Reactive Substrate Theory (RST): Cosmology and Provisional Priors — Unified Review

Reactive Substrate Theory (RST): Cosmology and Provisional Priors — Unified Review

Introduction

Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) is a non‑standard theoretical physics model proposing that all of reality emerges from a single, continuous, elastic Substrate (S) field. While unconventional, RST can be checked against cosmological observations. This unified article combines two posts:

  • Post 1: Plugging known RST values into the substrate–cosmology picture
  • Post 2: Appendix: Provisional RST numeric priors

Together, they show how RST can reproduce key features of the standard cosmological model (ΛCDM) and outline numeric priors that make RST predictive and testable.

Part 1 — Plugging known RST values into cosmology

This section demonstrates that the core dynamics of RST replicate the successes of ΛCDM without requiring a true cosmological constant. It uses an effective fluid description for the substrate tension component.

  • Dark energy equivalence: The substrate tension uses an equation‑of‑state parameter wS ≈ −0.95. This causes the substrate tension density ρS to dilute extremely slowly with redshift, effectively mimicking dark energy.
  • Cosmic balance: Assuming a transition redshift zt ≈ 0.34 where matter density equals substrate tension density, the inferred present‑day fractions are ΩS0 ≈ 0.69 and Ωm0 ≈ 0.30, matching the observed matter–dark energy split.
  • Accelerated expansion: The present‑day deceleration parameter is q0 ≈ −0.49, indicating robust cosmic acceleration consistent with observations.
  • Nonlinear dynamics: The substrate field equation
    ∂t2S − c2∇2S + βS3 = …
    includes a cubic term βS3 that introduces amplitude‑dependent stiffness, suggesting potential, testable gravitational‑wave dispersion on cosmological scales once β is determined.

Key outcomes from Part 1

  • Energy fractions reproduced: ΩS0 ≈ 0.69 and Ωm0 ≈ 0.30
  • Acceleration reproduced: q0 ≈ −0.49
  • Interpretation difference: Acceleration arises from substrate tension, not a cosmological constant

Part 2 — Appendix: Provisional RST numeric priors

This section provides educated, provisional numeric values ("priors") for constants needed to make RST quantitative and testable. These are starting points, not measurements.

Symbol Description Provisional Value Interpretation
β Nonlinear elasticity constant ≈ 1 × 10−26 m−2·J−1 Nonlinear effects (e.g., GW dispersion) appear on horizon scales, not locally.
S0 Field amplitude today ≈ 2.3 × 10−5 J1/2·m−3/2 Normalizes the current background state of the Substrate field.
cs,S Effective sound speed of substrate component ≈ 0.97c Near‑stiff response on large scales in the effective fluid picture.
kNL GW dispersion crossover wavenumber ≈ 7.7 × 10−27 m−1 Scale where deviations from luminal GW propagation could appear.

Additional working values used

  • Equation of state: wS ≈ −0.95
  • Transition redshift: zt ≈ 0.34
  • Present‑day fractions: ΩS0 ≈ 0.69, Ωm0 ≈ 0.30
  • Deceleration parameter: q0 ≈ −0.49

RST vs. ΛCDM — alignment and differences

Topic RST (Reactive Substrate Theory) ΛCDM (Standard Cosmology)
Acceleration driver Substrate tension with wS ≈ −0.95 Cosmological constant Λ with w = −1
Energy fractions today ΩS0 ≈ 0.69; Ωm0 ≈ 0.30 ΩΛ ≈ 0.69; Ωm0 ≈ 0.30
Onset of acceleration zt ≈ 0.34 zt ≈ 0.3–0.7 (data/model dependent)
Singularities Elastic limits avoid infinities (finite cores, bounce) Classical GR allows singularities (quantum gravity may resolve)
GW propagation Potential horizon‑scale dispersion from βS3 Luminal in GR; modifications only with new physics

Unified conclusions

  • Viability in principle: With wS ≈ −0.95 and zt ≈ 0.34, RST reproduces the observed energy split and acceleration without a cosmological constant.
  • Distinctive interpretation: Acceleration is due to substrate tension rather than Λ, aligning with data while changing the underlying picture.
  • Testable predictions: The βS3 nonlinearity suggests horizon‑scale gravitational‑wave dispersion that could be probed with cosmological datasets.
  • Next steps: Calibrate β and the matter coupling via supernovae, BAO, CMB, and GW observations to distinguish RST from ΛCDM.

Publishing note

This unified review is designed for clarity and comparability. It ties RST’s effective fluid behavior to mainstream cosmology, lists working numeric priors, and outlines concrete tests to move from qualitative viability to quantitative validation.

Popular posts from this blog

Conceptual Summary #2: (∂t2​S−c2∇2S+βS3)=σ(x,t)⋅FR​(C[Ψ])

Image
The tests designed to find the Aether—principally the Michelson-Morley experiment (M-M)—would be largely ineffective at detecting the fundamental S field (Substrate) in the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) framework, though their null results are highly compatible with RST's structure. The reason lies in the distinct conceptual definition and behavior of the two media. The Test: Michelson-Morley and the Aether. The M-M experiment was designed to detect the "aether wind," a predicted change in the speed of light caused by the Earth's motion relative to a stationary, rigid medium—the classical Luminiferous Aether. Classical Aether: A static, absolute reference frame; an elastic, passive, material-like medium that fills space and serves as a carrier for light waves. Predicted Result: Light traveling parallel to Earth's motion through the Aether should be slightly slower than light traveling perpendicular to it. Actual Result (Null Result): No significant differenc...
Read more

The Non-Attraction Model of Gravity: From Attraction to Displacement: RST's Theory of Gravitational Push..

Image
Brief on the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) RST posits that all of reality—matter, energy, space, and time—emerges from a single, continuous, non-material field called the Substrate (S). Matter: Defined as a σ Soliton, a stable, localized "knot of tension" in the S-field, replacing the concept of a point particle. Energy: Defined as dynamic, propagating tension (waves) in the S-field. Unification: RST views E=mc2 as the conservation of Substrate tension: mass is stored tension; energy is tension in motion. Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) fundamentally redefines gravity as a Substrate tension gradient, which is the mechanism underlying the "buoyant" view of gravity. This explanation also clarifies why the Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiment failed to find the classical Aether, supporting the RST concept of a dynamic Substrate. In essence, gravity is "buoyant" in RST because matter (high tension) sinks into a less-strained S-Field (lower tension...
Read more

Beyond the Flaws: Why RST Succeeds Where Push Gravity and EM-Aether Failed to Unify the Void

Image
RST vs. Extended Electromagnetic Theories (Pre-Relativity) These theories attempted to unify all forces by making gravity a secondary or residual effect of electromagnetism, treating space as an electromagnetic Aether. Why Extended EM Theories Failed Gravity's Independence: The most critical failure is that gravity does not behave like a polarizable electromagnetic force. Gravity affects all matter equally (the equivalence principle), regardless of its charge or composition, which a secondary electromagnetic effect would not do. No Gravitational Shielding: Electromagnetic fields can be shielded (Faraday cage), but gravity cannot.1 This fundamentally contradicts the idea that gravity is an electrical or magnetic residual force. Conflict with GR: They could not accurately predict or explain phenomena later verified by General Relativity (GR), such as the exact amount of light bending around the Sun or the precession of Mercury's orbit. RST vs. Le Sage's The...
Read more