# An Alternative to Yaldon Theory: A Wave Particle Suggestion

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.
I know where you are coming from, and on the surface, my model is quite alternative. I use a concept of the "wave energy density of space" as part of a mechanistic explanation for what the mainstream model calls the curvature of spacetime. I understand curvature to be mathematically quantified but not explained mechanistically. Is that still true?

Relativity, in regard to motion between two frames, is very much a part of my version, but what you call Lorentz transformation is replaced by the difference in the velocity of light at different wave energy densities, meaning that light will not cover the same distance in a given time when the wave energy density differs. Relavite motion causes a difference in the local wave energy density of the two frames.

The wave energy density model invokes a background in all space composed of wave energy traveling at the local speed of light from all directions, in all places. The wave fronts have a moving presence; a location in space at all times. In many respects, our present concept of the cosmic microwave background has some similarities to that concept. It is not the same as invoking absoute space, but it invokes a background of wave energy coming and going in all directions, at all points in space.

I have mentioned that the source of the wave energy that is traversing space is from matter; particles, and objects composed of particles. Also, I mentioned the concept that the presence of matter is sustained by inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, and the out flow from matter is the wave energy that fills all space. It is also the inflowing wave energy to other particles and objects. That is a concept that is only partially recognized in GR. It is recognized to the extent that the predicted gravitational waves of GR have been detected. My concept is simply that every particle and object emits those gravitational waves, but they are usually of such low energy that they cannot be detected by interferometers.

It is also worth mentioning that particles and objects "contain" wave energy at vastly higher densities than the space between them. The idea is that when the inflowing wave energy enters the particle space, its velocity is greatly slowed relative to its velocity in open space because of the high wave energy density within particles. That change in velocity is variable, relative to the local wave energy density, so particles can contain more energy when they are accelerated relative to the background, and to each other. That is because when there is relative motion, the inflow becomes more directional. Directional inflow increases its energy relative to energy from any other direction because wave energy always has location and relative velocity. That concept is similar to how objects moving relative to the CMBR will heat up.

I go into speculating and hypothesizing about the "how" of the wave energy density model in order to begin the conversation about the mechanics at the micro level. But note that within the same model, I address the mechanics at the macro level as well; macro being in terms of massive objects composed of large numbers of particles, and of galaxies and Big Bang arenas, as opposed to particles themselves. The mechanics are strikingly similar at both levels, which I have mentioned a few times.

I have also mentioned that there is a version of quantum gravity in the model and have explained how it works, invoking the momentary high energy spots at the convergence of gravitational energy waves. That has not been acknowledged in our discussion, so it must be viewed to have no merit.

If you maintain that there is no merit to the idea that there is a variable wave energy density in space, and that the local wave energy density governs the velocity of light and gravitational waves through space, you might want to say so, lol. I almost remember you agreeing with that concept in regard to the rate that identical clocks measure the passing of time at different rates in different wave energy density environments.

In any respect, I have alternatives to what you invoke, and to say the alternatives contradict your view isn't giving me much to go on, other than stimulating me to repeat myself; which is boring, I know.

Last edited:
I almost remember you agreeing with that concept in regard to the rate that identical clocks measure the passing of time at different rates in different wave energy density environments.

In any respect, I have alternatives to what you invoke, and to say the alternatives contradict your view isn't giving me much to go on, other than stimulating me to repeat myself; which is boring, I know.

A clock of any sort compares proportions of the velocity of something to the velocity of something else, and in relativity, that something else is the speed of light. But the speed of light is not the same thing as time, or even the fastest velocity in the universe, but it is an invariant whereas time dilation is not only not invariant, but is even different for particles of different energy densities. If the centers of those particles are at rest relative to each other, the time dilations at their centers may be the same, but time dilation must exist for their energy to be bound and for the particles to persist in the first place.

The gravity waves just discovered are far to weak to play much of a role in quantum dynamics, in the vacuum or elsewhere. Spatial jiggling <1/1000 the diameter of a proton when black holes tens of solar masses merge isn't going to do very much to hold atomic structure together, much less cause an inverse square law gravitational field. Besides which, have you tried to apply your model to explain the force hierarchy problem?

