary of these papers is contained in the Introduction section of the paper below. However, the mathematical analysis and additional details requires reading the original papers.

Einstein’s bold assumptions required to derive special relativity can be condensed to: The speed of light and the laws of physics are invariant in all frames of reference. These assumptions were bold because they did not come from the known properties of the universe. Instead, his postulates require that we live in a “sonic universe” described in these papers.

Einstein intuitively knew that special and general relativity required the universe must be filled with a wave propagation medium that affected everything, not just light. The book “Einstein and the Ether” by Kostro shows that Einstein only had a few years in his life that he did not believe in the ether. Here is a 1920 quote that captures his concept. “According to the general theory of relativity, space without the ether is unthinkable. For such space, not only would there be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of the existence for standards of space and time (measuring rods and clocks), not therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. A. Einstein, Aether und Relatitivitstheorie, Springer 1920, p15.

In 1955, Wheeler proposed that the uncertainty principle and vacuum zero-point energy would be explained if the vacuum consisted of Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency. This is the wave propagation medium (sonic medium) I am using to build everything in the universe. For example, it gives spacetime a quantifiable time component. Gravity affects space and time. Virtual particles that continuously form is spacetime have a lifetime equal to the inverse of their Compton angular frequency 1/ωc. For example, a virtual electron’s lifetime is 1.29x10-21 s. When gravity slows the rate of time, the virtual electron’s lifetime adjusts accordingly to keep this locally measured lifetime. This can only happen if spacetime has a time component by being an oscillating medium. The attached paper develops this medium further. It derives an electron’s gravitational and electrostatic properties. I believe this has never been done before.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

Akinbo Ojo "Electromagnetic radiation such as light is a disturbance of a substance."

No, we easily can exclude that option because a disturbance of a substance would lead to a photon/photon interaction.

John A. Macken “The reason is that a longitudinal wave has a wavefront that oscillates between propagating faster and slower than the bulk wave.”

No, a longitudinal wave simply is a longitudinal density pattern in a medium which propagates with the speed of the wave. You should know that as an example a sound wave in a gas does not imply particles moving with the wave speed.

“My claim is that the currently accepted model of spacetime and particles implies we should experience Galilean transformations, even when we observe the speed of light.”

Sorry, but photons are special particles, which modify their mass/energy with the Doppler effect. Power balance between sender and receiver therefor requires a constant propagation speed.

“Einstein intuitively knew that special and general relativity required the universe must be filled with a wave propagation medium that affected everything, not just light.”

No,the missing photon/photon interaction proofs that electromagnetic waves propagate without a medium.

Wolfgang Konle Thank you for your response. I will provide my response to two objections. First, You say: A longitudinal wave simply is a longitudinal density pattern in a medium which propagates with the speed of the wave. This is wrong on the scale of the particle motion required to create the propagating density pattern.

An individual atom in a gas has a thermal velocity that approximately equals the speed of sound in the gas. When a longitudinal sound wave propagates through the gas, the motion of the individual atoms are disturbed. It is true that the individual atoms do not propagate the entire distance of a wave, but individual atoms do have their random motion affected. Their average speed is increased, then decreased as the wave passes. This disturbance causes atoms to move in a way that creates the compression and rarefaction portions of the wave. This change in speed actually creates a temperature difference (average speed difference) between the compression and rarefaction parts of the wave. If you Google "sound, compression and rarefaction" you will find texts and videos that explain this. There are a few more steps, but a longitudinal sound wave causes some atoms to increase their speed and other atoms to decrease their speed. This is not allowed for a wave propagating at the speed of light. Only transverse waves are permitted.

Second, you say. "Photons are special particles, which modify their mass/energy with the Doppler effect." The model of a photon you appear to be using is what I will call a "particle dominated photon model" where the photon's energy is packed into a point particle. The photon's wave properties are modeled as "waves of probability". The point particle discontinuously jumps around to achieve this wave-like distribution. This model has numerous problems. What is the point particle made of? Why does it discontinuously jump around in waves of probability? How does the point particle pass through both slits simultaneously in a double slit experiment?

