Gravitational Coupling Through Nested Field Synchronization

Gravitational Coupling Through Nested Field Synchronization: A Material-Dependent Perspective

Author: Jim Redgewell
Date: June 2025

---

Abstract

This paper proposes that gravitational interactions are governed not solely by mass, but by the spatial configuration and synchronization of nested field structures within and between materials. Building on the foundational idea that gravity is a phase-coherence phenomenon, we explore how material-dependent properties—particularly atomic size and electron cloud radius—can affect the degree of field synchronization, thereby modifying gravitational coupling. This perspective supports a broader field-theoretic view of gravity grounded in wave coherence and geometric alignment.

---

1. Introduction

Traditional physics views gravity as a function of mass and distance, encapsulated by Newton's law and refined through general relativity's geometric curvature of spacetime. However, emerging models—including the author’s Nested Field Theory—suggest that gravitational effects may instead arise from field synchronization across layered field structures.

This paper asks whether a subtle interplay between atomic structure and field coherence may account for material-dependent gravitational behavior—thus offering a deeper mechanism behind the observed variability in gravitational interaction.

---

2. Nested Field Synchronization

In Nested Field Theory, particles are not isolated point masses, but resonant entities sustained by synchronized layers of oscillating fields. Mass, inertia, and gravity emerge as consequences of phase relationships across these nested layers. When multiple bodies are in spatial proximity, gravitational attraction arises from the need to maintain coherent phase evolution across their field structures.

This synchronization mechanism is not fixed solely by mass or charge, but also by how field layers align and resonate—which can be influenced by geometric, energetic, or compositional factors.

---

3. Material Dependency and Field Geometry

A key hypothesis explored here is that the spatial arrangement of baryons—modulated by the size and electron configuration of atoms—can alter the coherence of nested fields. For example, materials with large electron clouds (e.g., alkali metals) exhibit greater atomic spacing, which may in turn reduce the overlap or phase locking of nested field structures between adjacent atoms. This could lead to less coherent field synchronization and thus a weaker effective gravitational coupling.

---

4. Synchronization as a Geometric Constraint

If gravity is a synchronization phenomenon, then field alignment geometry matters. In this view:

• Atomic size affects how close baryons are in space.

• Electron cloud distribution affects the spacing and coherence of nested field layers.

• Crystal structure or molecular geometry may influence how well field layers across atoms phase-lock.

Thus, gravitational strength becomes not only a function of mass, but a material-dependent property reflecting phase-coherence efficiency across nested fields.

---

5. Gravitational Coupling as Field Coherence

This perspective frames gravity as a manifestation of field coherence:

• Nested fields form the dynamic oscillatory structures that underlie mass and interaction.

• Synchronization across nested fields modulates gravitational coupling.

• Material-dependent structure determines how well those fields synchronize.

Therefore, variations in gravitational behavior between different substances may reflect differences in atomic geometry, electron distribution, and field alignment across space—rather than being explained by mass alone.

---

6. Implications and Future Research

1. Experimental: Investigate correlations between gravitational response and atomic radii, electron shell configurations, or lattice spacing in different materials.

2. Theoretical: Formalize equations linking field phase coherence to spatial baryon distribution and nested field layer density.

3. Unification: Explore how nested field synchronization dynamics could provide a basis for a unified field description of gravity, mass, and energy.

---

Conclusion

Gravitational interaction may arise not just from static quantities like mass or baryon number, but from dynamic phase synchronization across nested field layers. This synchronization depends on the material's atomic structure and electron distribution, suggesting a geometric and field-coherent interpretation of gravity. This approach opens a new path toward a deeper understanding of material-dependent gravitational behavior—and toward a unified field framework rooted in synchronization and wave structure.

---

Reference:

• Redgewell, J. (2025). Nested Field Theory. https://jredgewell.blogspot.com/2025/04/nested-field-theory-by-jim-redgewell.html

Phase Synchronization and the de Broglie Relation

Introduction

According to the de Broglie formula, every particle exhibits wave-like properties. The wavelength \( \lambda \) of a particle is given by:

\[ \lambda = \frac{h}{p} \]

where:

• \( \lambda \) is the particle's wavelength
• \( h \) is Planck’s constant
• \( p \) is the momentum of the particle

This formula reveals that matter, just like light, has intrinsic wave characteristics.

