• Razorback kitten
    117
    Waveframe Cosmology: A Speculative Framework for Reinterpreting Fundamental Physical Phenomena

    Author: John Hulbert

    Abstract

    This paper proposes Waveframe Cosmology, a conceptual model that reinterprets the foundational elements of physics—space, light, matter, and gravity—through a novel lens. Central to this framework is the assertion that the universe emerges from interactions among spatial voids and propagating waves, governed by a universal principle of least resistance. This model offers alternative explanations for phenomena such as gravitational effects, quantum interference, black hole dynamics, and cosmic evolution, diverging from mainstream theories like general relativity and the Big Bang model. While speculative and qualitative, Waveframe Cosmology aims to provide a cohesive and intuitive perspective, encouraging a reevaluation of established paradigms in physical science.

    1. Introduction

    Contemporary physics has achieved remarkable explanatory power through frameworks such as quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics. However, these theories often rely on abstract constructs—e.g., dark matter, dark energy, and spacetime curvature—that, while mathematically consistent, may obscure a more fundamental understanding of reality. Additionally, unresolved questions persist, including the nature of quantum measurement, the physical basis of singularities, and the origin of the universe itself.Waveframe Cosmology emerges as an alternative conceptual framework, prioritizing philosophical coherence over mathematical formalism. It posits that the universe's structure and dynamics can be understood through the interplay of spatial voids, wave-like disturbances, and a principle of minimal resistance. This paper outlines the core tenets of this model, explores its implications for key physical phenomena, and invites further exploration of its premises.

    2. Theoretical Framework

    2.1 The Universe as a Network of Voids

    The foundational hypothesis of Waveframe Cosmology is that the universe originates from spatial voids—regions devoid of intrinsic content. These voids are not mere absences but active participants in a dynamic system, interacting through mutual accommodation. When one void expands, adjacent voids contract, creating gradients in spatial density. This process, termed spatial differentiation, generates the conditions for emergent phenomena.Matter, in this view, is not a collection of discrete particles but a localized condensation of space itself. High-density regions form amidst a surrounding matrix of expanded space, suspended within an infinite lattice of voids. This conceptualization suggests a universe structured by contrasts in spatial density rather than by fundamental "stuff."

    2.2 Light as a Spatial Waveform

    Light occupies a primary role in Waveframe Cosmology, redefined as a continuous wave rather than a quantized entity (e.g., photons). These waves are fluctuations in spatial density, propagating through the void lattice like ripples across a fluid medium. Each luminous source—stars, quasars, or other radiant bodies—emits such waves, contributing to a cosmic tapestry of overlapping and interfering patterns.This wave-centric view posits that space is not a static container but a dynamic wavefield, actively shaped by the cumulative influence of all radiative sources. The interference of these waves underlies the apparent stability and structure of the observable universe, challenging the particle-wave duality of quantum mechanics with a purely undulatory model.

    2.3 The Principle of Least Resistance

    A unifying axiom in this framework is the Principle of Least Resistance, which asserts that all entities—spatial voids, waves, and matter—follow trajectories that minimize opposition. This principle transcends classical notions of least action or entropy, acting as an ontological driver of universal behavior. It governs phenomena across scales, from the propagation of light waves to the orbital dynamics of galaxies, ensuring that systems evolve along paths of maximal efficiency.

    3. Applications and Implications

    3.1 Reconceptualizing Gravity

    In contrast to general relativity’s spacetime curvature, Waveframe Cosmology attributes gravity to asymmetries in the spatial wavefield. Massive objects disrupt the omnidirectional flow of waves by absorbing or deflecting them, creating regions of differential wave pressure. For example, a planetary body like Earth attenuates waves from below more than from above, establishing a net downward force on nearby objects.This wave-pressure model reinterprets gravity as a push rather than a pull, arising from the collective action of countless spatial waves. It eliminates the need for a curved spacetime metric, offering a mechanistic explanation rooted in wave dynamics.