I could list many more problems, but compare this sea of mysteries to the simplicity of having a quantifiable propagation medium and the photon model having quantified amplitude, frequency, propagation speed, impedance, etc. The photon's energy can be calculated from this model. The speed of propagation (Lpωp = c) comes from the model. The distributed displacement amplitude of this quantized wave is Planck length. The electromagnetic impedance encountered by light is usually specified as Zo = 377 Ω. However, I have shown that this converts to 4πc3/G where c3/G is the impedance encountered by gravitational waves. The 4π does not count. Light encounters the same impedance as gravitational waves! The point particle properties happen only when a photon is absorbed. In a physical process related to entanglement, the quantized wave function collapses to the absorbing atom.

The point is that everything gets easy when a wave propagation medium is added to the model of the universe. This is also a wonderful way for students to visualize concepts that are mysteries when dealing with wave-particle models.

John A. Macken "There are a few more steps, but a longitudinal sound wave causes some atoms to increase their speed and other atoms to decrease their speed. This is not allowed for a wave propagating at the speed of light. Only transverse waves are permitted."

Let us focus on just this point. The movement of the individual atoms which leads to the wave, nearly happens at the same time. There only is a position depending phase shift of the individual movement. A movement happening everywhere exactly at the same time, then can lead to a phase movement of the wave, with an infinite velocity. The actual individual movement of particles in the wave only has something to do with the wave amplitude. It is not at all related to the phase velocity of the wave.

Please refer to wave theory in order to completely understand this context.

John A. Macken "The model of a photon you appear to be using is what I will call a "particle dominated photon model" where the photon's energy is packed into a point particle."

No, this view is completely wrong. In its Fourier representation a point particle contains all frequencies. But a real photon is focused on a single frequency f. Its energy content is hf. The state transition which emitted the photon had a certain duration T. cT is the spatial extension of the photon. Tf is the number of wave lengths contained in that spatial extension.

John A. Macken "In a physical process related to entanglement, the quantized wave function collapses to the absorbing atom."

Sorry, but this view is completly misleading. The absorption of a photon in an electron shell has nothing to do with entanglement. Entanglement occurs if two or more quantum states are related to a common quantum event. If one of the entangled quantum states is analysed, this analysis reveals information about the other entangled state(s).

Hi John A. Macken

Thanks for being open minded enough to welcome critical comments. Let me raise a few things for you to ponder concerning your “two objections that can be stated concisely”.

On the first objection…

A fundamental medium must occupy everywhere. It must be the definition of space. In other words, within the definer of space, there cannot be a place that is a “non-space”. That is, it must be a continuous medium without any pores in it. For a medium to be capable of carrying longitudinal waves, such a medium must have pores in it that can increase and decrease during the rarefaction and compression phases, as the wave passes.

Therefore, it is either the fundamental medium will be incapable of carrying any waves, or if it must do so, these will only be waves that do not require the increase or decrease of pores within its substance.

Another thing to ponder is that the ability to carry longitudinal waves comes with the possession of some degree of resistance to being compressed. So far, from the motion of planets, such resistance appears not to exist, hence no surprise if the medium the planets are interacting with it cannot carry longitudinal waves. I discuss these in my papers, Inquiry I – IV.

On the second objection…

Examination of the Doppler shift of light from stars and galaxies uses “(c ± v) for electromagnetic waves” to demonstrate that the observed objects are moving away (redshift) or towards (blueshift) the observer, fully in accord with Galilean transformations.