Equal Energy Implies Equal Frequency and Wavelength

When two particles possess the same total energy, their momenta and wavelengths—as governed by the de Broglie relation—must also be equal. This leads to identical wave frequencies and identical spatial periodicity.

Application in a Gravitational Field

Consider two particles located at the same gravitational potential. Assuming all other energy contributions are equivalent, their total energies will match. Thus, they will have the same de Broglie wavelength and frequency.

Phase Synchronization

A direct consequence of this is phase synchronization. If two particles share the same energy, frequency, and wavelength, they evolve in phase with one another. Their wave properties—oscillation rate and spatial periodicity—are synchronized.

This has deep implications for coherence, entanglement, and collective field behavior, suggesting that energy equality may underlie synchronized quantum behavior.

Implications for Molecular Bonding

The principle of phase synchronization may also help explain why atoms bind together to form molecules. In conventional quantum chemistry, molecular bonds arise through the overlapping of atomic orbitals and the minimization of total energy. However, when viewed through the lens of the de Broglie relation, another layer of explanation emerges.

If two atoms or their electrons share the same total energy, they will exhibit synchronized frequencies and wavelengths. This phase alignment can lead to constructive interference between their wavefunctions, forming stable molecular orbitals. In this way, phase synchronization may be a fundamental condition for bond formation.

Extending this idea further, phase synchronization across nested field layers—such as electromagnetic, Higgs, or gravitational fields—could enhance the coherence and stability of molecular structures. This approach aligns with emerging theories that view particles and fields as resonant, layered systems.

Thus, beyond its foundational role in quantum behavior, the de Broglie relation may also underpin the wave-based coherence that allows atoms to form molecules.

Why the Electron Doesn’t Crash into the Nucleus

One of the long-standing questions in atomic physics is why the negatively charged electron does not spiral into the positively charged nucleus. Traditional quantum mechanics explains this through quantized energy levels and the uncertainty principle, but a phase-based perspective offers deeper insight.

According to the de Broglie relation:

\[ \lambda = \frac{h}{p} \]

The electron, proton, and neutron all have different masses. Since their momenta and thus their de Broglie wavelengths differ, their wave-like behaviors are not phase-synchronized. The electron’s wavelength is much larger than that of the proton or neutron due to its lower mass.

This wavelength mismatch prevents the electron from occupying the same phase space as the nucleus. The electron cannot “fit” inside the nucleus in terms of wave coherence, and any attempt to do so would violate the resonance conditions required for stable standing wave configurations.

Therefore, atomic stability is not merely a product of energy quantization, but also of phase incompatibility—an elegant outcome of differing mass-energy relations that naturally keeps electrons at a distance, sustained in phase-consistent orbital patterns.

Connecting Granular Space to Nested Fields

Author: Jim Redgewell
Date: June 2025
References:

• Sky Darmos's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@SkyDarmos

• Nested Field Theory by Jim Redgewell: https://jredgewell.blogspot.com/2025/04/nested-field-theory-by-jim-redgewell.html

---

Author's Note:
While this paper draws conceptual connections between my Nested Field Theory and Sky Darmos’s granular space framework, it is important to clarify that Sky Darmos does not currently endorse or support the Nested Field Theory.

---

Abstract

This paper explores a conceptual link between two emerging frameworks in theoretical physics: Sky Darmos's model of granular space from Space-Particle Dualism (SPD), and Jim Redgewell's Nested Field Theory. Darmos proposes that space is made up of discrete, oscillating units whose density determines gravitational strength. Redgewell, by contrast, proposes a layered structure of fields nested within one another, accounting for interactions and coherence across different forces. We argue that granular space density can serve as the foundational mechanism behind nested field structuring.

---

1. Introduction

Modern physics is increasingly pointing toward the idea that spacetime is not smooth, but discrete or quantized at a fundamental level. Sky Darmos's SPD theory represents one of the boldest articulations of this view, proposing that gravitational force emerges from the density of granular units of space. Simultaneously, Nested Field Theory suggests that fields—from electromagnetic to gravitational—are not independent entities but rather structured layers embedded within one another.

This paper proposes a unification of these ideas: the density of granular space may determine the architecture and activation of nested fields.