A clock of any sort compares proportions of the velocity of something to the velocity of something else, and in relativity, that something else is the speed of light. But the speed of light is not the same thing as time, or even the fastest velocity in the universe, but it is an invariant whereas time dilation is not only not invariant, but is even different for particles of different energy densities. If the centers of those particles are at rest relative to each other, the time dilations at their centers may be the same, but time dilation must exist for their energy to be bound and for the particles to persist in the first place.

The gravity waves just discovered are far to weak to play much of a role in quantum dynamics, in the vacuum or elsewhere. Spatial jiggling <1/1000 the diameter of a proton when black holes tens of solar masses merge isn't going to do very much to hold atomic structure together, much less cause an inverse square law gravitational field. Besides which, have you tried to apply your model to explain the force hierarchy problem?
It is helpful to have someone look at my ideas critically and give me useful feed back. You have given me some things to consider, and to look into, and some reasons to go back to the drawing board, lol. Thanks for the help.

It is helpful to have someone look at my ideas critically and give me useful feed back. You have given me some things to consider, and to look into, and some reasons to go back to the drawing board, lol. Thanks for the help.

My pleasure. I assure you, I have not worked out every detail out either. Mine also has holes, and thanks for your feedback on those as well. It was so unbelievably difficult to completely purge the idea of space from my universe of time and energy, but worth it I think.

Minkowski in particular could not bring himself to completely purge Euclidean ideas from relativistic geometry involving time and ONLY time. But he did very well with all of the concepts he used, even if it logically made no sense that time in any reference frame should stop at the speed of light. It doesn't. Spin is why.

Spin is also the fundamental reason inertia exists and E=mc^2. A photon has inertia in a single direction, but a particle of matter has inertia in every direction at once. I think the coupling between linear propagation and spin may also be the key to the hierarchy problem, because quantum spin and linear propagation of energy only interact reluctantly by means of entanglement. There are degrees of entanglement, hence the mechanism of force differential. Spin energy from the quantum foam in a gravitational field bleeds off gradually into the matter it is imparting linear inertia to by means of the Higgs mechanism. The vacuum quantum foam cannot impart spin energy to provide inertia to matter without coupling some of it back into the vacuum itself near large gravitating bodies. Force always acts in pairs, even for spin inertia. This provides the direction in which objects fall linearly in a gravitational field, and also explains why that force is so weak compared to other forces.

This also solves the riddle of dark matter.

Last edited:
My pleasure. I assure you, I have not worked out every detail out either. Mine also has holes, and thanks for your feedback on those as well. It was so unbelievably difficult to completely purge the idea of space from my universe of time and energy, but worth it I think.

Minkowski in particular could not bring himself to completely purge Euclidean ideas from relativistic geometry involving time and ONLY time. But he did very well with all of the concepts he used, even if it logically made no sense that time in any reference frame should stop at the speed of light. It doesn't. Spin is why.

Spin is also the fundamental reason inertia exists and E=mc^2. A photon has inertia in a single direction, but a particle of matter has inertia in every direction at once. I think the coupling between linear propagation and spin may also be the key to the hierarchy problem, because quantum spin and linear propagation of energy only interact reluctantly by means of entanglement. There are degrees of entanglement, hence the mechanism of force differential. Spin energy from the quantum foam in a gravitational field bleeds off gradually into the matter it is imparting linear inertia to by means of the Higgs mechanism. The vacuum quantum foam cannot impart spin energy to provide inertia to matter without coupling some of it back into the vacuum itself near large gravitating bodies. Force always acts in pairs, even for spin inertia. This provides the direction in which objects fall linearly in a gravitational field, and also explains why that force is so weak compared to other forces.

This also solves the riddle of dark matter.
I remember my early learning about cosmology. It focused on Big Bang Theory, General Relativity, and Inflation from a layman view point. It was all about what we could observe and what we could discern about the physical universe from those observations and data. As a science enthusiast, one can't help but get into generally accepted theory, scientific observations, the history of science going back to Einstein's days, and the classical science that was popular in those days.

The hot topics I remember on various science forums, when I started looking in the early 2000's, were about inconsistencies between GR and QM, problems with mainstream theories, and observations that were not yet understood, like dark energy, dark matter, or explanations that seemed contrived such as the source of the CMB, and discussions on and about interpretations of what we observe back in time over 13 billion years of expansion.

In all of that time it never occurred to me to take space out of the equation. Give me a little insight on what observations and data you have to support such an approach; why you are intent on doing that. Convince me there is something to it.