Hi Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

You said this, “Still, NO SCIENTIST is prepared to accept the physical space or aether to be an elastic solid or elastic continuum just because it is extremely difficult to imagine the existence of matter, our own existence and motion of matter particles through any solid like elastic continuum. And this deadlock is persisting - propagation of transverse waves demands the physical space to be an elastic continuum but we are mentally not prepared to accept it”

The deadlock is persisting because scientists, even though knowing that the possession of shear (μ) and bulk modulus (K) of elasticity is required for a medium to carry transverse and longitudinal waves respectively, and that these elastic properties have been known from the times of Poisson and others, to be independent of each other and possessed to varying degrees in different substances, as for example gases have K ≠ 0, μ = 0, very few including you (if I recall correctly) are prepared to ponder the fate of a substance having the reverse, i.e. K = 0, μ ≠ 0.

I did that in my Inquiry papers I – IV. You may start with the first two

Thesis An inquiry into the compressibility of the universal fundame...

Thesis An inquiry into the compressibility of the universal fundame...

Even if you do not agree, I don’t see why you bluntly refuse to ponder the possibility.

Hi Wolfgang Konle

Please concerning "photons are special particles", what is the wavelength of your photon in the radio frequency range?

The aricle in connection to graviton and GW is ready...:

Article Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítható a graviton létezése

If someone helps me to correct the English translation, I will translate it into English language.

Reagards,

Laszlo

Akinbo Ojo Wolfgang Konle Rather than addressing your individual objections, this response will merely explain the global objective of my work. My objective is to "invent" a model of the universe that has everything conceptually understandable. For example, the model of an electron or muon cannot incorporate a point particle because this is a dead-end concept. It is impossible to ever derive an electron's energy, inertia, wave properties, etc. from a point particle. It became obvious that phenomenon that currently have a simplistic point particle model must be replaced with a more subtle wave-based model that has a quantifiable but undetectable volume. My objective of a conceptually understandable model of an electron's wave properties can only be met if spacetime is a quantifiable sonic medium with quantum mechanical properties. John Wheeler’s spacetime foam model (Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency) has become this single fundamental building block for everything in the universe.

This endeavor has been very successful in generating a quantifiable model of an electron. The previously referenced paper develops a wave-based electron model that achieves an electron's approximate energy, inertia, spin, wave properties, and generates an electron's forces (gravitational and electrostatic). However, this model requires that spacetime be a physical entity with these oscillations. I have discovered that the rejected concept of the aether has poisoned physicist's minds against accepting any physical vacuum content. Everyone accepts that the quantum vacuum is filled with virtual particles. However, this apparently does not translate to accepting that spacetime must be a physical medium that generates these virtual particles and generates everything else in the universe. These quantum mechanical oscillations must generate all observable particles, all forces, and even all the natural laws. The objections presented here on ResearchGate have greatly helped me understand the key points I must address. Thank you.

I will now address some objections. Wolfgang, you stated "a real photon is focused on a single frequency f. Its energy content is hf." My model explains WHY all photons have energy that can be expressed as E = ħω. In this model, all photons have the same displacement amplitude of Planck length and all encounter impedance of c3/G. The photons differ only in frequency. The fact that all photons have the same amplitude (Lp), the amplitude term drops out and you can see why the energy depends only on frequency. (E = ħω).

My exact quote was "In a physical process related to entanglement, the quantized wave function collapses to the absorbing atom." I understand that entanglement is between two or more particles. I am saying that there is an effect, related to entanglement, that allows a distributed wave possessing quantized angular momentum to collapse to a single atom at faster than the speed of light. This creates the appearance that a photon must be a point particle. Electron's have a similar property and this explains why they appear to be point particles. The technical papers discuss this in more detail.

Akinbo Ojo : You wrote, "The deadlock is persisting because scientists, even though knowing that the possession of shear (μ) and bulk modulus (K) of elasticity is required for a medium to carry transverse and longitudinal waves respectively, and that these elastic properties have been known from the times of Poisson and others, to be independent of each other and possessed to varying degrees in different substances, as for example gases have K ≠ 0, μ = 0, very few including you (if I recall correctly) are prepared to ponder the fate of a substance having the reverse, i.e. K = 0, μ ≠ 0."

I think, I had explained to you (long back) the futility of assuming K=0 for any physical medium. Probably you are not convinced and wish to keep holding to that hypothetical medium where K=0. Let me try once more.

