# An Alternative to Yaldon Theory: A Wave Particle Suggestion

This is of course the most important application of quantum spin, as it is applied to magnetic resonance imaging of soft tissues for medical diagnostic purposes.

A photon (the boson associated with the EM force) has spin in the form of polarization states as well as linear momentum in whatever direction it is propagating (and ONLY in that direction).

When inertia is given to particles of matter with more complex composite quantum spins by means of the Higgs mechanism, that inertia is no longer confined to a single linear direction, but exists simultaneously in all directions at once.

But, yes, a spherical wave would do it. No idea what entanglement would resemble there exactly.

Consider the Ehrenfest paradox very carefully before deciding that spherical waves are the thing we are discussing. A great deal of insight is provided when you realize that observers at different radii from the center of a circularly propagating wave cannot even agree on the period, or the time required for the wave to complete a single rotation about the center. This is because time dilation depends on the radius for that mode of propagation, which accounts for most of its rather strange behavior. For one thing, it will defy any attempt to apply Euclidean geometrical concepts to analyze it. Euclidean solids are beasts that have isotropic time embedded in their structure. Absolute space and time are both dead ends for this analysis. Absolute space begins and ends with the geometric centers of particles possessing composite quantum spin. Absolute time only has an absolute ORIGIN that exists as the instant of NOW. No time interval "rate" occurring after that instant is the same at different relative velocities or locations with respect to the centers of composite spin particles after that instant.

I think there must be a law that in order for propagating energy to interact in certain ways (spin --> linear, or linear --> spin, for example), the local time dilation of the waves must be comparable to within certain percentage limits. Spin -1 doesn't normally interact with a spin of +1, except in the special case of the Higgs boson, and that is because it is the only kind of particle in which integer disparate spins can be entangled in the manner of paired electrons. This is a tricky application of energy density, to determine how much of the energy of one propagation mode couples to another with what kind of particle and predict what will be the effect. No one ever said unifying all of the forces would be an easy thing to accomplish.
It occurs to me that you and I are separated by supersymmetry, i.e., you use the Higgs boson for effects that I attribute to the standing wave nature of particles existing within the oscillating background. I live to learn, lol, and try to advance my model as I go.

My view is that the gravitationally enduced concentration of wave energy can reach such a high density, that a big crunch forms, collapses and bounce/bangs into a hot dense expanding/inflating ball of wave energy; a big bang arena in my terminology. As the arena expands/cools, it decays and produces a series of exotic particles, with some eventually becoming stable at certain thresholds of declining wave energy density. It is in that context that, if you endorse supersymmetry, not the least of those decay products is the Higgs boson and Higgs mechanism featured by supersymmetry, or at least that is my understanding of the physics of how supersymmetry produces observable particles, effects, and collectible data.

Given that scenario, I have an equivalent to supersymmetry, lol, of course. The stable particles from the decay of the big bang energy "ball" give us particles that emit spherical gravitational wave energy and light.

Note, If you pass spherical light waves through a fine grid, you get polarized light. Polarized light advances through the oscillating background in a directional fashion.

The photon particle is emitted by the electron at the local speed of light, and follows a linear path shaped by the energy density along its path. When a photon passes close to a massive object, the out flowing gravitational wave energy from that object causes the surrounding space to have elevated wave energy density, and so the photon's linear path slows and curves into the higher energy density space until it encounters the massive object, or until it clears the massive object's vicinity; then it straightens out and continues on. Gravitational lensing is an observable effect of those curved photon paths.

That effect is possible because, in my model, photons have mass, and all particles with mass have both the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components; the inflow is directional, like from the massive object that curves the photon's path, and the out flow of wave energy from the photon is spherical and is spread via the oscillating background.

The spherical out flow of the photon is its gravitational wave energy out flow, and it is the nature of the photon particle to let the directional inflow of gravitational wave energy from other massive objects govern its path.

At the same time, the spherically out flowing component of the photon is not only its emitted gravitational wave energy, it is also light energy. When the human sees light, it sees the gravitational out flow of photons with frequencies within the visible range; all particles and objects have the characteristic of frequency, but we only see a narrow range visually. Visible light is just a narrow range of frequencies within the greater range gravitational wave energy frequencies, and the full range of gravitational wave energy includes light and all other gravitational waves that fill all space. Yikes, I know, lol.