Minkowski's definition of an interval is predicated on time proportional to sqrt (-c) so that it does not mix with the other three linear dimensions and is always positive (not the same thing as prohibiting traveling backward in time, but close).

But lengths (ALL THREE OF THEM) are the same as light travel time, can be expressed in light travel time, in all cases, in all directions. To treat three directions as spatial and one as temporal-complex is inconsistent.

It isn't that Minkowski's formulation is no good for velocities <=c. It very much works, but c cannot be the basis of time itself. Try this thought experiment. Start with a linearly polarized photon of light, and pass it through a quarter wave plate so that it becomes circularly polarized. Now posit that it propagates at or very close to the speed of light in a vacuum and try to square that with the idea that for something traveling at c, time itself stops. What exactly happens to the circular polarization, then? Does it "stop" as well? NO, it doesn't. Not in any reference frame, including the one of the photon itself. It can't. The polarization would disappear, or else it would become linear again.

Secondly, the whole idea of a Euclidean solid derives of bound energy and entanglement. If one corner of a brick has electrons that are paired and entangled, and the opposing corner of the same brick has electrons that are paired and entangled, and the chemical solid remains a solid, then the distance between them is "set in stone", right? Wrong. Lengths defined by solids or space defined only by inertia are as squishy and indeterminate as the energy of that brick when throwing it through a chalkboard at rest scrawled with Euclidean geometrical proofs. It Lorentz contracts the dimensions of the solid brick based on relative state of motion, even though the speed of light remains a constant in all inertial frames regardless of relative state of motion. It is the rate of the passage of time that changes, and this is reflected in the Lorentz contractions of the electron clouds surrounding atomic structure, the structure itself, and even the electrons and their respective electric fields.

Lengths are simply light travel time. No other interpretation is meaningful. But even the speed of light is relative to something. That something is ±c, in opposing directions, for any inertial reference frame. Quantum spin has the same sort of reference frame in terms of spin zero, but for some reason, this idea seems all but forgotten in 21st century physics.

NO VECTOR OR TENSOR ADDITION other than ±c will make any sense in relativistic geometry. It can't. There's no such thing as a fixed coordinate system anywhere in space (light travel time). All energy density is relative to other concentrations of energy density.

Thirdly, simultenaeity exists in terms of events like quantum entanglement spin flips. This runs afoul of Minkowski's edict that no two events separated by light travel time are simultaneous in this universe. In a universe of events where the speed of light is the fastest velocity possible, this would be true, but that is not this universe. In this universe, quantum spin is faster than linear propagation of light or the relative velocities of bound energy that is matter.

And so after some moderation on sciforums about Minkowski's contributions to relativity, I finally dispensed with the idea of space altogether. I don't miss it or need it. The only absolute space is the centers of bound particles of energy. The only absolute time is the instant of now. Everywhere else, time dilates to make entanglement and bound energy possible and space does not even exist or is of no consequence physically.

Last edited:
Minkowski's definition of an interval is predicated on time proportional to sqrt (-c) so that it does not mix with the other three linear dimensions and is always positive (not the same thing as prohibiting traveling backward in time, but close).

But lengths (ALL THREE OF THEM) are the same as light travel time, can be expressed in light travel time, in all cases, in all directions. To treat three directions as spatial and one as temporal-complex is inconsistent.
Not to me. In fact, when young and growing up, without any formal training in physics or cosmology, the concepts of space in three dimensions, and time simply passing, were natural perceptions; apparent reality.

This is where theorists who advocate spacetime or other unintuitive theories say that reality need not be logically apparent on the surface, and unless you are well trained in the depths of physics theory, you won't even know how wrong you are to think of space and time like a child does. They point to the learned version of the invariant natural laws, but they will agree that they probably don't know enough yet about the whole set of those laws to speak conclusively.

Before we can understand the invariant laws and appreciate spacetime, or Minkowski space, or curved/stretched space, or the vacuum, or nothingness, or any other type of space and time theory that doesn't meld things together seamlessly, I am not motivated to abandon my childhood friends of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. All I feel compelled to do is add an energy solution to the equation, with the conviction that everything works together, and energy density in the local space is my favorite prescription for things that don't work together.

