In our world there are many things that are actually miracles, but which we more or less take for granted, the matter, the universe, life, our environment and the knowledge that man has wrested from nature.
All these achievements of the many clever minds can only be admired with reverence.
But there are also many phenomena that are still far from being clarified and for whose explanation the scientists of the world are still searching.
For years, one can read publications on topics of theoretical physics, such as gravity, inertia, dark energy and dark matter, elementary particles and quantum physics.
There are many excellent articles on new findings, but also many speculations, which seem to be abundantly fantastic and show a certain helplessness in the matter. Some examples are the aforementioned Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Higgs boson, parallel universes or, from earlier times, Mach’s principle, which states that inertial forces would be caused by the totality of matter existing in the universe.
Reading these articles, one increasingly gets the feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong in physics and that there should be a much simpler explanation, which the authors more or less imply, but obviously do not dare to discuss it openly, perhaps because they fear for their reputation. Some critical voices have been raised, for example by Nobel Prize winner Robert B. Laughlin in his book “Abschied von der Weltformel” or currently in the new book by Dr. Alexander Unzicker “Auf dem Holzweg durchs Universum” and “Vom Urknall zum Durchknall”, who critically questions the physics community (some of them very critical, but: read it) or in Spektrum d. Scientific. Febr. 2012, p. 61 ff. “Physics — a dilapidated Tower of Babel” by Tony Rothman.
I have made my own thoughts about the open questions, because I am very interested in these things and because I believe that a well-considered idea should be at the beginning, which then has to be checked with the means of mathematics and brought into a manageable form. This then enables predictions of further properties by theory.
What is gravity or gravitation?
According to Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (TR), it is a “space-time curvature”. The TR uses differential geometry to describe the behavior of the space-time structure in which matter is located. This is an abstract mathematical-geometric statement, but it says nothing about the medium, the substance, with which these interactions take place.
As an idea of what the very essence of gravity is, it does not really satisfy. Since gravity is generated only by the presence of matter and again affects every piece of matter, the thought of interaction with a less abstract medium of surrounding space suggests itself.
In some publications this medium is also cautiously addressed, e.g. in the book by Robert B.Laughlin in the chapter “The fabric of space-time” or in other articles under the term “quintessence” or as Higgs field (Gerhard Börner, Spektrum d. W. Dec. 2003, page 32 and Gordon Kane, Spektrum d. W. Febr. 2006, page 36) or as vacuum energy and some more.
Here the concept of a world ether is taken up again, although this term is almost a taboo and is treated extremely negatively. This assumption is quite well described by Robert B. Laughlin in “A different universe” Pieper March 2009, p.184.
Since Aristotle the term aether is discussed by different designs and was put aside once by Michelson-Morley experiments and then by Einstein with the TR.
By Michelson-Morleys experiments was proven, light speed is not depending on any ether-medium, however he did not prove that ether does not exist.
Even Einstein, who is still the measure of all things, was not quite sure about this, which is shown by the subsequent addition of the Cosmological Constant to his TR.
As one can read at the book of Prof. Henning Genz “Nothing but the Nothing” starting at page 241, Einstein wrote at a letter to H.A.Lorentz: “It would have been more correct, if in my earlier publications I had limited myself to emphasize the non-reality of ether speed, instead of representing the non-existence of ether at all. …“
Perhaps the “new ether” should better be called space-energy, because the assumed properties differ from the earlier term and since Einstein with his E=mc² the connection between energy and matter is beyond doubt. The term “vacuum energy” comes closest to this, but is associated with somewhat different ideas.
In the TR it is attributed the Cosmological Constant, with a value of 1.1x10–26 m/kg (in Wikipedia: Cosmological Constant), but in quantum field theory it has a value of 10 to the power of 120 m/kg (in Wikipedia: Quantum Field Theory), sometimes more, sometimes less. In the Higgs field, this value is given close to zero as zero point energy. These are contradictions that have not yet been clarified, nobody knows anything exact.
According to current publications, “dark energy” is one of the great mysteries. It is said to account for about 74 % of the energy present in the universe, but like dark matter it has not yet been discovered.
For the time being, the nature of space-energy can only be described with one (plausible) assumption. So one can assume that the actual value of space energy is somewhere in the middle and is distributed evenly in space as “Dark Energy”, as a kind of Higgs field at an elevated level, perhaps comparable to the zero point of Celsius and Kelvin at temperature.
An absolute measurement is not directly possible because the reference potential for it is missing.