The light/gravitational waves are moving within the oscillating background, and each oscillation produces the tiniest of short duration spherical waves to propagate that advance, so any meaningful wave is advanced in all directions by the oscillations of the background, and the velocity of that advance is governed by the energy density of the local space/background. A meaningful wave, in that context, is emitted by another particle or object, and advances spherically through the oscillating background until it becomes the directionally inflowing wave energy of some other particle or object.

That is how I would differentiate between supersymmetry, and the wave energy density mechanics of the ISU model, from a layman level of understanding and science enthusiasm, to have one model of mechanics that works at both the macro and micro levels.

Last edited:
That effect is possible because, in my model, photons have mass
Actually, a photon has inertia in the direction of propagation, but that is not the same kind of inertia that is attributed to mass.

For a spherical wave of photons, you may miss this distinction. Such a wave may be observable for billions of light years, if it is of sufficient radiant energy density to begin with. If an accelerated electron is what produced such a spherical wave, how is it even possible for it to radiate in an infinitude of directions in a single instant? Because the bound energy that is an electron is capable of propagating in every direction nearly simultaneously, that's why. That would be faster than the spherical wavefront of photons propagate. And this is also the reason an electron has real inertia, not the limited variety photon energy possesses.

Don't make the mistake of forcing or imposing symmetries where there really aren't any, at the expense of ignoring the physical symmetries that actually exist. That's one of the mistakes the mathematics associated with physics seems to make again and again. Sometimes this renders insights that might have been missed otherwise. More often than not, it doesn't.

Ignoring symmetries that physically exist is a bigger mistake. Those actually have consequences that lead to inconsistencies when they are ignored. This is not a good thing when you are seeking a totality of unification. Extensibility for as far as you can take it is preferable to a subset of unification that is internally self-consistent.

Last edited:
Actually, a photon has inertia in the direction of propagation, but that is not the same kind of inertia that is attributed to mass.

For a spherical wave of photons, you may miss this distinction. Such a wave may be observable for billions of light years, if it is of sufficient radiant energy density to begin with. If an accelerated electron is what produced such a spherical wave, how is it even possible for it to radiate in an infinitude of directions in a single instant? Because the bound energy that is an electron is capable of propagating in every direction nearly simultaneously, that's why. That would be faster than the spherical wavefront of photons propagate. And this is also the reason an electron has real inertia, not the limited variety photon energy possesses.

Don't make the mistake of forcing or imposing symmetries where there really aren't any, at the expense of ignoring the physical symmetries that actually exist. That's one of the mistakes the mathematics associated with physics seems to make again and again. Sometimes this renders insights that might have been missed otherwise. More often than not, it doesn't.

Ignoring symmetries that physically exist is a bigger mistake. Those actually have consequences that lead to inconsistencies when they are ignored. This is not a good thing when you are seeking a totality of unification. Extensibility for as far as you can take it is preferable to a subset of unification that is internally self-consistent.
I don't believe anyone has more than a vague idea of the ISU model. The current ISU update thread pretty well covers the territory, but is long and tedious for even the most enthusiastic alternative model enthusiasts.

When I describe the photon, it quickly becomes evident that my "photon" is not the same as your photon. But the differences have been contemplated and are consistent with the entire ISU model. That means that all throughout the model, there are differences from the standard model, and all of the differences are intentional. Their intent is to describe a complete cosmology from beginning to end that addresses what I perceive as problems with the standard model, or unanswered questions, or "as yet" unknowns.

I have started from scratch, bottom up, and where those issues come up, I survey the possibilities, and I contemplate reasonable and responsible speculations and hypotheses to address the know problems, to answer the unanswered questions, and to put forward ideas that are internally consistent to address the "as yet unknown".

You can take any one of the many areas of difference from mainstream, and say it isn't right because it is inconsistent with some accepted theoretical postition, but the alternative parts of my model that can be evaluated to be "not even wrong" relative the the norm, may make some sense when the reasoning and internal consistency leading to them are understood. If you read back through my ISU update thread you will not see any important piece of it falsified. It is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, or so I say. there are no arguments against the model that I have not addressed fully. That is not to say that any of my counter arguments have convinced any critics, but in every case over the years where critical arguments have been correct, and where I have been found to be wrong, I have made corrections, and/or have gone back to the drawing board.