For an isotropic solid, the various constants of elasticity are fundamentally interlinked.

Young's Modulus E = Direct Stress/Direct Strain

Bulk Modulus K = Direct Stress/Volumetric Strain

Rigidity or Shear Modulus μ = Shear Stress/Shear Strain

Poisson's Ratio σ = Lateral Strain/Longitudinal Strain

mass density =ρ

Their Relationships are,

E = 2μ(1+σ)

E = 3K(1-2.σ)

E = 9Kμ/(3K+μ)

σ = (3K-2μ)/(6K)

Therefore, when K and E are zero, μ is bound to be zero.

Dear John A. Macken "My objective of a conceptually understandable model of an electron's wave properties can only be met if spacetime is a quantifiable sonic medium with quantum mechanical properties."

The problem with "only" is that it always indicates a tunnel vision.

"My model explains WHY all photons have energy that can be expressed as E = ħω."

The "WHY" written in capital letters also is an outgrowth of that tunnel vision, because it a priori excludes alternative explanations.

"I am saying that there is an effect, related to entanglement, that allows a distributed wave possessing quantized angular momentum to collapse to a single atom at faster than the speed of light."

Sorry but considering the "speed of the collapsing" of a wave function is an extreme misconception. A wave function, which describes the probability density of the location of a point particle, collapses to a smaller volume if additional information is available. Assigning a speed to such a collapse, with any physical meaning, is the summit of absolute nonsense. May be I only misunderstood the meaning of your sentence but if not, it opens an abyss in understanding physics.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

Thanks. You are correct on your statements concerning the importance of the relationships. I discussed the relationships in my Inquiry II paper, referenced in my previous reply to you.

But please check your last, i.e. σ = (3K-2μ)/(6K). I believe it should be

σ = (3K-2μ)/(6K+2μ)

based on the relationship between K and G (μ) on the right-hand-side of the relation, with σ on the left-hand-side, as stated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_modulus

This gives us a material with a negative Poisson ratio of σ = -1, if K = 0. Material substances having negative Poisson ratio are now known and described in literature (I provided references).

If this is so, are you ready to ponder the possibility of a medium having E = 0, and K = 0, but μ ≠ 0?

Akinbo Ojo : You wrote, "Thanks. You are correct on your statements concerning the importance of the relationships. I discussed the relationships in my Inquiry II paper, referenced in my previous reply to you.

But please check your last, i.e. σ = (3K-2μ)/(6K). I believe it should be

σ = (3K-2μ)/(6K+2μ)".

Agreed, with the above correction, let me re-state my argument.

For an isotropic solid, the various constants of elasticity are fundamentally interlinked.

Young's Modulus E = Direct Stress/Direct Strain

Bulk Modulus K = Direct Stress/Volumetric Strain

Rigidity or Shear Modulus μ = Shear Stress/Shear Strain

Poisson's Ratio σ = Lateral Strain/Longitudinal Strain

mass density =ρ

Their Relationships are,

E = 2μ(1+σ) ........ (1)

E = 3K(1-2.σ) ........ (2)

E = 9Kμ/(3K+μ) ..........(3)

σ = (3K-2μ)/(6K+2μ) ........... (4)

From equations (1) and (2), when K is zero then both E and μ become zero. When K, E and μ are all zero, they cannot represent any isotropic medium, not even any hypothetical medium. In that case σ = Lateral Strain/Longitudinal Strain does not have any meaning because without K, E and μ there cannot be any lateral or longitudinal stresses or strains.

Therefore, when K and E are zero, μ is bound to be zero and σ = 0/0, does not mean anything.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu Akinbo Ojo Wolfgang Konle Your comments address the properties of an acoustic medium made of observable matter. It is correct that the bulk modulus of an empty void would be zero. However, the constants G, c, ħ, and εo should also be zero in an empty void. An empty void cannot have finite properties.