I know that comes off as ignorant to the learned theorist/mathematician who knows that one man's apparent reality is another mans example of ignorance, but like you and I do, no matter where you are coming from, you will have to reach the point of acknowledging inconsistencies between the main theories and their incompleteness. I think most people who argue theory on a science forum are far enough along in their understanding to appreciate the tentativeness of science.
It isn't that Minkowski's formulation is no good for velocities <=c. It very much works, but c cannot be the basis of time itself.
Agreed.
Try this thought experiment. Start with a linearly polarized photon of light, and pass it through a quarter wave plate so that it becomes circularly polarized. Now posit that it propagates at or very close to the speed of light in a vacuum and try to square that with the idea that for something traveling at c, time itself stops. What exactly happens to the circular polarization, then? Does it "stop" as well? NO, it doesn't. Not in any reference frame, including the one of the photon itself. It can't. The polarization would disappear, or else it would become linear again.
Let's come back to that when we agree on space, vs. our individual preferred realities, lol.
Secondly, the whole idea of a Euclidean solid derives of bound energy and entanglement. If one corner of a brick has electrons that are paired and entangled, and the opposing corner of the same brick has electrons that are paired and entangled, and the chemical solid remains a solid, then the distance between them is "set in stone", right?
Lol.
Wrong. Lengths defined by solids or space defined only by inertia are as squishy and indeterminate as the energy of that brick when throwing it through a chalkboard at rest scrawled with Euclidean geometrical proofs. It Lorentz contracts the dimensions of the solid brick based on relative state of motion, even though the speed of light remains a constant in all inertial frames regardless of relative state of motion. It is the rate of the passage of time that changes, and this is reflected in the Lorentz contractions of the electron clouds surrounding atomic structure, the structure itself, and even the electrons and their respective electric fields.
Ok, you can take that perspective and make the ends seem to meet I suppose, but the variable is forced into the rate that time passes. What governs the rate that time passes? It is the energy density of the local frame in which the clock is functioning, which is my prescription applied.
Lengths are simply light travel time. No other interpretation is meaningful. But even the speed of light is relative to something. That something is ±c, in opposing directions, for any inertial reference frame.
True, but there is a spherical nature to light that enters the equation, so +/-c goes in all directions and each direction has a different solution, depending on the energy density along the different path.
Quantum spin has the same sort of reference frame in terms of spin zero, but for some reason, this idea seems all but forgotten in 21st century physics.

NO VECTOR OR TENSOR ADDITION other than ±c will make any sense in relativistic geometry. It can't. There's no such thing as a fixed coordinate system anywhere in space (light travel time). All energy density is relative to other concentrations of energy density.
We didn't finish my education on spin. I acknowledged it from my uneducated perspective, as the theoretical cause of an observation that a particle, passing through a shaped magnetic field, will curve up or down relative to its spin on the axis measured. I don't understand the mechanistic physics behind that theory. I can imagine mechanics that might make a particle do that, but it is from a whole different perspective on the nature of a wave-particle, and the internal wave energy composition of the particle, in relation to the magnetic field.
Thirdly, simultenaeity exists in terms of events like quantum entanglement spin flips. This runs afoul of Minkowski's edict that no two events separated by light travel time are simultaneous in this universe. In a universe of events where the speed of light is the fastest velocity possible, this would be true, but that is not this universe. In this universe, quantum spin is faster than linear propagation of light or the relative velocities of bound energy that is matter.
That is something else we should come back to after we reconcile our individual perspectives on a preferred reality in regard to space.
And so after some moderation on sciforums about Minkowski's contributions to relativity, I finally dispensed with the idea of space altogether. I don't miss it or need it. The only absolute space is the centers of bound particles of energy. The only absolute time is the instant of now. Everywhere else, time dilates to make entanglement and bound energy possible and space does not even exist or is of no consequence physically.
Thanks for bringing me that bad news. Now all I have to do is change my entire understanding of the universe, so we can have the same preferred view of reality. Are you sure we can't just apply the energy density prescription when we come to anything I don't yet understand, lol.

Last edited:
...

Minkowski in particular could not bring himself to completely purge Euclidean ideas from relativistic geometry involving time and ONLY time. But he did very well with all of the concepts he used, even if it logically made no sense that time in any reference frame should stop at the speed of light. It doesn't. Spin is why.
If I understand that paragraph, your are reporting that Minkowski supposed that time in a reference frame could come to a stop in a given circumstance; that circumstance occurs when the reference frame is theoretically moving at the speed of light, relative to the rest frame. Instead, you conclude that time cannot stop in that circumstance, and the reasons it doesn't is that spin does not stop, and where there is spin, there is time passing. Do I have that right?