It may seem like an am ignoring symmetries, and I'm not well versed in very many high profile theoretical models that are the product of professionals who all talk the same language, and invoke the same prerequisites. I just have a layman understanding of them. I have built and evolved my own model, as I have described, defended as to its reasoning and internal consistency, and which has answers that the mainstream does not yet have a concrensus on, and that has ideas about the "as yet" unknown that aren't being professionally evaluated from the context of a model like mine.

The phrase you use, "spherical wave photons" has inspired this unseemly rant, because it isn't descriptive, and doesn't reflect any of the material about the photon in the model.

I think I should link back to a post in my ISU update thread about the photon, and it is just one piece of the photon part of the ISU story, one perspective among several that are important to have an understanding of the nature and role of the photon, photon mass, photon motion, the photon as a standing wave particle, the photon's out flowing spherical wave as light and gravitational wave energy, the photon as to wave particle duality, the photon and measurement of it as a wave and as a particle, etc.

To say something about "the spherical wave emitted by a photon particle" would be appropriate, and it is very alternative to say that the photon particle with mass has inflowing and out flowing wave energy components, but in my model they do, and for what I find to be sound reasons, which I am also willing to discuss and defend.

Here is an appropriate link to a post in the
ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology) Update 2016 thread which is a case in point.

Last edited:
The ISU model doesn't define exactly what gravity, much less a gravity wave, is. It's no crime. Neither did Newton, or Einstein, or the standard model without Higgs replacing what the graviton does.

Last edited:
The ISU model doesn't define exactly what gravity, much less a gravity wave, is. It's no crime. Neither did Newton, or Einstein, or the standard model without Higgs replacing what the graviton does.
"Exactly" is a difficult task, given the very alternative nature of the ISU model. But in general, take a look at post #91 from the ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology) Update 2016.

That ISU model of gravitation looks an awful lot like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

But with mechanical waves replaced by linearly propagating energy waves. This theory (Le Sage gravitation), originally appearing in a French manual on basic seamanship, has been studied very intensively and has been relegated to the scrap heap of gravitational theory ages and ages ago.

Your theory also needs to stretch itself to explain entanglement and this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

So you'll be needing some way to explain quantum entanglement and explain quantum spin, including why these effects occur FTL. A theory that does not allow for an explanation of matter / antimatter production simply doesn't explain enough. You aren't going to do that with a theory of energy waves all of which travel in straight trajectories, and without the effects of time dilation.

That ISU model of gravitation looks an awful lot like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

But with mechanical waves replaced by linearly propagating energy waves. This theory (Le Sage gravitation), originally appearing in a French manual on basic seamanship, has been studied very intensively and has been relegated to the scrap heap of gravitational theory ages and ages ago.

Your theory also needs to stretch itself to explain entanglement and this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

So you'll be needing some way to explain quantum entanglement and explain quantum spin, including why these effects occur FTL. A theory that does not allow for an explanation of matter / antimatter production simply doesn't explain enough. You aren't going to do that with a theory of energy waves all of which travel in straight trajectories, and without the effects of time dilation.
You might notice that my "particles" are quite different than the particles of the Standard Particle Model. According to the SM, fundamental particles have no internal composition, while in the ISU, all particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and have complex standing wave patterns that represent their location. The ISU particles have two components, the directionally inflowing and the spherically out flowing wave energy, and their presence is established by the numerous high energy density spots within and around those complex standing wave patterns that are caused by the intersections of those component waves, which I refer to as quantum waves.

My point is that particle paths are not the same as propagating waves.

Further, QM, entanglement, and FTL models invoke quite different types of particles than are found in the ISU model, so I don't expect to have the same theoretical physics governing them.

Also, "linearly propagating waves" isn't a term I use, and doesn't exactly characterize the spherical expansion of light and gravitational waves through the oscillating background. Particles follow curved paths because a particle is generally a stable, coherent, standing wave that moves as a whole, but that is produced by internal wave intersections that are continually refreshed as the inflowing wave energy component plays out. Their paths curve because the wave energy density along their paths fluctuates, depending on the mass and motion of the surrounding wave energy sources. Photons are a unique case because they are emitted at the local speed of light; they get all of their inflowing wave energy from their forward path, because wave energy from behind them in the local environment cannot catch up.

I don't have the same concerns as you do about Quantum Theory and entanglement, because the model I am defending doesn't rely on the same theoretical physics as those models/theories.