You must admit that spacetime has content that requires an explanation beyond the known properties of physical matter. For example, the quantum vacuum is a sea of virtual photons and virtual particles. Any single virtual particle has a short lifetime, but the sea of virtual particles is continuous. This permanent sea of virtual particles must collectively have properties. QED requires virtual photons to produce the electron's anomalous magnetic moment. QCD requires virtual particles such as virtual electrons to produce quantifiable effects. To advance beyond current knowledge, it is necessary to attempt to imagine the vacuum content that produces a sea of virtual particles and the constants G, c, ħ, and εo.

Gravitational waves (GWs) propagate in space. The usual explanation is that since it is spacetime itself that displays wave like behavior, there is no need for a medium. I claim this is a rationalization that is an attempt to avoid addressing the possibility of a quantum mechanical medium filling space. If spacetime is treated as a sonic medium, then it yields quantifiable properties. This was done in several books including Advanced gravitational wave detectors by Blair, et al. The conclusion is that GWs (with dimensionless amplitude ΔL/L) encounter impedance of c3/G. This is the same impedance as calculated by analyzing the acoustic properties of John Wheeler's spacetime foam (Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency). I show that the impedance of spacetime (Zo = 377 Ω) also approximately converts to this same impedance.

Think of c3/G as the impedance of the quantum vacuum medium that is creating the sea of virtual particles. This quantum mechanical medium does not obey all the usual rules of acoustic mediums made of matter. For example, it can only transmit transverse waves if the amplitude is greater than Planck length. Therefore, GWs and light waves can only be transverse waves, but the waves that form fundamental particles can be longitudinal waves because all these waves have Planck length displacement amplitude.

This might seem to be unsupported speculation, except that this wave-based model of an electron achieves results not obtained by the conventional models. For example, it obtains an electron's approximate energy, spin, wave properties, charge and gravitational properties. It uses quantum mechanics to generate gravity and electric charge. The quantum vacuum is a sonic medium (a Universal field) that lacks the excitations required to make observable particles. Therefore, it has a property that has the units of energy density, but the lack of spin (quantized angular momentum) means that it instead has the properties of the quantum vacuum. It appears to be an empty void that has physical properties and finite constants.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

No disagreement at all with your statement in bold, i.e. For an isotropic solid, the various constants of elasticity are fundamentally interlinked, and the relationships stated. My only request is that you broaden the possibilities to be pondered over.

Excerpting from my Inquiry II paper, “In most substances, decompression, i.e. stretching, results in thinning of their transverse dimension, while compression causes a transverse thickening. This scenario is described by saying such substances have a positive Poisson ratio. If however, on stretching, there is no such accompanying transverse thinning, i.e. either the transverse dimension remains as it is or even thickens, such unfamiliar materials can be said to have a negative Poisson ratio. Material substances having negative Poisson ratio are now known and described in literature.”

If human material scientists can design negative Poisson ratio materials (see http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/Poisson.html ), why should Nature be incapable of doing same with a fundamental medium having σ = - 1?

If such a possibility can exist, then in the relations

(1) E = 0

(2) K = 0 (from (1)

(3) Even if E = 0 and K = 0, μ need not be zero, but μ in the numerator must be equal to μ in the denominator. μ ≠ 0 is not ruled out.

(4) If K = 0, then σ = -1.

So, yes, as you correctly say, σ = 0/0 CANNOT represent any isotropic medium, not even any hypothetical medium. But if σ = -1 in Eqs. (1-4), can the contrary be the case? Can such an isotropic medium be ruled out? I think the answer is No. And I argue that such a medium having "negative compressibility" and σ = - 1, accords with the model of Lord Kelvin, Ian MacCullagh, Green and to some extent even Maxwell and others.

My point is that this possibility should not be thrown in the trash bin. At the least, its consequences must be contemplated before doing so.

John A. Macken

Re: "It is correct that the bulk modulus of an empty void would be zero"

But experience suggests that its shear modulus is not zero.

