Fractal Foam Model of Universes

[Phractal Phoam Phil]

If you begin with an expanding foam, bubbles will pop, radiating longitudinal pressures waves (p-waves). The pressure waves interact with random variations of foam density to produce transverse shear waves (s-waves). The p-waves impart momentum to the s-waves, causing attractive and repulsive forces between pairs of s-waves. Certain attractive forces cause S-waves to orbit one another; this forms a fundamental particle, converting the energy of the s-waves to the rest mass of the particle. Each type of particle is a strange attractor in the chaotic mix of s-waves and p-waves. Particles are surrounded by spinning fields of p-wave flux density, which produce additional types of forces among the particles, such as the strong force, electroweak, gravity, etc.

The rest is pretty well known. Higher order strange attractors include, atoms, solar systems, and the expanding cosmic foam, which brings us back where we began.

The cosmic foam of our universe is the ether foam of a super-universe, and the ether foam of our universe is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe. These are just three in an infinite sequence of universes.

It's explained in more detail at my website: Fractal Foam Model of Universes.

[Phractal Phoam Phil]

This post is transplanted from FractalWoman's "meet&greet" thread, Fractal Cosmology:

@phractal phoam

Historical note:
In the early stages of developing my model, I thought the momentum imparted to blobs might stir up the ether, causing the blobs to migrate thru the foam. I thought blobs, themselves, were fundamental particles. I also thought some blobs caused fission and fusion of p-waves of specific energies. This might not be entirely wrong, so anyone seeking to improve upon the model might occasionally reexamine those bits of film from the cutting room floor.

Yes, a photon is an s-wave, and the ether is a solid. As James Clerk Maxwell said, over a century ago, if there is an ether, it must be a solid, because electromagnetic waves are transverse, and only a solid can be a medium for transverse waves. The term “solid” has nothing to do with lack of emptiness; if it did, there would be no such thing. Every solid is mostly empty space; sheer strength is what makes it solid. Even though each ether-foam bubble is mostly empty subspace, the tiny fraction that is filled with sub-universe matter has a tremendous amount of inertia. The waves that carry soooo much energy in our universe scarcely wiggle the sub-universe galaxies; the amplitude is probably a tiny fraction of a Planck length. Conceivably, a sub-universe galaxy might have as much inertial mass as the equivalent galaxy in our universe. One cubic meter of the ether foam might have a googol times more inertial mass than all the galaxies and dark matter in our known universe. The ether has no gravitational mass because it is the medium of gravity.

This is a Quote from your website.

From it i learn one important thing which is that solid as a phase refers to a rigid lattice structure and not to an impenitrable mono substance. The phase changes that occur then relate to the dissolution of this lattice structure and the increasing improbability of any two given regions being associable by any linear rule. Those regions that do remain associable reflect a electrostatic /gravitational relationship that also inhere certain chemical and physical properties. However at even greater phase change conditions these associations become improbable and regions are involved in an electrostatic/gravitational plasma dynamic which may be amenable to gas law /thermodynamic principles.

While these phase changes may seem random or chaotic i have ahunch that they are linked to what i call conic sectional curves/motion ands that general wave motion may be linked through conic sections to vorticular motions in general.

Whereas i see no particular need for the term ether seeing it as congruent in every way with the term space i have no objection to it and recognise its historical significance and the information earlier scientists have encoded with it.

So if i understand what you describe by it : our universe is a foam filled bubble within a foam filled super bubble?

[Phractal Phoam Phil]

Whereas i see no particular need for the term ether seeing it as congruent in every way with the term space i have no objection to it and recognise its historical significance and the information earlier scientists have encoded with it.

So if i understand what you describe by it : our universe is a foam filled bubble within a foam filled super bubble?

"Ether" is a generic term for the medium of light, sometimes called the "luminiferous ether" to avoid ambiguty. In my model, it is the medium of all the forces, waves and particles that make up our universe. Those who loudly proclaim, "There is no ether!" are saying that the mathematical description of a wave is an adequate substitute for a substantive medium.

I prefer to believe that every universe in the scale-wise succession is infinite in spacial extent. Whether universes come and go in a finite time seems less certain. A bubble in our cosmic foam consists of a void, perhaps 10^24 meters across, surrounded by walls made of hundreds or thousands of galaxies. There are perhaps one million such bubbles within our observable universe (Hubble sphere) which is about 10^26 meters across. I think that hubble shpere is an infinitessimally small part of what I call our universe. A super-universe electron is about a trillion times wider than our Hubble sphere.

[jehovajah]

Those who loudly proclaim, "There is no ether!" are saying that the mathematical description of a wave is an adequate substitute for a substantive medium.