I have spent some time, over the years, familiarizing myself with QM, Entanglement, and FTL concerns, as a layman, and my conclusion is that, for the local frame, the speed of light is invariant, and as I mentioned in the post about time dilation, there are differences in the velocity of light between any two adjacent patches of space where there is even the slightest variance in energy density.

I don't agree that La Sage's theory is similar to the ISU model; in fact it is strikingly similar to Yaldon Theory, which this thread is offered as an alternative to.

Last edited:
According to the SM, fundamental particles have no internal composition, while in the ISU, all particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and have complex standing wave patterns that represent their location.

So you noticed, as I had, that there were unresolved issues at the boundaries of SM. Let us both stipulate that if it is possible for a particle, antiparticle to annhilate one another, and that this ONLY happens if a particle meets its conjugate antiparticle, and if also it is possible to produce a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter by means of suitable energies of photons encountering each other, then any theory which does not explain in detail the process by which this occurs is an incomplete theory, yes?

Let us also stipulate that any theory like relativity whose best mathematical formulation involves a hard assumption that the speed of light is the fastest event in the universe and that time is proportional to it, and also that no two events separated by light travel time can ever be simultaneous, runs afoul of the observation that quantum entanglement spin flips happens faster than a light wave can traverse the distance separating them. This can only mean that mathematical relativity's fundamental assumption about time being proportional to the speed of light is likewise an incomplete description of reality.

I cannot argue against ISU's determination that particles of matter may be only standing waves, other than to point out that I think the evidence that those "standing waves" are more fundamentally related to time dilation and entanglement other than to assert that these are UNDEFINED POLARIZED 'FIXED' NODES IN SPACE AND / OR TIME, which are boundary conditions that are necessary in order to have such standing waves. Such standing waves also violate relativity's edict against absolute space and time, which seems to be at least partially correct. Only energy and time exist. Fixed nodes of traveling waves cannot respond to fixed locations in space other than their inertial centers at a fixed instant in time, unless your model can explain exactly why the nodes are fixed. While you are doing that, don't forget to square your model with the idea that only energy and time, and events related to the transfer of energy and time, actually exist. Time dilation can never be neglected, but Lorentz contraction of length can if you stipulate that space is light travel time. Everywhere. Always. At all scales. In every direction and at every instant of "now" that only has meaning in an entangled quantum field with zero compostie spin. At least, the SM got that bit mostly right.

If you want your model to reflect reality and to explain it in more detail, that's how you do it. Don't expect math to fill in details you leave out of your theory. It just doesn't work that way.

Last edited:
So you noticed, as I had, that there were unresolved issues at the boundaries of SM. Let us both stipulate that if it is possible for a particle, antiparticle to annhilate one another, and that this ONLY happens if a particle meets its conjugate antiparticle, and if also it is possible to produce a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter by means of suitable energies of photons encountering each other, then any theory which does not explain in detail the process by which this occurs is an incomplete theory, yes?
Yes, with some stipulations, which will require my creative engagement to relate in any coherent fashion, lol. Christmas party tonight, and major water leak/damage to deal with for few days which hampers my creative juices.
Let us also stipulate that any theory like relativity whose best mathematical formulation involves a hard assumption that the speed of light is the fastest event in the universe and that time is proportional to it, and also that no two events separated by light travel time can ever be simultaneous, runs afoul of the observation that quantum entanglement spin flips happens faster than a light wave can traverse the distance separating them. This can only mean that mathematical relativity's fundamental assumption about time being proportional to the speed of light is likewise an incomplete description of reality.
I hate to give the same answer, which is yes, with some reservations as to the assumptions. Being as I am not well versed on the various theories involved, at least not beyond the layman level, I'm sure you won't be holding your breath for some enlightening jewels of wisdom from me.
I cannot argue against ISU's determination that particles of matter may be only standing waves, other than to point out that I think the evidence that those "standing waves" are more fundamentally related to time dilation and entanglement other than to assert that these are UNDEFINED POLARIZED 'FIXED' NODES IN SPACE AND / OR TIME, which are boundary conditions that are necessary in order to have such standing waves. Such standing waves also violate relativity's edict against absolute space and time, which seems to be at least partially correct. Only energy and time exist. Fixed nodes of traveling waves cannot respond to fixed locations in space other than their inertial centers at a fixed instant in time, unless your model can explain exactly why the nodes are fixed.
You bring up some interesting points, and I'm sure I am in for some learning opportunity if we try to work through these issues.
While you are doing that, don't forget to square your model with the idea that only energy and time, and events related to the transfer of energy and time, actually exist. Time dilation can never be neglected, but Lorentz contraction of length can if you stipulate that space is light travel time. Everywhere. Always.
We do need to address the issue of time, and like other issues we are discussing, we will have differing views. Simply put, in my model, time simply passes, while the rate that we measure time passing varies with differences in the wave energy density in which the clock measurements are made. It is the local energy density that governs the rate that clocks measure the passing of time.
If you want your model to reflect reality and to explain it in more detail, that's how you do it. Don't expect math to fill in details you leave out of your theory. It just doesn't work that way.
My expectations of the ISU model are not ambitious. I look at it as having a garage full of Picasso's, and as long as people don't start to examine them closely, I won't know for sure if they are fake, lol.