You are invoking a FTL nature to spin, relative to the linear motion of the frame, either because angular motion must be incremental to the linear motion, or because spin is independent of linear motion, correct?

So, Minkowski would say that if it were possible for an object to move at the speed of light relative to a rest frame, theoretically time would stop for that object, but instead, you suggest that time does not stop in that circumstance, and the reason it doesn't is that spin does not stop, and where there is spin, there is time passing.

If that is the case, then if a particle with spin can approach the speed of light, and therefore time slows for that particle, even stops if the particle theoretically reaches the local speed of light, the particle must have some meaningful composition characteristics to enable that.

An attempt to describe a particle in a way that it can have relative linear motion, and at the same time can have spin that occurs in that inertial frame at FTL:

Let's take an electron. The electron that has the capability to emit a photon at the speed of light must have some specific characteristics, i.e., some aspect of the greater electron must exist that is already traveling at the speed of light relative to the center of the electron's space, or at least relative to the point of photon emission.

Light speed action within the electron's particle space, whether that space is a wave energy cloud around a nucleus, or light speed wave action within the electron boundary, must exist in order for a photon to be emitted at the speed of light, I suppose. Do you support so too?

We are not assuming any acceleration of the photon, but instead assuming that it is in an inertial frame of its own, traveling linearly at the speed of light relative to the point of emission.

So back to the electron characteristics; given that an electron has spin that is independent of its own linear motion, then the spin would be relative to the center of the electron's particle space, and the linear motion would be relative to the point somewhere in the energy cloud that the electron orbits in. At least a partial picture then is that Spin is a characteristic of the whole particle, and linear motion being a characteristic of any portion of the particle that can subsequently be emitted as a photon. There would remain much more to the electron after photon emission, and that larger remaining portion would look very much like the electron looked before it emitted the photon, but with less energy. Is there any merit to that thinking?

If so, then I would propose that an electron that is occupying a cloud that contains its orbit is made of inflowing wave energy into the particle space, and that energy is continually outflowing from the particle space just as fast, leaving the "contained" energy that represents its mass in that space at all times, until the environment experiences an increase in energy, and that increase in energy of the electron will be sluffed off in the form of a photon, exiting the scene at the speed of light.

My explanation for the nature of the contained energy that makes up the presence and mass of the electron in its particle space at any instant, is the higher energy density that would exist as the inflowing waves converge and overlap, giving the particle space a much higher energy density than the surrounding space.

Last edited:
If I understand that paragraph, your are reporting that Minkowski supposed that time in a reference frame could come to a stop in a given circumstance; that circumstance occurs when the reference frame is theoretically moving at the speed of light, relative to the rest frame. Instead, you conclude that time cannot stop in that circumstance, and the reasons it doesn't is that spin does not stop, and where there is spin, there is time passing. Do I have that right?

Correct. And even if you and everything around you is moving at, say, 0.99999999 c relative to some cosmologically distant object, you don't notice anything different around you. The speed of light measures exactly the same here, or even in that cosmologically distant galaxy. The laws of physics including the speed of light in a vacuum are the same, and no experiment you can perform can demonstrate any absolute motion relative to an all pervading aether.

You are invoking a FTL nature to spin, relative to the linear motion of the frame, either because angular motion must be incremental to the linear motion, or because spin is independent of linear motion, correct?

Partially correct. I postulate that counter-rotating bound energy elements of matter, particularly if they were quantum entangled, are the element of the structure of matter that is, for all intents and purposes, faster at rotating at a radius r than light propagates in a straight line. There are dozens of reasons to think this is the case, and entanglement is probably the best one, but if you need another, consider what happens in the case mentioned in the above paragraph. You and everything around you are traveling in a certain direction at c. If all of the quantum spin component(s) of matter propagated linearly in a direction that was diametrically opposite to the direction of relative motion, in that instant matter itself would be undone. Since this doesn't happen, then the quantum spin must be a composite form of propagation. Once you have pushed it in one direction as close as you can get to c with the available energy, there are still an infinitude of directions you can push it harder and store even more "kinetic" energy in the structure, relatively speaking, of course. This simply says that there is no theoretical limit to the kinetic energy that can be stored in relative motion, even if motion in a straight line is limited by c. That kinetic energy is the relativistic mass increase that causes so much controversy for relativity deniers.