While uniform motion in a straight line in vacuum (“empty” void), can according to Newton’s first law be continued without replenishment of kinetic energy, for non-linear motion, if not replenished, such motion cannot be sustained and eventually defaults into linear motion in a straight line. This suggests that for some reason, empty void is transparent to some types of motion, and slightly opaque to other types of motion. Such a medium must have properties.

Akinbo Ojo : You wrote, "If however, on stretching, there is no such accompanying transverse thinning, i.e. either the transverse dimension remains as it is or even thickens, such unfamiliar materials can be said to have a negative Poisson ratio."

By definition,

Poisson's Ratio σ = Lateral Strain/Longitudinal Strain

When, on stretching, the transverse dimension remains as it is, that is remains unchanged, then lateral strain is zero and the Poisson ratio becomes zero by definition.

Yes, I agree with the possibility of σ =0 for some elastic media. But a negative value σ =-1 is physically impossible.

Even in my own model of elastic space continuum, I take σ =0 and with that I get speed of transverse strain wave propagation same as speed of longitudinal strain wave propagation.

John A. Macken "You must admit that spacetime has content that requires an explanation beyond the known properties of physical matter. For example, the quantum vacuum is a sea of virtual photons and virtual particles."

There is a catch about the story of virtual particles. Those particles have a considerable rest mass. Any noticeable interaction with virtual particles requires an enormous energy density, which is beyond everything which can ever happen within our biosphere.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

Thanks. Your initial objection to K = 0 was on mathematical grounds founded on the fact that “For an isotropic solid, the various constants of elasticity are fundamentally interlinked”, to which I have no disagreement.

The current objection is based on opinion, concerning what is possible and what is not possible (viz. “But a negative value σ =-1 is physically impossible”).

I assume then, that you will now accept that there are no mathematical objections for E = 0, K = 0, σ -1 and μ ≠ 0 to be the fundamentally interlinked constants of elasticity for an isotropic solid.

If that is settled, we can now do a review of the physical possibilities and impossibilities of an isotropic solid having σ -1. You may well be correct in your opinion after such a review.

*By the way, I took a look at your paper and see that we share a common interest on the electromagnetic implications of what we are discussing. In that respect, in my own analysis, ∇.U = 0 is a pointer to the absence of longitudinal waves (compression-rarefaction waves, which in turn is compatible with the K = 0 property).

I thought I should made some final last comments on Gurcharn Singh Sandhu 's, “Dynamic Deformations in the Space Continuum”, which he linked above. The importance of the paper includes the attempt to connect electromagnetism with mechanics, a goal also supported by Maxwell, Heaviside and others.

In his paper, we see this agenda set in the statement: “In general, the displacement vector field U in the space continuum will be a function of space coordinates and time. As such, the time dependent deformations of physical space, that could be represented through a time dependent displacement vector field U, may be described as space-time distortions or dynamic deformations in the space continuum”. After his analysis, Gurcharn arrived at a conclusion which I also believe to be soundly based, i.e. “The displacement vector field U will thus satisfy all the electromagnetic field equations that are satisfied by E and B in free space”.

From observation and theory that follows from the work of Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Heaviside and others, we can safely say that the only dynamic deformations capable of propagating as waves in a medium such as free space, are those of ∇×U, while those that are described by ∇∙U cannot propagate as waves.

In the theory of elasticity, ∇×U corresponds to transverse waves, of which light and gravitational waves are examples, while ∇∙U corresponds to longitudinal waves, which have never been observed experimentally, and which seem to be theoretically ruled out.

Thesis An inquiry into the compressibility of the universal fundame...

Article Misapplication of vector calculus in Maxwell's electromagnet...

On this note, I think I have made my point using mechanical and electromagnetic arguments to show why K is also zero in the space medium.

Wolfgang Konle You say that virtual particles have a considerable rest mass. "Any noticeable interaction with virtual particles requires an enormous energy density, which is beyond everything which can ever happen within our biosphere."