If i understand you, you are essentially saying that you cannot accept a non substantive conception of "space". I would go further and note that this is in fact a cultural thing and limited to a few abstract philosophers of influence in the western historical development of cosmology. Chiefly those of a religious judeo-christian persuasion who wished to distinguish god from his creation at a fundamental level: spirit and matter do not "cohere". While i do not agree with this philosophical stance and do not find it in other cultures for whom the void is a substantive "thing"  and a matrix, i have no qualms at allowing those who wish to hold this view their right to hold it . However it does lead to several paradoxical problems and inconsistencies which are easily resolved by dropping this assumption.

The rabbit hole goes deeper however, as the notions of "nothing" and "empty" permeate our thinking in a cognitive dissonance which is hard to point out! It is however apparent when we try to extend the notions to the infinite, revealing the boundary conditions at the basis of the forming of these concepts. Fortunately the notion of a fractal geometry has developed sufficiently to allow us if we wish to park our cognitive bums in it and review older conceptions in its light.

I note you use density variation to convert longitudinal waves to transverse waves and to introduce spin. This need further clarification, and an explanation of why spin in particular has to be created as a function of longitudinal wave action. I would exactly reverse this, of course.

The rabbit role however goes deeper

[Phractal Phoam Phil]

If i understand you, you are essentially saying that you cannot accept a non substantive conception of "space".

It would be more accurate to say that I am not comfortable with a non substantive conception of "space". While it may have its uses, it precludes the possibility of any deaper understanding of reality than what we already possess.

The rabbit hole goes deeper however, as the notions of "nothing" and "empty" permeate our thinking in a cognitive dissonance which is hard to point out! It is however apparent when we try to extend the notions to the infinite, revealing the boundary conditions at the basis of the forming of these concepts. Fortunately the notion of a fractal geometry has developed sufficiently to allow us if we wish to park our cognitive bums in it and review older conceptions in its light.

Spoken like a philosopher! Not my style of writing, but we are in complete agreement on this; I think.

I note you use density variation to convert longitudinal waves to transverse waves and to introduce spin. This need further clarification, and an explanation of why spin in particular has to be created as a function of longitudinal wave action. I would exactly reverse this, of course.

Even if the foam starts out uniform, as soon as one bubble wall pops, the uniformity is gone. Ultimately, you reach a state of dynamic equilibrium in which small scale variations of bubble size are common. There is a median bubble size for our universe and median bubble sizes for tiny regions, much smaller than an electron (which is about a trillion bubbles across). If bubble sizes were truly random, you could work out a mean, median and mode; but the distribution is in fact chaotic. Larger deviations from the large-scale median are much more common in chaotic distributions.

It seems reasonable to me that the speed of longitudinal waves (p-waves) must change when the small-scale median bubble size changes. A p-wave carries a lot of momentum; changing its speed imparts some of that momentum to the “blob” of different foam “density” (bubble size). When the p-wave exits the blob, it resumes normal speed and reclaims the momentum that it temporarily gave to the blob. But the blob is now ever so slightly out of its equilibrium position relative to the surrounding foam. Shear stress pulls the blob back, and transverse s-waves radiate perpendicular to the path of the p-wave.

I don’t know if this mechanism continues to occur in the present epoch; it may have been the ultimate source of all s-waves early in our universe’s history. I simply haven’t yet conceived any other mechanism by which s-waves could have come into being in the first place. The s-waves we are most familiar with, i.e. photons, must have evolved from a more basic form of s-waves. Photons result from the acceleration of a charge. To fully understand that, we must figure out exactly what it is that gives the property of charge to a particle. It has to be derivable from the particular geometry of orbiting s-waves; it must be something about the phase and polarity of the orbiting s-waves relative to one another.

As for spin, I actually haven’t given that the though it deserves. I’m not even sure what particle physicists mean by “spin”; how is it related to angular momentum? I do believe the conservation of angular momentum in the macro scale implies a conservation of spin at the scale of fundamental particles. My model of a fundamental particle is a pair or group of s-waves orbiting one another due to forces that result from exchange of momentum between s-waves and p-waves. Each s-wave has momentum; an orbiting pair must have angular momentum. Perhaps such particles must be created in pairs with opposite spin—equal and opposite angular momentum.

[jehovajah]

In latest program to do with theories of what happened before the big bang, i think i saw or heard someone explain that gravity should be a transverse or s wave. And i think your version of the local bubble being a starting point for a exterior universe was briefly described . The programme was on BBC2 in the Horizon series.

Of course i did not see anything specific about vortices in these theories, but Laura Mersini Houghton may have been describing a vorticular wave development in string theoretic terms, which requires a structure of Mbranes as universes colliding.