Let's take an electron. The electron that has the capability to emit a photon at the speed of light must have some specific characteristics, i.e., some aspect of the greater electron must exist that is already traveling at the speed of light relative to the center of the electron's space, or at least relative to the point of photon emission.

I'm saying that parts of the electron fine structure must be propagating FTL or else it could not interact with a photon. And don't forget that an electron also interacts with, and derives its own inertia from the Higgs mechanism. And Higgs gets some spin back from the electron as well. How much spin? What ever is left over between the limits of ±1/2 (the paired electron's spin) and zero, or zero with a slight quantum spin offset, in the case of the Higgs boson. This is a bigger deal than most realize. A Higgs boson is a 125 times more massive than an electron and so much heavier than that photon, its effect would be difficult to impossible to ignore. And you can't. A brick or chunk of rock containing electrons bound in atomic structures drops, well, like a rock. That leftover spin in the quantum field is what gives it a push toward the geometrical (light travel time) center of a nearby gravitating object which has inertia imparted to it by means of the same mechanism.

Conservation of quantum spin allows the electrons on the surfaces of plane mirrors to reflect in a regular way, and also optics including polarization to work the way it does. If spin conservation did not work that way, that monitor you are viewing this message on wouldn't work either.

An attempt to describe a particle in a way that it can have relative linear motion, and at the same time can have spin that occurs in that inertial frame at FTL:

Exactly.

Spin is a characteristic of the whole particle, and linear motion being a characteristic of any portion of the particle that can subsequently be emitted as a photon.

Linear motion, and the relative dynamics associated with it, are always referenced to the geometric center of the particle, where time dilation is lowest. Not just lowest, but exactly the same as the time dilation of the rest frame of any atom the electron may be associated with. This is the only sort of "absolute" space there is, and notice that I do not even describe it as space that is unique in any manner other than its rate of time dilation. There is no such thing as "space", outside of the context of light travel time. Space without energy has no net inertia. Quantum foam may possess virtual energy, and this virtual energy may even have net spin, but this will not avail any kind of perpetual motion (unless you wish to think of atomic structure as a kind of perpetual motion), even though the force of gravity derives of it.

We now know for certain that atomic structure derives the forces which bind it together from the energy of the vacuum. Is this "perpetual motion", or "perpetual lack of motion"? Atomic structure is dynamic, is it not? It requires energy to bind it together, and that energy, or some of that energy, seems to derive of the vacuum. What sort of physics is this? Is energy still conserved in all cases? How would anyone know if it wasn't?

Exactly how much energy is in the vacuum? Estimates vary on the order of 10^116 or 116 orders of magnitude, which defines perfectly what is not science. We are trying to remedy that idea as well. If the spin energy of the quantum foam is neglected, you will get only one sort of answer to the question of the Vacuum Expectation Value; the WRONG one. Near large gravitating bodies, the spin energy of the quantum foam can be very high; easily equivalent to the mass of the gravitating body. Solves what Dark Matter is very easily, doesn't it? Didn't even need a collider, did we?

Last edited:

In your responses, you referenced counter rotating bound energy elements of matter, particularly with entanglement, conceivably faster rotating at a radius r than light propagates in a straight line.

I understand why you say that, though I have an alternative explanation that doesn't produce FTL in the local frame; it is a question of a reference frame against which the surface rotation is measured.

I think about "Newton's bucket" debate in regard to rotating objects requiring a reference frame against which to measure the rotation, in order to explain the phenomenon of the water creeping up the side of the rotating bucket, while the bucket itself has no particular linear motion. That was solved by referring to General Relativity, i.e., to the curvature of spacetime, caused by the presence of a distant dome of evenly distributed mass, far removed from the bucket, but never-the-less, providing the reference frame. That reference frame was referred to as the dome of the "fixed stars", but was not a reference in any way to absolute space, just a reference to a gravitational influence. That works at the macro level, but not at the quantum level.