I am not sure I understand this, but I think it implies that virtual particles do not exist. When spacetime is modeled as Planck length vacuum fluctuations at Planck frequency, then real fermions such as electrons are a rotating wave with Planck length displacement amplitude and ħ/2 quantized angular momentum. For example, an electron is an undetectable Planck amplitude wave rotating at an electron's Compton angular frequency ωc ≈ 1021 rad/s. A virtual electron is a distortion of spacetime that has momentarily looks like the electron model but is lacking quantized angular momentum. Therefore, this distortion has no stability and disappears in a time period of 1/ωc ≈ 10-21 s. This momentary distortion has is no observable energy density and no inertia.

John A. Macken "I am not sure I understand this, but I think it implies that virtual particles do not exist."

No, but interactions with virtual particles require extreme conditions. This means that those interactions are not relevant.

This question asks whether the wave equation or the heat equations applies to the aether, plenum, spacetime, etc. Whatever the view of the aether, it must have properties to help explain observations. In my STOE model, it must form the basis of the spherical principle (force inverse square to distance)(heat equation) and, as in this question, support wave action (wave equation).

see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2tWr6AEXXs for a discussion on problems of the STOE including the wave or heat equation issue.

I have recently concluded the heat equation is the choice. That is, the aether does not support wave action which requires the property of inertia. But variation of aether density (which causes force) occurs does occur emanating from matter particles. I'm writing the paper now.

Dear all.

The expression c³/G in the introduction can also be written as

jg = c³/G = 8·π·c/κ [kg /s]

where kappa ( κ = 8·π·G/c² ) is Einstein's gravity constant measured in [m/kg] like an inverse linear density, and he used kappa from the 20's up to his external departure.

So regarding the associated "impedance" in the introduction, we know that the "inertial impedance" is:

Zg = 4·π·G/c = ½·κ·c = 2.7976597056E-18 [m²/kg s]

So returning to the expression in question (in the context of natural space), it spells out as follows:

jg = c³/G = 8·π·c/κ = m·c/r =ħ/r²

This is not an impedance, but a current, and when multiplied by another c yields force measured in [N] = [kg m / s²]. To complete, we use the natural 'gravitron' fermion with radius (r) not to be confused with the supposed graviton boson, while numerically equal to the Planck radius.

However, if we divide by ϕg = 4·π·c² we get susceptance - which is inverse impedance:

(c³/G)·(1/4·π·c²) = 1/Zg

So the said expression can be converted into susceptance by dividing out the spherical potential ϕg = 4·π·c² - thus bringing the impedance question to rest:

jg·Zg = ϕg

Notice the electric analogue, with current (j), impedance (Z) and potential (ϕ) just like in Ohms Law !

All the best,

gko

Dear all

If we consider the fact, that the energy density of gravitational fields is negative and also the fact that an absolute negative energy density cannot exist, we come to the conclusion that an omnipresent field must exist, which compensates the negative gravitational energy density.

This field has elastic properties and is capable to store kinetic energy. Its energy density must be high enough to compensate the gravitational energy density at the surface of neutron stars.

Gudlaugur Kristinn Ottarsson I am going to dispute your statement that Zs = c3/G "This is not an impedance, but a current".

It is true that impedance can be stated different ways and with different units. However, if we are talking about the impedance of spacetime, then the logical way to derive this impedance is to find the impedance encountered by waves that physically propagate in spacetime. These are gravitational waves (GWs). The 1991 book The detection of gravitational waves by D.G. Blair et. al. was the first to identify that c3/G was the impedance encountered by GWs. Merely taking GW equations and solving for impedance generates c3/G. This impedance requires that the wave amplitude be expressed as a dimensionless number corresponding to the maximum slope of the sine wave. Interferometers used to detect GWs measure ΔL/L (the change in length divided by total length). This is a close approximation of the maximum slope provided that L

Dear John A. Macken - no matter how you calculate, jg = c³/G is a proper mass-current measured in [Kg / s], just as charge-current is measured in [C / s] = [A].