The expanding of the metric is something which i had not had explained before, and in fact had been referenced in "crank" ideas by admittedly "ignorant" physicists who have not learned the special relativity and general relativity enough to know they use a dynamic metric.

Any thoughts Phil?

[Phractal Phoam Phil]

Sorry for the delay; I haven't been paying much attention to this site, since there isn't much cosmology, here.

In latest program to do with theories of what happened before the big bang, i think i saw or heard someone explain that gravity should be a transverse or s wave. And i think your version of the local bubble being a starting point for a exterior universe was briefly described . The programme was on BBC2 in the Horizon series.

I haven't seen the program (seldom watch TV), but I'm pretty sure my model was not discussed. "Local bubble" is terminology from an entirely different model. I'll try to find the program on youtube or netflix.

I expect that both e/m waves and gravity waves are s-waves, but all the forces, including gravity, are transmitted via dark-energy p-waves.

Of course i did not see anything specific about vortices in these theories, but Laura Mersini Houghton may have been describing a vorticular wave development in string theoretic terms, which requires a structure of Mbranes as universes colliding.

Again, this has nothing to do with my model. I first heard of Ms. Houghton via her article at the FQXI site. I have watched a video in which she describes her multiverse theory. I think she's dealing with unichapters, unibooks and unilibraries, rather than universes.

Here's one that I hadn't seen 'til just now.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/EOndPoK13co&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/EOndPoK13co&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>
She is dealing with purely mathematical models with no apparent concrete substance that I can see. I sent her an e-mail about 8 months ago, and haven't gotten a reply.

The expanding of the metric is something which i had not had explained before, and in fact had been referenced in "crank" ideas by admittedly "ignorant" physicists who have not learned the special relativity and general relativity enough to know they use a dynamic metric.

Any thoughts Phil?

Two of my favorite Einstein quotes:
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

I have to admit considerable ignorance, myself. I had only a brief intro to the concept of tensors, in school. So I am not at all proficient at applying general relativity. I don't say GR is wrong, but I don't accept the abolishion of Euclidean space, either.

When one has invested years of study to understand a concept, it is against perceived self-interest to then declare the concept flawed and all those years wasted. Consequently, it is to be expected that the next paradigm shift in science will come from a relatively uneducated crackpot.

Much more of my model at my website.

[tomot]

Wow! this subject was started almost a year ago.

It started with Phractal Phoam Phil's edited quote If you begin with an expanding foam.....etc

Where did the expanding foam, that caused the wave come from?
Where did the heat to make the foam expand come from?

curious!

[Phractal Phoam Phil]

Wow! this subject was started almost a year ago.

It started with Phractal Phoam Phil's edited quote If you begin with an expanding foam.....etc

Where did the expanding foam, that caused the wave come from?
Where did the heat to make the foam expand come from?

curious!

It's fractal, so there is no beginning. Each universe grows out of the cosmic foam of the previous one. Alternate universes run in opposite time directions, so the whole fractal exists outside of time. You could call it the mind of God if you like, or simply God. If you don't like that word, you might call it Chaos with a capital C.

[jehovajah]

Wow! this subject was started almost a year ago.

It started with Phractal Phoam Phil's edited quote If you begin with an expanding foam.....etc

Where did the expanding foam, that caused the wave come from?
Where did the heat to make the foam expand come from?

curious!

Just dropped by.

I think, sensible as these questions are, a complete revision of heat is needed to begin to grapple with these initial conditions. And of course "foam"  is an analogy for a spatial distribution of "matter" so the question is not as complicated as it looks.

My answer to you directly is that we Assume as an axiom motion of space. We can not go beyond that to where motion comes from, but logically we can say that if motion did not always exist then there could be no motion.

Thus Phil's answer of a fractal universe means that motion is transformed from one universe to another, or others, ad infinitum.

[Phractal Phoam Phil]

My answer to you directly is that we Assume as an axiom motion of space. We can not go beyond that to where motion comes from, but logically we can say that if motion did not always exist then there could be no motion.

Thus Phil's answer of a fractal universe means that motion is transformed from one universe to another, or others, ad infinitum.

It's encouraging to see that someone out there actually understands what I'm saying—at least one small part of it, anyway.

[jehovajah]

Completed a rough draft of my theory of space. Still got  Bolyai, and Lobachevsky and Riemann to check out. Check it out Phil. Comments criticisms etc would be appreciated.
http://my.opera.com/jehovajah/blog/condensation-of-a-rotataional-motion-field-the-density-function-of-space

[jehovajah]

Hiya phil.

Some more developments and modifications. Hope you are well and still puzzling, and not thrown off by the Higgs Boson propaganda!
http://my.opera.com/jehovajah/blog/2012/07/16/quantity-of-twistorque