    3.2 The Structure of Matter

    Subatomic particles are reimagined as emergent nodes within the wavefield. A proton, for instance, is a stable locus of condensed space, maintained by the balanced tension of converging and diverging waves. Electrons mirror this structure in an inverse configuration, their opposite charge reflecting complementary wave patterns. Neutrons, meanwhile, serve as transient mediators within atomic nuclei, stabilizing the interplay between protons and electrons.This wave-nexus model suggests that particles are not static entities but dynamic processes, continuously sustained by interactions with the ambient wavefield. Their persistence depends on an ongoing exchange of energy with the surrounding spatial medium.

    3.3 Quantum Interference and the Double-Slit Experiment

    The double-slit experiment, a hallmark of quantum mechanics, is reframed in Waveframe Cosmology as a straightforward demonstration of wave behavior. When a spatial wave passes through dual slits, it diffracts and interferes, producing characteristic patterns on a detector. Detection does not involve wave collapse but rather a resonant interaction, where the detector extracts energy from a portion of the wave sufficient to register an event.This interpretation eliminates the need for probabilistic wave functions or many-worlds hypotheses, presenting quantum phenomena as natural consequences of wavefield dynamics.

    3.4 Black Holes as Spatial Vortices

    Black holes are reconceived as spatial vortices, formed by the convergence of intense wave flows at galactic scales. Rather than singularities of infinite density, they are regions of extreme spatial distortion, channeling matter and energy through a cyclical process. Incoming matter is disassembled by the vortex’s dynamics, its components redistributed into the broader wavefield.This model aligns with a cyclical cosmology, where black holes act as engines of both destruction and renewal, maintaining cosmic equilibrium.

    3.5 A Steady-State Cosmos

    Rejecting the Big Bang’s singular origin, Waveframe Cosmology envisions a universe without a definitive beginning. Matter emerges continuously in the low-density voids between galaxies, where stable wave configurations facilitate condensation. Simultaneously, black holes recycle existing matter, perpetuating a dynamic balance of creation and dissolution. This steady-state or cyclical model portrays the cosmos as an eternal, self-regulating system.

    4. Discussion

    Waveframe Cosmology diverges significantly from mainstream physics by prioritizing conceptual simplicity over mathematical precision. Its emphasis on voids, waves, and resistance offers a unified narrative that contrasts with the compartmentalized approaches of quantum field theory and cosmology. While lacking empirical predictions or quantitative rigor, it provides a thought-provoking alternative for phenomena that remain incompletely understood, such as dark matter’s nature or gravity’s quantum underpinnings.

    5. Conclusion

    This paper introduces Waveframe Cosmology as a speculative framework designed to inspire alternative perspectives on the universe’s fundamental nature. By redefining space, light, and matter as products of void interactions and wave dynamics, it challenges conventional assumptions and encourages a holistic reconsideration of physical reality. While not a replacement for established theories, it serves as an invitation to explore beyond current paradigms.I welcome feedback to refine and extend these ideas, fostering dialogue on the questions: What is space? What is light? What is matter?
  • T Clark
    15k
    You haven’t provided any evidence for this fundamental reworking of everything anybody knows about physics and cosmology. You don’t show in any fashion how it answers the questions you claim it does. Beyond that you claim things that are clearly not true based on what we know. For example, light is quantized, no matter how you redefine it. Light waves are not fluctuations in spatial density.
  • Razorback kitten
    117
    Light is quantised by matter, which is quantised by the density of the space its in. Matter and space are in relation to one another. If one dilated, so does the other, always giving the same fundamental measurements. Space gives space more space and together the two spaces take up less space. Unlike stuff or matter, two spaces share space and need less room.