Space energy (SE) is a superfluid, scalar pressure field and penetrates matter, including the spaces between the electron shell and the atomic nucleus, as described in the definition of the Higgs field.
As a non-material medium, it has no granulation or quantization of any kind and thus no inertia.
It cannot be “felt” directly, because the “energy pressure” acts from all sides. The uniform speed of matter is not hindered by the lack of inertia of SE, it flows around the matter and floats, so to speak.
Photons or electromagnetic waves are not affected.
However, field changes, i.e. changes in energy density, can only propagate in it at finite speed, at most at the speed of vacuum light “c”.
According to the theory in use today, the matter particles, essentially the protons, neutrons and electrons, were generated during the Big Bang as oscillating structures from compressed SE and thus have a much higher energy density than the surrounding SE field.
In nature, it is observed that a state of equilibrium is always attempting to be established. Therefore it is conceivable that the higher
energy density of the particle to compensate for this, the SE field surrounding the elementary particle has a lower energy density to keep the average energy density constant.
This compensation is uniformly distributed over the volume of space surrounding the particle.
The field weakening is proportional to the energy bound in the particle.
At the interface of an imaginary spherical shell of the elementary particle, for example, the density of the surrounding SE is then lowest and increases again with increasing distance from the spherical shell, to the same extent as the surface of a spherical shell increases due to the distance, i.e. the density of the SE increases again as the square of the distance and merges into the normal field density of the SE of the space.
Each elementary particle thus has such a sphere or aura. The range of SE-gradient theoretically is infinite, however because of square dependence it approaches fast to local normal value of SE.
As long as the particle is alone, the sphere of SE around the particle is also spherical and the particle thus floats unaffected in the sea of SE.
If another particle comes close to the first, the energy pressure on the side facing each other is lower than on the side facing away because of the overlapping spheres. However, because the SE field wants to arrange itself spherically around the respective particle, there is a pulling force between the particles, or a pressure of SE on the respective opposite side.
This appears as if the particles have a mutual attraction, the strength of which depends on the energy content (mass) and the square of the distance when the particles approach each other.
It can also be said that the second particle moves into the trough of the lower field density of the first particle in order to achieve the lowest possible energy state.
In this process, positional energy is converted into kinetic energy and, when the particles collide, the kinetic energy is converted into heat or radiation energy.
So some energy is needed to separate the particles again.
Since the effect of the first particle on the second is the same, the two particles will attract each other and come closer together, as far as other forces (e.g. in the case of atoms, expansion of the electron shell, electromagnetic repulsion, thermal movement) allow this.
Both particles together produce a stronger dilution of the field density due to the mutual influence, i.e. the effect is added.
If many particles gather together like this, in combination as atoms and molecules, so pieces of materia and lastly celestial bodies come up, which affect mutual attracting forces of large range, increasing with mass, known as gravity resp. gravitational force and behaving according to well known law of gravity.
According to this consideration, gravity is an effect of static gradient or gradient of field density of SE towards materia. It is generated by the mere presence of matter particles (and/or fields of other energy concentration than the surrounding SE) and can therefore only have an attractive effect. As known, its effect decreases by the square of the distance, an exchange particle is not necessary (the so-called “pressure theory” is known, which postulates a similar effect with the help of “gravitons”).
Pressure fluctuations of SE can occur during a stellar explosion or during the fusion of two neutron stars or black holes and become measurable as gravitational waves (as longitudinal waves similar to air pressure or sound waves)
Because of the quadratic dependence, the effect of such a gravitational pressure wave will weaken very quickly and will be very difficult to measure at greater distances.
In contrast, light eruptions, which also become weaker in the square of the distance, as the light particles or photons are distributed over ever larger areas, but the individual photon remains undivided, have an almost infinite range.
A clear signal of gravitational waves was first measured in September 2015 and was published in February 2016.
Variable gravitational constant
Over a large area, i.e. at intervals of several light years, SE could occur in different densities, because the pressure equalization can only take place with c at most.
This could mean that the gravitational constant is a large-scale local constant. Thus gravity is not an independent force, but a reaction of matter to the field state of SE, which produces this force effect.
There is no interaction particle or graviton.
Relation to the theory of relativity
General relativity uses differential geometry to describe space-time curvature, but it says nothing about the medium of space.
If the consideration with SE is correct, then the gradient of SE near matter could possibly be directly equivalent to what Einstein expressed with the curvature of space by gravitational fields (geodesics) near celestial bodies, or curvature of space-time if one includes the limit speed for the propagation of a change in the density of SE. So then just the “isobars” of SE are curved according to the sphere-symmetric change of density as a function of distance and space itself only represents the place where this takes place.