---

2. Granular Space in SPD Theory

Sky Darmos's theory of Space-Particle Dualism asserts that each baryonic particle is associated with a localized oscillating space quantum. These granular units collectively define the texture of space. In his model, the effective gravitational constant, $G$, varies depending on the material composition of interacting bodies due to differences in baryon density. This has led to experimental predictions and data analysis showing composition-dependent values of $G$.

Rather than treating $G$ as a universal constant, Darmos suggests it reflects the local configuration of granular space. A higher density of space particles or greater connectivity results in stronger effective gravitational interaction.

---

3. Nested Fields in Redgewell's Theory

Nested Field Theory proposes that fundamental forces are layered phenomena, with fields embedded within higher-order fields. For example, the electric field may be nested within a magnetic or Higgs-like field, and so on. This structure allows for coherence, synchronization, and energy transfer across scales, resembling a fractal or Russian-doll-like configuration.

In this view, particles are not isolated point objects but field resonances sustained by nested layers of oscillating field interactions. Synchronization across these layers governs observed properties such as mass, charge, and spin.

---

4. Linking Granular Density to Field Nesting

The hypothesis put forward here is that granular space density sets the stage for nested field formation. Several connections support this idea:

• Structural Support: Just as denser materials support more complex architectures, denser regions of granular space may allow for more layers of fields to be nested and stabilized.

• Energy Bandwidth: Granular density might determine the "bandwidth" of the vacuum—higher density supports higher-frequency, finer-scale field interactions.

• Dynamic Layer Activation: Changes in granular space density (due to energy, mass, or composition) might trigger transitions between nested field states, akin to phase transitions.

In this sense, the granular texture of space is not just a backdrop but a field-generating mechanism.

---

5. Implications for Gravity and Unification

By framing gravity as a function of granular space density and nested fields as emergent from that same structure, we may begin to bridge the conceptual gap between quantum field theory and gravity.

This leads to a potential reinterpretation of the gravitational field as not merely curvature, but as a synchronization of nested field states across varying granular densities. Gravity, in this unified view, becomes a coherence-enforcing field rather than a purely geometric deformation.

---

6. Future Directions

1. Mathematical Formalization: Develop equations linking granular density with the number and type of active nested field layers.

2. Experimental Correlation: Investigate whether known variations in $G$ correspond with predicted field layer shifts.

3. Cosmological Modeling: Explore how granular density variations in the early universe might have seeded the nested field structures that define modern particles and forces.

---

Conclusion

Sky Darmos’s granular space and Jim Redgewell’s nested field theory offer complementary insights into the nature of fields, particles, and gravity. This paper proposes that granular space density is not merely a gravitational factor but the very foundation upon which nested fields emerge and operate. This connection opens a promising path toward a unified field framework grounded in physical structure and field synchronization.

---

References:

• Sky Darmos's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@SkyDarmos

• Redgewell, J. (2025). Nested Field Theory. https://jredgewell.blogspot.com/2025/04/nested-field-theory-by-jim-redgewell.html

Girl from Mars by Jim Redgewell

The Problem with Physics Today: Why We Need a New Branch

 

The Problem with Physics Today: Why We Need a New Branch

Introduction: A Crisis in the Heart of Science

Physics should be the most exciting subject on Earth. It asks the deepest questions and reaches for the farthest truths. But something is wrong. The field that once gave us relativity and quantum theory is now stuck. Experiments are getting more expensive. The theories are getting more speculative. And most people are tuning out.

1. Too Mathematical for Most People

Physics today demands advanced mathematics before you can even enter the conversation. But that math often obscures the physical meaning.

• Ordinary people — even curious, intelligent ones — are shut out.

• Intuition and visual reasoning are treated as secondary.

• Math becomes a filter, not a tool for understanding.

Physics has become a language few can speak, and fewer can question.

2. Not Mathematical Enough for Mathematicians

On the other side, physicists often use mathematics loosely or heuristically.

• They fudge equations when convenient.

• They chase beauty or symmetry rather than consistency.

• Mathematicians see physics as undisciplined — too willing to "hand-wave" through proofs.

So those who love pure math feel physics isn't serious enough — and those who love intuition feel it's too abstract.

3. A Tiny Audience, Resistant to Change

This strange middle ground has produced a community that is:

• Small — few people choose to study physics now.