To see this, just take apart your expression:

c³/G => [m/s]³ / [m³/kg/s²] = [kg] [m³/s³] / [m³/s²] = [kg/s]

You see that length cubed [m³] cancel totally, while time cubed [1/s³] is partially eaten by the time squared [1/s²] in Newton's gravity constant (G) leaving just [kg / s] which is current without any doubt. Before I leave this expression, you have perhaps seen my chapter 1.9 in Natural Space, where I write Newton's gravity constant in the spirit of Einstein's kappa:

c³/G = 8·π·(dm/dτ) = 8·π·(mHuble/τHuble)

So your expression almost gives us the Mass within the Hubble radius and the Age of our Universe !

---->

Regarding impedance - weather electric or gravity, we go as follows:

Zg = 4·π·ħ/mg² = 4·π·c·( rg/mg ) [m²/kg s]

Ze = 4·π·α·ħ/qe² = 4·π·c·(re/qe )·(me/qe) [m²/C s] · [kg/C]

You see that both gravity- and electric impedances are identical in structure, with an extra factor (me/qe) to couple the electric action to inertia in the latter. All of the above is covered in numerous textbooks - except my Einstein kappa-twist to disclose the universe horizon mass transfer :-)

All the best

gko

Gudlaugur Kristinn Ottarsson "So your expression almost gives us the Mass within the Hubble radius and the Age of our Universe"

The age of our universe is not a natural constant. It is a pipe dream emerging from the big bang theory.

Wolfgang Konle Wolfgang, the so called age of the universe is very real as exact inverse of Hubbke constant H0 (with H0 unit wise represented as a frequency which should be done, actually) but only in the sense of the currently visible part of the universe constraint by the light cone of c (due RT or any other model with constant speed of light c in vacuum). See why this is exactness is given physically necesserily so, and hence by no means a pipe dream:

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

Christian G. Wolf "the currently visible part of the universe constraint by the light cone of c (due RT or any other model with constant speed of light c in vacuum)"

It is strange that you can talk about a constant speed of light, considering a spatially expanding universe.

According to relativity theory a universe with an expanding space without a synchronous expansion of time leads to a modified speed of light.

Wolfgang Konle while all interesting thoughts - imho pure speculation based on entirely wrong cosmological model(s) - in the end.

I just see what I can see (and everybody else, taking the time to read and understand how simple everything could be) using iSpace equations - and thats it. If anyone follows now, in 20+ years or never I reall do not care, but keep in mind iSpace theory solved some century old problem geometrically and is without alternative (what other model or theory is able to predict exact values for constant of nature - those exist but their so called explanation all base as usual on weak CODATA measurement precision of G or even play with outright stupid truncation of 2019 which does make not a single of these exact).

Follow simple first order multiplicative iSpace integer geometric exact values for constants of nature and learn from revealed intrinsic inter-dependencies of the very small and the very large to build a new hopefully equally simple consistent cosmological model or not.

It’s everyone’s choice, isn’t it?

Wolfgang Konle, all - and while we are at it:

The following link to a preprint of Gerd Pommerenke imho presents a clever 4D continuum based model of cosmology, using only 5 input parameters (from constant of nature point of view) and is nevertheless fully compatible to hybrid 10D iSpace (shared paper on stunning relations found related to proton mass able to explain the two different disjunct values of Hubble H0 of 68.8 from CMB and 71.99 iSpace quantum based one is in preparation):

Preprint The Metric Universe

Of course some 1000+ equations on 350+ pages is a book and hence in no way an easy read - but iSpace results for sure are - and all of them. So not taking the time to read into is just this - wasting everybodies own time …

Dear Wolfgang Konle - so you concur with John A. Macken that c³/G is an impedance while it gives us a time rate of mass ? So since when is dm/dt an impedance ?

Regarding our Universe: It is indeed not surprizing that it has an horizon we can interpret in terms of either time or length - and has nothing to with the so-called "Big Bang" which I'm the last person to support. For example, here on Earth, we have an horizon - but no Big Bang which is a male chauvinist concept to replace religion.

All the best,

GKO