Similarly, your scenario relates to gyroscopes where the outer rim must be traveling much faster than the center part. Taken to extremes, there is a radius where the surface at the outer rim could be shown mathematically to be traveling faster than light; dizzying, lol.

But FTL is not required in either example if you consider there to be both a wave nature and a particle nature to all particles in the quantum realm, and consider the reference frame against which to measure the rate of rotation to be the immediate boundary of the wave-particle. The operative immediate boundary is relative to the point of contact between the particle boundary, and the inflowing gravitational wave fronts. The relative motion at any point on the surface is measured only against the directional inflow, a vector, of the inflowing wave energy component of the particle at each such individual boundary point. Of course, I'm talking about my own "preferred reality".

In that wave-particle model, the solution to the gravitational field frame of reference would only include the immediate surrounding wave energy at the surface where the inflowing wave energy encounters the particle (or object). The gravitational influence would be extremely local and would have as many different directional options from point to point as there are different sets of directional +/-c vectors for any given particle; an infinite number.

Given that premise, which I am willing to defend with a deeper level of action mechanics, your scenario does raise a valid issue with regard to the internal stress within the bound particle (or among particles bound within an object). The net effect of the stress throughout the bound structure would reveal that, as a whole, there was a counter influence to equalize the individual surface stress points, so that there was no net stress across the whole particle surface. That is based on the premise of a wave-particle where the internal wave energy is continually experiencing wave energy density equalization, a part of the quantum action process that establishes the location and motion of a particle.

There would be no point at the surface/boundary that would exceed the speed of light because the motion at any point has a point like frame of reference where the only independent measurable is the inflow coming directionally to the particle at the local speed of light.

Note, that if the particle surface rotates relative to "the fixed stars", then you would be right, there would be FTL aspects of particles whether or not there was some entanglement. But in fact, I don't even understand the concept of spin if the rotation of the surface is included in the explanation. Spin to me is isolated to a particular axis that is determined by a magnetic moment of the particle as a whole, relative to a fixed magnetic field. So you see, I still don't understand spin in the context that you are using it.

Feel free to explain how you describe spin relative to the composition of a particle, and throw in your description of the characteristics of a particle that displays spin if you want to help me clear up my lack of understanding.

Last edited:
Spin to me is isolated to a particular axis that is determined by a magnetic moment of the particle as a whole, relative to a fixed magnetic field. So you see, I still don't understand spin in the context that you are using it.

Doubt it (that spin is isolated to a single axis). It wouldn't make sense other than for a photon in fact. Electroweak bosons in particular are known to have even more degrees of freedom in which to spin, but even something as commonplace as electrons must have composite spin (not the same as something like quarks) in order to behave as they do. Think of atomic structure. Paired entangled electrons have half integer spin. The proton has spin, as does the nucleus. I doubt these atomic particles would all have the same axis of spin all the time (because more than paired electrons would need to be entangled), and this pattern of spin dynamics no doubt extends to much smaller scales. The instrumentation needed to take our knowledge of quantum spin down another level is only now beginning to emerge. I have no idea what they will find. I'm only providing a template and an impetus for someone to investigate it at a deeper level experimentally and theoretically. It won't be understood with anything like Euclidean geometry. Of that much, I am convinced.

Doubt it (that spin is isolated to a single axis). It wouldn't make sense other than for a photon in fact. Electroweak bosons in particular are known to have even more degrees of freedom in which to spin, but even something as commonplace as electrons must have composite spin (not the same as something like quarks) in order to behave as they do. Think of atomic structure. Paired entangled electrons have half integer spin. The proton has spin, as does the nucleus. I doubt these atomic particles would all have the same axis of spin all the time (because more than paired electrons would need to be entangled), and this pattern of spin dynamics no doubt extends to much smaller scales. The instrumentation needed to take our knowledge of quantum spin down another level is only now beginning to emerge. I have no idea what they will find. I'm only providing a template and an impetus for someone to investigate it at a deeper level experimentally and theoretically. It won't be understood with anything like Euclidean geometry. Of that much, I am convinced.
This link is helpful in regard to quantum mechanics spin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-½ for a layman level description.

My quantum action process doesn't have a section on spin, and my layman approach to quantum gravity never developed beyond the simple quantum action mechanics of particle interaction, location and motion, which has the micro level mechanics internally consistent with my model at the macro level. But then, the wave-particle mechanics I have hypothesized is nothing like the particles in the standard model of particle physics either.