    The evidence is everywhere.
  • T Clark
    15k
    The evidence is everywhere.Razorback kitten

    Show us. At least provide references.
  • Razorback kitten
    117


    I don't know what you want. There are a thousand references from all areas of physics and cosmology. I'm defining how I think the mechanics of all these things work. I'm not refuting the data. I'm explaining what I think is actually happening. If you don't like it or think its wrong or stupid then that's fine. I'm grateful you even read it.

    One thing I will say is; if you do consider every photon of light as a wave, and you count how many must be passing in every point in space, in justt one instance, the number is in the billions. If you consider the universe is any bigger than the observable then the number goes up exponentially. If you take the measurement over a miniscule fraction of time instead of one moment the number jumps again and if you increase the size to even the plank length then it goes up once more. I feel like that's enough action to create the entire fabric of space.
  • T Clark
    15k
    Enough. I’m done.
  • Punshhh
    3k
    I thought we’d already got there with the idea of spacetime. One point at the Big Bang inflated into a near infinite quantity of points forming a network of points, extended over space and time. With the voids between them producing a space and the interactions between them preducing time, or duration, cause and effect. Resulting in a vast space, the universe and a vast period of time. Followed by the emergence of variation forming the complexities we see before us.
  • Razorback kitten
    117
    If you can accept the entire universe began that way, with no explanation as to how, then I think it's probably wise to carry on with it. I can't accept it. I can't accept all the multiple fields that appeared from nowhere which supposedly all thing fluctuate within or black hole singularities or even space-time curvature. None of it makes sense to me, even though I accept that all the amazing mathematics that have been created to explain and predict, all work well and have pushed our technology forward. I have to let it go though. My idea of how things are just gets rejected or dismissed by anyone with enough understanding to know what I'm saying and it's ruining my mental health.
  • 180 Proof
    15.9k
    While lacking empirical predictions or quantitative rigor, [Waveframe cosmology] ....Razorback kitten
    ... is pseudoscience, thus for Einsteinian (as well as Everettian) physics the following still suffice:
    What is space?
    Three-dimensional continuum.
    What is light?
    Radiation.
    What is matter?
    Mass.

    I can't accept it. [ ... ] None of it makes sense to me ...Razorback kitten
    An appeal to personal incredulity is just denialism (E. Becker), to wit:
    The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you ... The good thing about Science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it. — Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Punshhh
    3k
    Hey man, I’m the resident mystic here (or at least the one who admits it). I know what you’re saying and have many ideas about this stuff. Ideas I couldn’t explain to the others, or if I could they’d dismiss it as wishful thinking or something like that. You have to accept that the people here are philosophers and have a way of thinking and talking about things.

    It may be more a case of them not knowing how to discuss what you are presenting in a way that’s meaningful for both them and you. Or they might think there’s just so much to unpick there that it’s just not worth even trying.

    I’m happy to discuss it, but you have to accept that I might not be able to grasp just what you are thinking, because it is a personal experience for you. But we might be able to reach some common understanding.
  • T Clark
    15k
    Hey man, I’m the resident mystic here (or at least the one who admits it). I know what you’re saying and have many ideas about this stuff. Ideas I couldn’t explain to the others, or if I could they’d dismiss it as wishful thinking or something like that. You have to accept that the people here are philoPunshhh

    This would be fine if he were presenting this as philosophy or spiritualism, but he’s presenting it as science.
  • Razorback kitten
    117
    I wrote a long and muddled account of how I think the universe works and asked chatgpt to convert it into a concise and philosophical account. Not being able to talk about any one part without it making zero sense without the rest being already explained. Added to the my own ineptitudes at good descriptive writing and a reasonably basic vocabulary for these things. So you are right and so are the others. I accept that I'm not qualified to discuss these things in the circles where they are decided, and that is fair enough.

    Thanks you for your kind words.
  • Punshhh
    3k
    No worries, people around here are always willing to help. Although as I say, the consensus tends to follow what is accepted by academic philosophy. There are other schools and religions that see it differently, so it’s not necessarily decided
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.