• Rigid — those who stay often specialize narrowly and defend their niche.

• Conservative — career pressures make bold new ideas risky to explore.

The result? Physics has become a field dominated by echo chambers and inertia.

4. Billions Spent, Little Gained

Modern physics invests massive resources into experiments — like the Large Hadron Collider or dark matter detectors — chasing concepts that may not even exist.

• We spend billions searching for particles we can’t find.

• Theoretical predictions pile up without experimental confirmation.

• Funding priorities often reflect status, not curiosity.

We're building bigger machines instead of asking deeper questions.

5. The Need for a New Branch of Physics

We propose a solution: not a revolution, but an evolution. A new branch of physics that:

• Is open to new conceptual foundations.

• Uses mathematics as a tool, not a barrier.

• Welcomes outsiders, interdisciplinary thinkers, and deep questions.

• Focuses on field-based models, energy flow, and phase interactions over particle-counting.

• Promotes public understanding and low-cost exploration.

Physics doesn’t need to die. It needs to split and grow.

6. Taking Control

The main funding for physics comes from governments and private companies. But as the saying goes: He who pays the piper, names the tune.

• That means the direction of research is dictated by a few powerful entities.

• The public is left out of the conversation, and therefore, out of the decision-making.

It's time for that to change. It's time for the public to take control — to persuade politicians, and even fund some of the science ourselves.

What do we want? Here are some suggestions:

• Nuclear fusion, and safer, more efficient energy systems.

• Better ideas for climate change, grounded in real physics.

• Alternative propulsion for spaceflight, aircraft, and cars.

If we had control of the financing, we could decide:

• How many physicists, mathematicians, and engineers we need.

• Which projects deserve attention.

• Which questions are worth asking.

Let science serve humanity again. Let the people fund the future they want to see.

7. The Problems Which Aren't Being Solved

Nuclear fusion is taking too long, and the alternative methods of fusion are being dismissed for insubstantial reasons — mainly due to lack of funding. Promising avenues of research are ignored simply because they don't align with the mainstream narrative or financial incentives.

Climate change has become a political football. When you take into account the true carbon footprint of many so-called "green" projects, they are often not worth funding. Politicians are using science to blind us from the truth, pushing agendas instead of pursuing solutions based on sound physics.

And space travel? Rockets are inefficient, expensive, and dangerous. They will never take us to the stars. We need a new technology — a new way of thinking about propulsion, energy, and space itself.

These are the big problems. But they won't be solved by the current system. They require new thinking, new funding, and a public that refuses to settle for the status quo.

8. The Way Forward

This is only the start. The ideas presented here are meant to spark a conversation and lay the groundwork for something bigger. But we can't do it alone.

Please share this article with others — especially with politicians, scientists, mathematicians, engineers, educators, and curious thinkers of all kinds.

Please add a comment. Let us know you're interested. Let others know this matters.

When we get enough support, we can take the project further:

• Organize collaborative discussions.

• Build alternative research frameworks.

• Redirect funding toward bold, meaningful questions.

The future of physics depends on all of us. Let's take the next step together.

Similar Ideas to Mine

I recently came across a video by Curt Jaimungal titled "The Massively Misleading Michelson–Morley Experiment." In the video, Curt raises concerns that resonate strongly with the themes I’ve explored in this article.

He discusses how the integrity of science has been compromised by institutional incentives and reputational pressures. He also critiques the Nobel Prize system, arguing that it encourages conformity, suppresses curiosity, and leads to the worship of accepted narratives rather than exploration of truth.

These concerns mirror what I’ve written here: that modern physics is stuck—not due to lack of intelligence, but because of its culture and structure. Like me, Curt questions the origin myths of physics (such as the interpretation of the Michelson–Morley experiment) and calls for a deeper examination of assumptions.

In short, Curt Jaimungal is saying many of the same things I am. He’s just doing it from within the world of public science communication, while I’m writing from outside the mainstream.

If you're interested in the cultural and philosophical challenges facing modern science, his video is well worth a watch.

Watch it here. 