Maybe this thread and our exchanges can motivate me to further my understanding of what quantum spin is mechanistically, and to gain some insight into your posts.

Helpful link to spin and spinors, but this section is strictly lol:

"RQM (relativistic quantum mechanics)Edit
While NRQM defines spin 1/2 with 2 dimensions in Hilbert space with dynamics that are described in 3-dimensional space and time, RQM define the spin with 4 dimensions in Hilbert space and dynamics described by 4-dimensional space-time."

3-dimensional Euclidean space does not physically exist in this universe, and is certainly not a candidate model for describing relativistic composite quantum spin. Time dilation has to be built into the model, yet it seems either nowhere to be found, or lost in some mathematicians fevered dream about "space" somehow being akin to a Euclidean solid.

What is really remarkable is that the Higgs boson has a composite or net spin of zero in all directions at once. This would mean that EVERY quantum spin component is counterbalanced with a spin component in the opposite sense. This boson is an excitation of the Higgs field, so these only come out to play if there is a particle of matter to which it must impart inertia. The details of this mechanism have yet to be completely worked out, obviously, but there was a definite need for the prediction of such a particle, without which, atomic structure itself has no underpinnings to hold it all together. Coupling quantum spin to the vacuum just explains too much to let it go. Space as a whole, or rather, the quantum field of light travel time in which particles play doesn't have a net spin. That's why. Vector relationships, even and especially ones involving spin only make sense relativistically if there is a relative spin zero equivalent to the rest frame in linear relativistic mechanics. Vector addition of equal and opposite still works in both cases, regardless of nominal magnitude <= c in the case of linear, or even > c in the case of quantum entanglement / spin.

If a wheel or a ball could roll in every direction on the ground at once, what would be its rate of rotation? What would be its velocity? Its energy? This is the equivalent question for particles of matter propagating in timespace. At least, we all understand what it's rest energy is. Or do we? Is it all in the mass defined by atomic structure, or is some of its energy a part of the local vacuum energy/ quantum foam?

Miles Mathis has pointed out that relativity doesn't really have a velocity transform. The clock postulate, together with the idea that entanglement is really the fastest 'velocity' in the universe, is why. Vector relativistic addition of velocities doesn't really work except for equal and opposite ones necessary to constructing a rest frame, so don't bother.

Last edited:
I find it like going down a rabbit hole, trying to piece together the randomness and uncertainty in the fundamentals of the present quantum mechanics, and then syncing them to something so precise as quantum gravity. Quantum gravity is logically the result of a quantum action process that employs local wave energy density and quantum wave action, governed by limits and thresholds in the invariant wave energy density laws of nature.

Trying to make the randomness and uncertainty that I read about in quantum mechanics theory, work to the precise demands of the reality that is present at the micro level of nature, is like repeatedly throwing a thousand dice and expecting them to all come up sixes, every time.

With that I'll close out my Alternative to the Yaldon thread, and return to the ISU .

I think you're doing fine.

The probabilities in quantum mechanics are there mainly because relativity's prohibition of velocities <= c, and this produced many results that were zero, including and especially those having to do with time. When you attempt to do proportional relationships with those, you get infinities all over the map, and so to fend off such problems before they happened, statistical physics stopped it cold by insisting on asking only the questions for which the only answers were likely to be probabilities between 0 and 1, and so proportions requiring division by zero or near zero are simply ignored. This is chiefly how the variable representing time was purged completely from quantum mechanics. It's brilliant, actually, but it still feels like something is missing in the analysis. Carroll, Smolin, and others have written extensively on this theme: "From Eternity to Here", and "Time Reborn". Neither of these books were very popular, but I thought they were fairly engaging to read.

I for one believe that it's time for time to be put back into physics. Inertia and energy literally cannot exist without it. A description of a universe of time and energy transfer events means almost nothing without a more concise understanding of both. Entanglement may have important probabilities associated with it, but it is anything but random. It is the very heart of the definition of absolute certainty.

Whatever is left when time is removed from a description of nature isn't exactly physics. I don't recognize what it is. It's more of a game.

Last edited:
I think you're doing fine.

...

Whatever is left when time is removed from a description of nature isn't exactly physics. I don't recognize what it is. It's more of a game.
I have responded to this post over in the current ISU thread. See you there ...