I was eyewitness to part of the early process by which Edward Witten put together competing versions of string theory (another theory with unexplained "nodes") by means of consensus. It went very much like what we seem to be doing.

Have fun at the party. Wife and I were thinking of going dancing, but the neighborhood roads are still a mess.

It is the local energy density that governs the rate that clocks measure the passing of time.
Agreed.

Let's see if we agree that whatever we decide as a result of what we are doing here amounts to layman level ideas, at least on my part. Also, that you and I won't need to agree, but will at least confirm or deny that we understand what each other considers the best solution to the questions we are addressing. That way, as time goes on, and we each continue to think about the process, we can come back with new ideas, and pick up, having some mutual understanding of where we each were in our thinking when we left off.
Let us both stipulate that if it is possible for a particle, antiparticle to annhilate one another, and that this ONLY happens if a particle meets its conjugate antiparticle, ...
http://alpha.web.cern.ch/penningtrap
http://angelsanddemons.web.cern.ch/antimatter/trapping-antimatter

I did a thread some years ago about Penning traps, and antimatter, and the trapped particles were collected from accelerated beams. I don't remember if it was electron or proton beams, but the collisions produced antimatter that could be collected and held for brief periods, maybe minutes, at the time. I haven't stayed up on the science lately. But just to get into the first part of our discussion, do you have a reliable source for the science about the annihilation occurring only when conjugate antiparticles meet, conjugate meaning the antiparticle with the same mass and opposite charge? I thought matter/antimatter annihilated regardless of the type of particles that came together.

... and if also it is possible to produce a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter by means of suitable energies of photons encountering each other.
Sounds right, but give me a source to refresh my memory on antiparticles from high energy photon interactions, while we prepare to get into the details of the first stipulation you mentioned.

So you noticed, as I had, that there were unresolved issues at the boundaries of SM. Let us both stipulate that if it is possible for a particle, antiparticle to annhilate one another, ...
Agreed.
... and that this ONLY happens if a particle meets its conjugate antiparticle, ...
This may very well be the case but I haven't seen the science of that restriction on annihilation. And in a model where the individual particles are complex standing wave patterns where the mass of the particle is equal to the number of high energy density spots that form at internal wave convergences, it doesn't seem necessary for the annihilating particles to be conjugate, but only equal but opposite in matter-mass/antimatter-mass.

That assertion requires some explanation about what antimatter is in my model. The explanation starts by hypothesizing that in an infinite multiple Big Bang arena universe, there is a concept referred to as an average universal wave energy density. Matter that exists in the form of particles requires millions or even billions of tiny wave energy convergences to occur within a particle's standing wave pattern (the particle space), and the surrounding wave energy must be sufficient to supply that particle space with a quite constant flow in inflowing wave energy.

That inflow of wave energy is necessary to maintain the presence of the standing wave pattern because there is also a constant out flow of wave energy from the surface or particle boundary; inflow and out flow are in perfect balance for a particle at rest, and any imbalance between inflow and out flow causes particle motion as the location of the particle is established by the high density spots, and that pattern shifts in the direction of the net highest inflow of gravitational wave energy, if there is an imbalance, remember.

So now to the part about the average universal wave energy density. When two or more expanding Big Bang arena waves converge to form a new Big Crunch, it produces a lot of very high energy density and massive high energy events, but more to the point, it results in a subsequent collapse of the Big Crunch. That produces Nature's highest wave energy density environment, which I refer to as a hot, dense ball of wave energy that emerges from the event.