The AR would thus be valid unchanged.
The pictorial representation with the rubber blanket as a gravitational sink is well applicable. Thus the mathematical-abstract term of space-time-curvature would be replaced by the more real term of curved fields of the same SE-density.
The term “space” is not defined by any other property except that it is just there. That space can be curved is therefore a completely irrational assumption. Einstein probably used this assumption because he had no other possibility.
The (accelerated) expansion of space observed by astronomy can be understood more realistically as the expansion of the SE or SE bubble into the existing space. That space is only created by the Big Bang (if it was one) and/or by the accelerated drifting apart of star systems and galaxies is probably a hardly provable assumption and rather a philosophical consideration.
The well-known incompatibility between gravitational theory and quantum theory dissolves as if by magic under this consideration, because a quantization of gravity results from the amount of energy bound up in the elementary particle. A graviton is not necessary for this.
As described above, each elementary particle and thus the compound of particles around it builds up a spherical sphere of lower SE density, which changes to the normal field density with increasing distance from the particle surface.
This gradient of SE floats with matter, so to speak, no matter whether it is a single elementary particle, a piece of stone or a celestial body. This swimming along also costs no energy input, because SE is not mass-based.
If a force is now exerted on a particle, this spherical sphere is deformed, compressed in the direction of the force, stretched in the opposite direction.
This change in field density, however, can only equalise again with finite speed, at most with the limit speed c, so the particle opposes the driving force with a resistance, inertia. The higher the acceleration and thus the greater the deformation of the sphere and the greater the mass of the body, the greater the inertia force.
Thus, each elementary particle is coupled to the surrounding omnipresent field of SE via the gravitational effect, without the need for a special interaction particle (Higgs boson).
The speed at which the SE pressure is transmitted can be lower than c. It has yet to be determined by measurements.
The mass inertia is thus created by a shift of the mass centre in relation to the gradient field of the environment and is only noticeable during acceleration, i.e. when a force is applied to the mass particle.
The speed of the particle is comparable to a swimming in the space energy field and does not cause any deformation of the particle sphere and thus no effect.
The mass inertia is proportional to the field weakening that the particle under consideration produces around itself, multiplied by the acceleration.
On the equivalence principle
If a mass particle is in a gravitational field with its sphere, an effect is created by the gradient of the gravitational field in such a way that the spherical sphere is pulled towards the centre of the gravitational field, because the field density is lower in this direction. The mass particle strives to distribute its spherical sphere evenly around itself, thus creating a force effect and thus an acceleration of the mass particle itself towards the centre of the gravitational field.
The particle rolls into the “gravitational trough”, so to speak, as long as it is not hindered by other forces, e.g. by the surface of the mass or by centrifugal forces.
In this respect, the effect of an acceleration on the particle by a force or by a gravitational field is the same, i.e. inert and heavy masses depend on the same effect and behave in the same way, which Einstein postulated with his equivalence principle in the AR.
This is one aspect of the “riddle of mass”, see also Gordon Kane, Spektrum d.W. February 2006, page 36.
Centrifugal force is a steady acceleration in direction of centre of rotation, where particle is forced from tangential movement into circled movement and thus constantly into direction of denser SE. Centrifugal force is the counter-reaction to this circular constraint.
Celestial bodies, which are not affected by external forces, will move on lines or surfaces of same SE-density, just like known at space-bending of AR.
Wave-particle duality, double slit test
When light passes through a slit, light is diffracted at the exit point, because the wave of light there, depending on its phase position, does not exit the slit straight, but is bent at an angle and thus around the slit edge, so to speak.
With the double slit, this leads to overlapping of the light waves with the known attenuation and amplification images, e.g. on a screen behind the slit. With matter beams, e.g. a neutron beam or uncharged atoms, diffraction with similar images is also observed.
This may be because particles flying close to the slit wall have a lower SE density there than towards the slit centre and are therefore deflected towards the slit wall. This causes a deflection around the edge of the slit when they exit the slit, thus also a scattering like a wave.
In the Casimir effect, a mutually attracting force is created between two metal plates that are brought very close together. This is explained by the fact that waves with a longer wavelength cannot occur between the plates, but can occur on the outer sides of the plates. The difference in radiation pressure creates a force that attracts the plates.
However, it is also possible that the lower SE density between the plates and the higher density outside the plates produces this force effect. This is then an effect corresponding to gravity and should also occur with panels of insulating material.