Taking it Easy by Jim Redgewell

Chirality and Helicity from Double Spin Field Geometry

Introduction: Chirality and helicity are central to understanding the behavior of fermions in quantum field theory. Traditionally treated as abstract mathematical features, these properties can take on deeper significance when reconsidered from a geometric and field-dynamic perspective. This article introduces a novel approach in which the electron is modeled as a composite structure exhibiting two distinct types of rotational motion—an internal rotation embedded in vacuum field space and an external spin observable in three-dimensional spacetime.

We propose that the internal spin, or 'vacuum twist,' is responsible for chirality, while the external rotation determines the particle’s helicity through its alignment with momentum. This double spin framework not only clarifies the physical distinction between chirality and helicity, but also provides a natural mechanism for mass generation through vacuum synchronization. The model aligns with emerging ideas in field-based theories and offers new avenues for unifying quantum behavior with gravitational dynamics.

1. Defining Double Spin

We assume the electron possesses two rotational components:

• Inner Spin: Represents a rotation in vacuum field space, associated with vacuum phase synchronization. This defines chirality.
• Outer Spin: A rotation in real 3D space, generating the observable magnetic moment. Its projection onto the direction of motion defines helicity.

Diagram A: Double Spin Field Structure

2. Chirality and Helicity Definitions

Chirality is defined as the handedness of the internal vacuum rotation:

\[ \chi = \begin{cases} +1 & \text{if internal spin is right-handed} \\ -1 & \text{if internal spin is left-handed} \end{cases} \]

Helicity is defined as the projection of the outer spin vector onto the momentum direction:

\[ h = \frac{\vec{S}_{\text{ext}} \cdot \vec{p}}{|\vec{S}_{\text{ext}}||\vec{p}|} \]

Diagram B: Helicity Frame Dependence

3. Mass from Vacuum Synchronization

In this model, mass arises from the synchronization of left- and right-chiral field states across a vacuum phase delay. This replaces the traditional Higgs mechanism with a geometric field interaction:

\[ \mathcal{L}_{\text{mass}} = g \bar{\psi}_L \Phi \psi_R + \text{h.c.} \]

Here, \( \Phi \) is not a scalar Higgs field, but a synchronization field derived from the vacuum’s phase memory.

Diagram C: Chirality Synchronization

4. Interpretation and Consequences

• Chirality becomes a geometric feature of the internal field twist.
• Helicity reflects the kinematic state of the electron in space.
• Mass results from stable coupling between opposite chirality states via vacuum synchronization.
• Weak interaction couples only to left-chiral fields due to asymmetry in internal vacuum field configuration.

5. Summary

Concept	Standard Meaning	Double Spin Interpretation
Chirality	Abstract handedness of spinor	Inner vacuum field rotation
Helicity	Spin \(\cdot\) momentum	Outer spin projection on motion
Mass	Higgs coupling \( \psi_L \leftrightarrow \psi_R \)	Vacuum synchronization delay
Weak force	Left-chiral interaction only	Allowed by internal field geometry

6. The Moon Analogy: Understanding Chirality and Helicity Through Orbital Rotation

To better visualize the distinction between chirality and helicity, we can draw a useful analogy from celestial mechanics—specifically, the complex rotation of the Moon.

The Moon experiences three kinds of motion:

• Self-Rotation: The Moon rotates once on its axis every 27.3 days, which defines a stable, intrinsic spin. This is analogous to chirality in the electron, representing internal rotational structure.
• Orbit Around Earth: Also every 27.3 days, this orbit keeps the same side of the Moon facing Earth due to tidal locking. This synchrony resembles the mass-generating coupling between left- and right-chiral states in fermions.
• Orbit Around the Sun: The Moon follows Earth in its annual orbit, analogous to the momentum vector of the electron, which sets the direction used to define helicity.

When we sum all three rotational components as angular velocity vectors in space, we get a net spin axis. This is directly analogous to an electron’s helicity: the projection of its spin along its momentum vector.

Just as the Moon’s self-rotation (chirality) remains fixed while its total orientation (helicity) may appear different in varying frames of reference, an electron’s helicity can flip under a Lorentz boost, but its chirality remains invariant. The analogy reinforces the idea that chirality is an internal, geometric field property, while helicity is frame-dependent and observable in motion.

This planetary model offers an intuitive picture of how nested rotational dynamics can yield the same kinds of symmetry relationships that define quantum spin behavior—especially in field-based theories that go beyond point-particle models.