Given that in the larger space that includes such an event there is nature's widest range of wave energy density environments, i.e., the hot dense ball of energy and the low energy density of the converging parent arenas, there will be extremes of both high and low energy density, and the antimatter forms in the extreme low energy density environments surrounding the hot dense ball. Antiparticles are also standing wave particles, their presence is also established by inflow and out flow of wave energy, and within their very local extremely low wave energy density environment, there would be stable patterns that form, and those are antiparticles.

When the extreme environments of that larger space inevitably converge, there is annihilation between matter and antimatter as the Big Bang arena space establishes a more normal and consistent internal wave energy density. I refer to that as the process of energy density equalization, and give it the status of a major force in my model. The equalization of the extreme high energy density of the hot ball of wave energy that emerges from the collapse/bang, with the extreme lower wave energy density surrounding the location of the Big Bang event, causes the expansion/inflation of the hot dense ball of energy into the low energy space surrounding it; dark energy at work.

... and if also it is possible to produce a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter by means of suitable energies of photons encountering each other, then any theory which does not explain in detail the process by which this occurs is an incomplete theory, yes?
In my thinking, that process that is in play as part of Big Bang arena action is replicated at a tiny scale when high energy beams of particles are collided.

Last edited:
Let us also stipulate that any theory like relativity whose best mathematical formulation involves a hard assumption that the speed of light is the fastest event in the universe and that time is proportional to it, and also that no two events separated by light travel time can ever be simultaneous, runs afoul of the observation that quantum entanglement spin flips happens faster than a light wave can traverse the distance separating them. This can only mean that mathematical relativity's fundamental assumption about time being proportional to the speed of light is likewise an incomplete description of reality.
I smile as I respond, because I agree that it is an incomplete description of reality to simply say that time is proportional to the speed of light. I explained why I say that in my earlier posts #13 and #29. However, I smile because we may not always agree on the invariant laws of nature that are at work that make the current understanding of physics part and parcel of an incomplete model.

Take the postulate, if it is that, that the speed of light is the fastest event in the universe. In my model the speed of light is relative to the wave energy density of the local environment, so though the speed of light in the local environment is the fastest possible local event, light is traversing space at faster and slower relative velocities in other local environments that have different levels of wave energy density. GR says the speed of light is invariant, but the curved paths that light follows can cause time dilation. Two different explanations for the same observation.

Further, the observation that quantum entanglement spin flips happen faster than a light wave can traverse the distance separating them would be subject to the explanation that there are different velocities of light in differing wave energy density environments as well. If a pair of photons are emitted in different directions, their paths would not be likely to have the same average wave energy density. Their different relative velocities could get them to distant places at different time/distance measurements without either of them going faster than the permitted speed of light along their respective paths.

I agree that the different time/distance measurement would falsify a theory that said it was not possible for light to have different velocities depending on the wave energy densities of the separate paths involved. I am not yet on board with quantum entanglement spin flips happening faster that light, and I'm not sure from what you are saying, if you are in agreement that there might be an explanation for that which doesn't require FTL, i.e., if you were to invoke the variable speed of light in differing wave energy density environments as the explanation.

I smile as I respond, because I agree that it is an incomplete description of reality to simply say that time is proportional to the speed of light. I explained why I say that in my earlier posts #13 and #29. However, I smile because we may not always agree on the invariant laws of nature that are at work that make the current understanding of physics part and parcel of an incomplete model.

Take the postulate, if it is that, that the speed of light is the fastest event in the universe. In my model the speed of light is relative to the wave energy density of the local environment, so though the speed of light in the local environment is the fastest possible local event, light is traversing space at faster and slower relative velocities in other local environments that have different levels of wave energy density. GR says the speed of light is invariant, but the curved paths that light follows can cause time dilation. Two different explanations for the same observation.

Further, the observation that quantum entanglement spin flips happen faster than a light wave can traverse the distance separating them would be subject to the explanation that there are different velocities of light in differing wave energy density environments as well. If a pair of photons are emitted in different directions, their paths would not be likely to have the same average wave energy density. Their different relative velocities could get them to distant places at different time/distance measurements without either of them going faster than the permitted speed of light along their respective paths.