According to AR, light is deflected around a celestial body by the space-time curvature in the gravitational field.
If one takes the gradient field of SE density instead of the space-time curvature as above, the light from the denser SE enters a diluted SE gradient field around the star. It is conceivable that this causes a refraction of light, as known from optics, where the light is also deflected according to the refractive index.
Different rotation in galaxies
If a body is set into rotation, e.g. a ball at a string, the body is continuously pulled out of its SE-sphere at its circled track or is pulled into denser SE.
Its reaction against this, based on inertia described above, is centrifugal force. At the core of a galaxy, because of star-accumulation, black hole etc., by previous considerations a diluted SE is, because the gravity-spheres of stars overlay. Now itŽs imaginable, thus there a smaller rotation speed is sufficient for a mass to keep it at a certain circled track, cause at thinner RE exists less centrifugal forces than at denser SE, or opposite, masses at the center rotate slower than normally should be the case and thus core area and periphery turn by nearby same speed.
This means, gravity constant is a large-scale local constant, depending on local density of SE.
Quantum physics, nuclear building blocks
It may be somewhat speculative, but it is nevertheless interesting to look at matter particles according to the considerations described above.
The nuclear building blocks (protons, neutrons, electrons) were created as vibrational structures from energy at the Big Bang, thus consist of compressed SE and thus have a much higher energy density than the surrounding SE field.
According to the ideas of quantum physics, a proton consists of three quarks (uud) with gluons as binding agents. The situation is similar with the neutron (udd-quarks).
This is a model conception, quarks and gluons are probably not observable as particles.
However, it is also conceivable that the concentration of energy has created a kind of standing wave that is self-contained and forms a kind of oscillation torus. Perhaps this is the true location of the space-time curvature.
If several of these locally closed oscillation formations are united in a proton or neutron, then they could chain and interlock in such a way that they are also not easily separable (strong nuclear force).
Protons are all absolutely identical, which suggests that very specific stability criteria apply to the vibrational structures within them; smaller or larger amounts of energy are not stable and decay again. The same is true for neutrons and electrons with specific own rules, whereas protons and neutrons are compound structures and electrons are rather native structures of SE. It is very likely that Planck’s constant h plays an important role in this, similar to photons.
The Standard Model postulates a set of particles, but most of them are not stable and decay after a more or less short time. These particles are created when matter interacts with each other and are of importance there, but as basic particles they are rather not, perhaps with the exception of neutrinos and positrons. Also the gluons and (calibration) bosons as mediators of forces are probably rather hypothetical assumptions to make the effects of the particles among themselves calculable. One exception is the photons as energy carriers and mediators of the energy exchange between the electrons of the atomic shells.
In the case of photons as mediators of magnetic forces, e.g. in permanent magnets, doubts already arise because light is practically not influenced when passing through a magnetic field and the forces between magnets can hardly be mediated by photons, since the relevant field lines run in an arc around a magnet and thus have little in common with the electromagnetic wave of light, not to mention the mediation of forces. This must be based on a different operating principle (Maxwell).
Magnetic field and electric charge
According to the above observation, a proton is formed by wave packets that are in motion. This also produces the observed spin. The oscillation of the wave packets could produce a kind of circulation effect towards SE in the nucleus, which as an all-pervading medium is also located in the interior of the proton in a slightly SE-compressed form, i.e. the wave packets would then be small circulation pumps for SE without requiring any energy input.
This could then cause a flow of SE emerging transversely to an oscillation plane (+pole), similar to the jet in neutron stars, which makes itself felt as a magnetic field, or as magnetic flux, which, as observed in the case of the magnet, is returned to the opposite -pole via external field lines (here flow of SE).
A change of the SE field density does not result from the flow, thus also no gravitational effect.
By this polar SE-flow, around this component an outer electric field would be induced, rotating equatorially, e.g. right-turning, and its effect would become weaker by known square of distance (positively charged, proton).
Because the device is located in a friction-free environment in the surrounding SE, the rotating E-field can cause the device itself to rotate in the opposite direction (spin) until a state of equilibrium of some kind is established.
If two of these protons now come to lie next to each other in such a way that both +poles point in the same direction, then the two repel each other due to the displacement of the rectified field lines of the RE flow (magnetic lines), but the rotating E-fields meet in opposite directions between the particles and therefore attract each other by combining to form a common E-field (see sketch 1).
If the +poles are antiparallel, the particles attract each other via the magnetic lines, but repel each other because of the E-fields rotating in the same direction between the particles (see sketch 2). Possibly this is not a stable state when the E-field prevails, so there is no atomic nucleus with two or more protons without also neutrons.
With neutrons, the E-field compensates by adding an electron and there is no external E-field (and H-field).
One (deuterium) or two neutrons (tritium) can bind to a proton in the atomic nucleus. In the case of several protons, several neutrons are also bound so that the nucleus reaches a stable state (for lighter elements about 1.4 times more N than P, increasing up to about 1.6 times). The observation is also connected with the fact that there are no so-called monopoles in magnets, because the origin of the magnetic field lies in the nuclear building blocks.
The electron could be an elementary and stable oscillation structure with less bound energy than the wave packets in the proton/neutron, which can also move freely, independent of the strong nuclear force. Its negative charge could result from the fact that, unlike the proton, it has a left-turning E-field with the same pole direction.
This would attract the antiparallel magnetic field between the proton and the electron, and the oppositely directed E-fields would also attract each other.
However, the fact that an electron can approach the proton requires additional energy, which is what happens when the proton merges into a neutron.
Very interesting is the above mentioned article by Timothy Paul Smith “Journey into the interior of the neutron” in Spektrum der Wissenschaft, March 2011, p.40 to 49).
The four basic forces
Thus, gravity represents a static gradient of SE, while magnetic force represents a dynamic flow process of SE.
The strong nuclear force is limited to the inner processes in the atomic nucleus or nucleons.
The weak nuclear force is a kind of anomaly of stability conditions that can lead to radioactive decay and that may also limit the lifetime of a free neutron.
Possibly this could be used to bring the four forces of nature together to one cause, namely different states of SE.
According to the idea described above, the only difference between an antiproton and a proton is that the electric field is not clockwise (which is merely a definition by definition), but counterclockwise. Thus the antiproton has a negative charge, the antielectron a positive charge (positron).
The behaviour of the anti-nuclear building blocks among themselves is then analogous to the idea described above. Similarly, antimatter behaves in the same way as normal matter with regard to the effects of gravity.
If an antiproton comes together with a proton, then the parallel alignment of the magnetic flux as described above is repulsive, the electric field is also repulsive, which means an unstable state. In the case of antiparallel alignment, the magnetic field is attractive, the electric field is also attractive, and thus no state of equilibrium can be established. The two components destroy themselves and release the bound SE by radiation.
In light, there is a difference depending on how the effect of a photon is measured, known as dualism corpuscle — wave. Light is actually only produced by electrons which, while orbiting around an atomic nucleus, emit (or absorb) a quantum of energy defined by Planck’s quantum of action h and frequency v, and move forward in a vacuum (in SE) at the speed of light c.
Now one could imagine that an energy quantum h is released from orbit around an electron, which can be considered a rotating wave packet (spin), and moves away tangentially, taking the rotational motion (spin of the photon) with it as a photon with c.
The quantum of energy of the photon can be imagined like the valve of a bicycle tire, which circles around the hub center in the plane of rotation and describes a sinusoidal curve in the forward motion. The higher the rotational speed, the higher the energy.
The fact that a beam of light appears as a wave train of 1–2m can possibly be explained with a relativistic time expansion due to the movement at the speed of light. This raises the question whether the speed limit is not a bit higher than the speed of light, because otherwise the wave train would have to go towards infinity?
A dualism contradiction does not arise under this idea, because the photon keeps both its particle character and its wave character, e.g. during polarization (as a rotating disk in a plane, also during circular polarization with spin axis in the direction of motion).
The question is: what does a photon look like whose frequency is so low that it approaches zero (if such a photon can be created at all) and the photon particle would then describe a line instead of a wave? Does it then become something like a neutrino or does the quantum simply dissolve in the sea of SE because it actually has almost zero energy?
Speed of light
The thought of the speed of light also makes one think.
Light, i.e. electromagnetic waves are not (?) influenced by SE. They are also not deflected by magnetic fields, which seems strange for an electromagnetic wave. A light wave is a quantum of energy that travels in a vacuum in a straight line with “c”. But why has the speed of light just the value of approx. 300000km/s and not 200000 or 400000km/s?
It is possible that the limit speed c is a “material constant” of the SE density and thus depends on the local SE density over a large area, i.e. over several million light years. The deflection in the gravitational field indicates this.
According to previous findings, gravitational waves also propagate at the speed of light, indicating a close connection between two things as different as light and gravity. Both obviously have a common medium (SE), which as an energy field without mass inertia and with high “stiffness” enables the high speed c.