I agree that the different time/distance measurement would falsify a theory that said it was not possible for light to have different velocities depending on the wave energy densities of the separate paths involved. I am not yet on board with quantum entanglement spin flips happening faster that light, and I'm not sure from what you are saying, if you are in agreement that there might be an explanation for that which doesn't require FTL, i.e., if you were to invoke the variable speed of light in differing wave energy density environments as the explanation.

The precise instant light begins propagating in its linear mode, or equivalently, the limit on the propagation 'travel' of the centers of mass of bound energy that is matter start to move relative to each other, then relativity dominates and the invariant speed of light is that limit.

However, the speed of light must also be relative to something else, and for any inertial reference frame and in a given PAIR of diametrically opposing directions, that rest frame is defined locally by + / - c. Local energy density is taken into account and the speed of light is still invariant. But the rate at which time passes 'time dilation' locally.is determined by local rates of quantum spin, faster than c.

Quantum spin must also be relative to something not spinning, and everywhere and for every quantum spin, the field that has zero net quantum spin in diametrically opposing directions is the Higgs field. We know this for certain now because the only spin zero particle is the Higgs boson, an excitation of that quantum field and the only boson capable of transferring energy between the Higgs field 'space', or actually 'timespace' and things we perceive as having inertia in all directions, or ordinary particles of matter. Quantum spin composites (or is made up of more fundamental spin components in different directions) easily by means of the Higgs field, which is quantum entangled everywhere. A gravitational field is a modification of the Higgs field, continuously exchanging spin energy to linear energy for bound and unbound forms, and changing the rate at which time passes in areas of high energy density. It causes objects to fall toward greater concentrations of bound energy. It bends light by the same mechanism.

It is easy to imagine zero spin in one or two directions, but it is difficult to conceive of what it means not to spin in 3 orthogonal directions. All three of those directions are time. Since everything else in the universe has spin in directions other than that field, and relative to it, quantum foam appears to be random in terms of the pair creation of virtual particles.

Last edited:
Some have theorized that a positron is an electron traveling backward in time. I doubt this (time's arrow direction is conserved), however, if the composite spins are complementary, this might also explain what electrical "charge" means, which would be the first time charge has been mentioned in connection with these ideas. Perhaps even a spin of zero has a spin bias. If it did, it might explain some things about antimatter and its ratio to matter. Perhaps the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs / Higgs field has something to do with this spin bias. Without a spin bias, energy might not be conserved at all. And angular momentum might not be conserved either.

The only absolute time is the instant of now. The only absolute space is the centers of mass of particles of bound energy. The timespace between particles is not absolute and is always related to the relative motion of the observer (or local energy density). No "Euclidean" solids exist, and particles of bound energy are not even vaguely Euclidean on the inside. Different radii of particles correspond to different time dilations, the lowest time dilation being at the exact geometric centers, the only vestige of Euclidean geometry remaining within the structure. The rate of time (time dilation) is not absolute. This is principally the reason bound forms of energy exist and appear to persist in form with the passage of time. The speed of light and at rest for an inertial reference frame are still invariant, just as relativity always assumed.

All of this is consistent with the ideas that time and energy (bound and unbound, unpaired and entangled) and energy transfer events are the only physical processes taking place in this universe.

A few more ideas are coming into focus. Moment of inertia will need to be tweaked to describe quantum spin and its relationship to rest mass.

Last edited:
The precise instant light begins propagating in its linear mode, or equivalently, the limit on the propagation 'travel' of the centers of mass of bound energy that is matter[,] start to move relative to each other, ...
It is going to take me awhile to learn, and to communicate with you, since my limitations as an layman science enthusiast are many. I would like to start my response by rewording the above quote from your post, with a statement I think is generally accepted and very basic to the physics of light. See if you agree, and I will continue with a response to your post. If I don't get the wording right, just rewrite my statement in terms that you see as more appropriate to describe the physics, but trying to restate your original statement to take into consideration my limited level of understanding:

"The precise instant that an electron emits a photon, the photon is traveling at the local speed of light along its directional path, relative to the point of emission ..."

... then relativity dominates
Yes ...
and the invariant speed of light is that limit.
Yes, relative to the local wave energy density.