The speed of light in a medium (gas, liquid, solids such as glass) is lower than in a vacuum and is defined by the refractive index n. Does this lower speed result from the passing on of the transmitted light wave via the absorption and emission via the electron shells of the elements?
However, one would expect a higher scattering of light waves when passing e.g. through glass, because it seems unlikely that the angle of exit from the electron shell always corresponds exactly to the angle of entry. However, only the refraction of light at the entrance and exit surface of a glass body is observed, no scattering. It is rather to be expected that the light wave moves through the space between the atomic nucleus and the electron shell quite unhindered, in which the RE density between the more or less densely packed atoms is reduced and the light therefore moves more slowly?
The speed of light in a vacuum “c” is assumed to be the basic constant and serves as a reference value for the other dimensional constants. According to the above consideration, however, the “constant” c also changes when the density of SE changes. We would not notice this, however, because there is no really absolute reference dimension available. A change would then also result in the other quantities. A detailed description can be read in the new book “Einstein’s lost key” by Alexander Unzicker.
A pressure equalization of the SE could take place in space at most at the speed of light and would also take millions of years between galaxies. Since this has probably already stabilized at the distances we can see, we would hardly notice a change in the speed of light.
A further question is whether perhaps the “bubble” of the Big Bang is expanding into an infinitely large, absolutely empty space, and whether the space energy at the observable limits was present in diluted form more than 13 billion years ago and is expanding even further.
In this case, the redshift observed, even accelerated expansion of the universe would then have to be reconsidered.
But now back to my initial starting point:
What is gravity and how can it be controlled?
Certainly not with material substances, because original energy resp. SE can flow through everything, inclusive the gaps between electron-shell and atomic nucleus.
To catch or shield gravity there is comparable with trying to lock up compressed air within bottles of fly-screen.
After any material is released, all that remains is strong local magnetic fields, possibly even moving fast, to create something like a barrier to gravity.
Perhaps a certain shielding of gravity can be achieved with fast rotating plates of superconducting material with strong local magnetic fields?
The Russian physicist Podklednov once made a point of mentioning this, it came on the nightly broadcast of the Bay. Television. But it was probably just a duck, at least he was sawed off in his job and now you don’t hear about it anymore.
More recently, the Austrian physicist Dr. Martin Tajmar from the Seibersdorf Research Centre near Vienna published an experiment in which a frozen niobium disc produced an effect that cannot yet be explained. Even there it has become quiet.
One is not so sure that there is no solution. Boeing has invested almost one million dollars in the reconstruction of the Podklednov experiment and Dr. Tajmar’s project has also been supported (www.zeit.de/2007/21/T-Antigravitation) and others, but so far all without success.
Also in former times many considerations about gravity were made.
One of these is Pressure-Theory (at Wikipedia: Le-Sage-Gravity), which however assumes quite different prerequisites, e.g. of particles and radiation, and thus could not achieve success.
So there is still a lot of interest in this subject.
It might be, these conciderations must be corrected in one way or other. However some riddles seem to be solved quite casually with these conciderations at the back of mind. The more you think about things with them, the more you like them.
And since many publications express that the established theories no longer seem to see the wood for the trees, and since with the dominance of mathematics much is predictable, but perhaps also the view of the essential is somewhat distorted, the train of thought described here may be a good help in finding new ways out of the situation.
There is often a call for a new theory that could replace the standard model with its sometimes arbitrary assumptions and complicated rules.
With my considerations I tried to find a way with as few assumptions as possible (essentially the mentioned space energy SE) independent of the existing but unsatisfactory state of knowledge.
I am an old practice-oriented development engineer and I am quite comfortable with everyday physics. But I do not have the high level of mathematical knowledge necessary to work out a theory based on these trains of thought and I will not be able to acquire it.
Perhaps someone with the necessary mathematical knowledge will find the thoughts listed here interesting and will be able to work them out and verify them theoretically.
I have made some experimental setups, but they did not lead to desired results, either because the effects with the simple experiments were too small to be measurable for me or because the considerations might not be true after all.
Feeling tells me, universe is build on quite simple basis, however interactions of materia, space and time result variety and complexity of occurrences and physical laws and lastly life.
Einstein probably once said, gravity field and magnetic field could be two manifestations of a really uniform cosmic whole (Spektrum d.W. June 2003, page 63).
Who knows, maybe he is right here too and the four basic forces could one day be reduced to one single essence (e.g. SE, see above).
Anyway, it will be exciting.