However, the speed of light must also be relative to something else, and for any inertial reference frame and in a given PAIR of diametrically opposing directions, that rest frame is defined locally by + / - c. Local energy density is taken into account and the speed of light is still invariant.
Yes.
But the rate at which time passes 'time dilation' locally.is determined by local rates of quantum spin, faster than c.
I would have said ... "the rate that time passes locally is determined by local rates of" ... wave energy density ... instead of by local rates of "quantum spin, faster than c."

So I am contemplating how you can be equating local rates of quantum spin with what I envision as local wave energy density.

So as I move on ...
Quantum spin must also be relative to something not spinning, and everywhere and for every quantum spin, the field that has zero net quantum spin in diametrically opposing directions is the Higgs field. We know this for certain now because the only spin zero particle is the Higgs boson, an excitation of that quantum field and the only boson capable of transferring energy between the Higgs field 'space', or actually 'timespace' and things we perceive as having inertia in all directions, or ordinary particles of matter.
That is consistent with the physics of Supersymmetry and the Standard Model of Particle Physics, isn't it.

Quantum spin composites (or is made up of more fundamental spin components in different directions) easily by means of the Higgs field, which is quantum entangled everywhere.
For me in my model, the oscillating foundational background seems to play the roll that the Higgs field seems to play. I am not trying to convince you of any merit to my model, but simply trying to put what you say into the context that I am familiar with.

A gravitational field is a modification of the Higgs field, continuously exchanging spin energy to linear energy for bound and unbound forms, and changing the rate at which time passes in areas of high energy density. It causes objects to fall toward greater concentrations of bound energy. It bends light by the same mechanism.
I can relate that to my ideas, but have explained it from a different perspective. I see it as the gravitation field is the oscillating background, and propose that as various light and gravitational waves pass through the background, changes occur in the local wave energy density, and that governs the velocity of the local advance of the wave.
It is easy to imagine zero spin in one or two directions, but it is difficult to conceive of what it means not to spin in 3 orthogonal directions. All three of those directions are time.
These three directions actually seem to fit well with the concept of spherical distribution of energy by the oscillations that are always present and continually functioning in the background.
Since everything else in the universe has spin in directions other than that field, and relative to it, quantum foam appears to be random in terms of the pair creation of virtual particles.
Good. Instead of quantum foam, I have a foundational background, composed of the lowest energy wave intersections, that oscillates with a constant frequency when no meaningful light or gravitational waves are present. When a wave enters the oscillating background, it encounters the oscillations, and that wave's rate of advance is governed by the otherwise "rest state" of the oscillations (which is nature's fastest light). Each oscillation is augmented by the increment in wave energy, and so the oscillations distribute the new energy spherically, thus augmenting or exciting the surrounding oscillations, which in turn advance the new energy further along in the oscillating background, effectively serving as the mechanism of wave advance.

There is no FTL necessary because the "at rest" oscillations expand spherically at the speed of light at nature's fasted rate, i.e., at nature's lowest level of wave energy density. Add a meaningful wave to that "field", and it advances slower than the spherical oscillations would otherwise have occurred, because the new wave increases the local energy density, and light and gravitational waves slow down relative to the increase in local energy density.

Last edited:
(which is nature's fastest light)
Contradicts Lorentz invariance. For linear propagation at speeds <= c, and for the centers of bound and unbound forms of energy, relativity dominates. It is only the spin mode of propagation that is anomalous and contains spin components that are FTL at a given radius >0.

Light doesn't come in "faster", "slower" forms as a result of time dilation. Time dilation is what rigs it so that c is invariant relative to corresponding rest frames. But time itself is fundamentally not something limited by c. Think of it this way: lengths (and also rest mass) are always measured with respect to the rest frame. Time dilation is what takes care of keeping the speed of light invariant relative to that same rest frame and with respect to any other non-rotating frame in relative linear motion or even a different gravitational potential.

The speed of light, as well as the conjugate speed of "at rest" c is relative to, is the same (±2.9979 x 10^8 meters/sec, 0 meters/sec respectively) for all inertial reference frames, regardless of relative states of motion or the local energy density of anything else. Even individual photons have a "proper" rest frame. It is the frame in which the atom of which the electron was a part was initially at rest, and which produced the photon when it transitioned energy states.

Whatever your alternative theory, relativity is not something to be lightly discarded. Either you must find a means to incorporate its assumptions or the theory is finished. To do otherwise trashes your theory before you even begin. There is no other scientific theory that has been more thoroughly verified.

Last edited: