The ISU, QWC, and EI updates for Pseudoscience fans [Archive]

quantum_wave

07-22-12, 11:16 AM

Post #1 in current ISU update
(I've noticed that asterisks show up throughout the post that are not intentially part of the content. I think it is an incompatibility between the "Notes" app on my iPad and the text engine at Sciforums, so ignore them if you can.)

For newcomers, I offer this update to the lengthy scenario I*call my model of the cosmology of the universe. *My disclaimer is that it is not professional nor mathematically rigorous, it is not intended as suggestions or hints to the professional scientific community, and it is open for discussion.

In it I label the universe the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU), the cosmology of the ISU is called Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC), and the philosophy of the ISU is called Eternal Intent (EI), all are previous topics of mine that will be updated to include new thoughts if the posting environment here proves conducive.*

Addressing the ISU name, the word "spongy" represents the physical nature of any given patch of the potentially eternal and spatially infinite universe. The contents (wave energy) in that patch of space can expand and contract to occupy more space or less space by volume; space is considered infinite.*

How waves of energy in a patch of space can contract may seem to be a paradox. It is true that wave energy not already contained with a particle will expand infinitely unless the expansion of the wave is partially interrupted by becoming contained within a particle along the way.*

Spatial contraction and expansion of the contents of any such patch are governed by invariant natural laws of physics, my version of which constitutes the QWC portion of the ISU model. Importantly from my perspective, the sponginess has upper and lower limits of wave energy density that are governed by maximum and minimum thresholds which cause wave energy to change state from matter to dense-state wave energy and back to matter in an entropy defeating perpetual balance between expansion and contraction going on at both the micro and macro levels. So the wave energy contraction "paradox" is solved in QWC by attributing the contraction to gravity that causes particles composed of wave energy to accumulate around a center of gravity.*

Energy density is the theoretical quantification of wave energy rippling across a potentially infinite but undetectable foundational medium, i.e. wave energy is the energy carried by the waves as they traverses the foundational medium. *The medium itself is the boundless potentially infinite space occupied at all points by the foundational commodity which is the undetectable substance across which wave energy is transmitted. The amount of wave energy in any given space is the measure of wave energy density traversing that patch of space at that point in time.

The scenario has two levels of order. The small scale where quantum action takes place is best characterized by the presence of matter and the directly associated presence of gravity at the smallest scale, while the large scale displays the effects of the presence of matter and gravity in the galaxy filled mature big bang arenas that play out in and fill the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe. For perspective, our observable "Hubble view" encompasses a portion of our own big bang arena, one of a potentially infinite number of active arenas that populate the landscape of the greater universe.

At the quantum level, matter is composed of standing wave energy in quantum increments (a quantum at this level being the energy contained in the smallest meaningful wave energy intersection and overlap), and gravity is a directional imbalance in the inflowing wave energy component of the standing wave pattern vs. the always "spherical" outflow of wave energy component from the pattern. "Spherical" is in quotation marks because the sphere of out flowing wave energy from a standing wave pattern is immediately shape-shifted by the surrounding influences of adjacent quantum action, meaning the initial spherical wave out flowing component immediately intersects with the out flowing wave energy components of other standing wave patterns, i.e. inflowing waves in the standing wave pattern are outflowing waves from other particles which have an effect on the shape of the out flowing expanding wave from any given particles. Clear as mud, right?

I should point out here that the standing wave pattern is composed of multiple inflowing waves for all directions and the number of wave intersections going on at any given point in time within a given standing wave pattern is thought to be a significant figure, estimated previously using some speculative ideas and relationships, to be billions and billions within a single established stable particle like a proton.

A particle, therefore, is a disturbed patch of space occupied by standing wave energy that is synchronized into a stable pattern of inflowing and out flowing wave energy components. Every disturbed particle space has a net directional inflow/out-flow differential which establishes the gravitation effect on the particle, i.e. particles move in the direction of the highest net wave energy density inflow for mechanical reasons that are detailed in the more in-depth discussion of the model; hopefully this thread will include an update to supposed wave energy mechanics.

As a point of departure between QWC and mainstream theories, a particle in the foundational medium would equate to internal composition of the fundamental particles in the Standard Particle Model. The important point is that the fundamental particles of that standard model are said to have no internal composition, but in the QWC model they are groupings of synchronized standing waves in the foundational medium. Their internal composition is wave energy in quantum increments. Therefore, a*primary point of departure from mainstream physics is the distinction between the "fundamental" and "foundational". *In terms of my alternative layman QWC model, the known fundamental particles have foundational level internal composition, i.e. the fundamental level of quantum mechanics has a deeper foundational level.

Ramping up from the QWC foundational quantum level to the world of atomic and sub-atomic particles and forces of the mainstream standard model includes details about quantum action, high density and low density spots (wave energy intersections and troughs) within standing wave patterns, foundational particle interactions, and forces including the mechanics of gravity associated with the foundational particles. That level of detail will hopefully be addressed and described in some detail as the model updates unfold, if they are allow to do so in this posting environment.

Further ramping up in scale to the macro level,*QWC invokes big bangs/big crunches, and a potentially infinite spatial arena landscape where a potentially infinite number of these individual crunch/bangs play out by expanding, intersecting, overlapping, and forming crunches of converging galactic material which then bang in accord with the new physics of QWC.*

There is a correlation in the mechanics between the micro quantum level and the macro arena level when it comes to wave energy intersections and overlaps, given that a big bang can be equated with a spherical out flow of energy from a preceding "multiple arena wave energy overlap" just like the mechanics at the micro level where the presence of individual particles are established in a similar process. I use quote marks there because the concept of multiple big bang arenas expands on the concept of an arena mentioned in regard to our Hubble view within our own big bang arena. The concept is that across potentially infinite space, there are a potentially infinite number of active arenas that overlap and out of those overlaps come new expanding big bang arenas that themselves overlap, perpetuating the process; overlapping arenas are the "parents" of new big bang arenas in the model, just like overlapping quantum waves of energy are the "parents" of the standing wave patterns that establish the presence of particles.

I think some clarity can be added by pointing out that the individual QWC big crunches/big bangs could equate to an ultimate level of black hole forming and bursting. But in QWC, the big crunch would encompass the equivalent all of the black holes and all of the galactic material surrounding them in our observable and expended big bang arena and so the order of magnitude is so vastly different from that which we normally attribute to black holes that I refer to a "big crunch" instead of to "an ultimate black hole".

In QWC there is one universe and it is referred to as the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, the ISU. No matter where you go in this landscape, the view of the greater landscape is essentially the same in all directions and has always appeared essentially the same at all times past and will at all times in the future. It is the "Perfect Cosmological Principle" version of a steady state multiverse of big bang arenas as described in this link:*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Cosmological_Principle

quantum_wave

07-24-12, 10:46 AM

Post #2 in current ISU update:
(Please ignore asterisks)

Referencing the previous post, here is the next episode in my delusions about the two levels of order in Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC).*

The levels of order have to do with the size scale, and with the size of what we observe between the two limits of scale where quantum action and arena action take place. A new particle forming in a new arena is forming at the micro level within an arena that is forming somewhere in the grand landscape of the greater universe. The lower level reference is to the quantum realm and quantum action, while the upper level reference is to the big bang arena *landscape and the realm where arena action plays out. Every point in space occupies a position in both levels simultaneously.

The size of the tiniest "meaningful" things at the quantum level is referred to as a quantum space; it has three dimensions and it is the space occupied by the intersection and overlap of quantum waves. To be very basic, an intersection between two spherical quantum waves is a point and a point has no volume, but an overlap of two quantum waves occupies the tiniest meaningful volume of space. Each quantum space is preceded by the intersection event and is established by the overlapping that follows the intersection event.

I put "meaningful" in quotes above because there are waves of all sizes traversing the foundation medium at all points at all times from all directions, but synchronization of quantum waves are the required inflow to the standing waves that establish the presence of mass. Therefore, a meaningful wave is one that participates in the standing wave process and is therefore meaningful to the quantum action process; a quantum wave.

An important feature of the lower (foundational) level is that stable particles form in a new arena as the energy density decreases from the dense-state wave energy of the big bang. Matter formation occurs almost simultaneously across the entire expanding arena when the wave energy density of the dense-state wave energy declines down to the matter formation threshold. This happens quickly after the big bang.

*Foundational particles form first which initiates gravity in the arena soon after the bang, and gravitational clumping and the formation of stable configurations of synchronized standing waves soon form fundamental particles and simple gases. Hydrogen clouds form and condense into first round super-giant stars that contain the wave energy equivalent of whole galaxies. Heavy nuclei form as those first round stars burn fast and collapse, and the extreme novas disburse the heavy nuclei and cosmic dust into vast clouds from which star and planetary systems evolve into whole galaxies around the black hole remnant of the extreme nova; galaxies are "born" from the first round of huge hydrogen stars in the early phases of the new arena.

The dense-state wave energy spawning all of this arena matter and galaxy formation tracks back to a single ball of dense-state wave energy that emerged from the big bang. In the dense-state it is standing wave energy on a grand scale. The nature of any standing wave is that it has two components, the inflowing wave energy and the out flowing wave energy. The inflowing component of this grand scale standing arena wave is the collapse (negation of particles) of the big crunch that preceded it. That crunch contained the remaining particles from the galactic material of the portion of the parent arenas that intersected and overlapped; the particles that are "negated" from the particle state to the dense-state by the gravitational collapse that takes place at the center of gravity of the overlap space. That collapse marks the big bang event and when the collapse occurs it marks the point that the big crunch reached "critical capacity". Critical capacity is the same for every big crunch/bang; it is this natural law of critical capacity that keeps the entire universe from collapsing into a final big crunch.

I put "negation" in quotes above because particle negation is what happens when the crunch finally fails to contain the gravitational compression building up on the particles as more and more galactic material from the parent arenas is accumulated. Negation is the effect that big crunch compression has on the ability of particles to maintain sufficient particle space to function individually; negation denotes the loss of sufficient individual particle space.*

Though a particle can cease to exist, the quantum wave energy of which a particle is composed cannot be created or destroyed and the cessation of the individual particle denotes the threshold where the wave energy density achieves the "dense state". In the dense-state of wave energy there are no individual particles but there is a whole arena worth of particle potential; that dense-state wave energy is the source of particles in the new arena and can be equated to one huge patch of standing wave energy density at the outset of the new arena which is the source of mass that forms in the new arena.

Referring to that dense-state wave energy as an arena particle is not necessarily appropriate in QWC because the arenas are not suspected of being the lower quantum level of some super grand scale at a level of order higher than the arena landscape. QWC is not a "turtles all the way down" or "up" cosmology.

I'll end this post with the statement that QWC is internally consistent and not inconsistent with known science and physical observations. Still, it is a layman's view. My disclaimer is that it is not professional nor mathematically rigorous, it is not intended as suggestions or hints to the professional scientific community, and it is open for discussion.

origin

07-24-12, 01:28 PM

I call this thread a (POS), no need to spell it out....

quantum_wave

07-24-12, 01:40 PM

I can only say, it is what it is. POS to you is fine with me.

quantum_wave

08-15-12, 05:36 PM

The "POS" post is devoid of a reference to a single line of content.*I would not be offended by a thoughtful post that could bring up a scientific observation or fact that could not be consistent with the preconditions of a foundational medium and wave energy at the quantum level, or with the big bang preconditions of arena action at the level of the arena landscape of the greater universe. Is there one "stand up" person here who can accept the disclaimers and the intent of the thread, and address the discussion as if it was sincere layman talk about things of interest to layman science enthusiasts.

origin

08-15-12, 07:24 PM

The "POS" post is devoid of a reference to a single line of content.

Sorry but there is nothing to comment on. Your posts are just unevidenced hand waving idle conjecture. I admitt I stopped reading them about 1 year ago. So to be fair I tried to read the OP but I could only make it through a couple lines. Your posts are just a series of scientific terms used out of context and haphazardly strung together.

wlminex

08-15-12, 10:31 PM

Origin: Is this NOT a pseudoscience forum????? Please spell-out POS, Thanks

quantum_wave

08-15-12, 10:32 PM

Sorry but there is nothing to comment on. Your posts are just unevidenced hand waving idle conjecture. I admitt I stopped reading them about 1 year ago. So to be fair I tried to read the OP but I could only make it through a couple lines. Your posts are just a series of scientific terms used out of context and haphazardly strung together.I appreciate what you say. There is nothing new in your response from a year ago, and the fact that you respond at all is a surprising. My posts are not science and are not aimed at the science professional except for the ones who are interested in helping laymen like me along. You have said the same thing more or less right along over the years, to me and to every layman who attempts to communicate with other interested layman.*

Are you a science professional or a science enthusiast in the layman community?

The thing is that from my perspective you have done the hand waving here. I was clear about the disclaimer, and I was forthcoming with the explanations of how I use the various terms, starting with what I mean by "spongy" and then right on through posts 1 & 2. You gave no examples, which is always your MO, and which is why I simply discount your responses as not intended to be discussion, but intended to repeat again and again the same type of comments; no actual argument was given in response to my delusions, no help was given, and the response was of no use to me.

I'll address the rest to everyone else in hopes a "stand up" person who has a grasp of what we know factually about cosmology at the micro and macro levels, and what science does not yet know, might be able to see where I am coming from and might join me in some discussion of what I have posted. If I use a word improperly and don't explain my usage then point it out to me and I will respond and learn. The general scenarios that I discuss are about the things that science does not yet have answers for, and are all preceded by my disclaimers and the explanation that I am not trying to tell the scientific community anything, but instead I am tossing out the scenarios so that any layman who knows what they are talking about will see the departure points from known science and into my delusions. If you cannot detect those points, you probably won't have anything to add or correct and for that matter you probably will agree with the type of response that Origin seems to always offer, general dismissal of a layman's posts when I simply seek a layman level discussion.

wlminex

08-15-12, 10:35 PM

QW: Well-said!!

quantum_wave

08-15-12, 10:37 PM

POS means what you think it means, piece of sh**. And Origin who introduced the term, was quoting me, quoting him (or her) :).

quantum_wave

08-15-12, 10:40 PM

QW: Well-said!!Thank you. Did you understand what I meant by "spongy" in post #1?

Prof.Layman

08-16-12, 05:59 AM

In QWC there is one universe and it is referred to as the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, the ISU. No matter where you go in this landscape, the view of the greater landscape is essentially the same in all directions and has always appeared essentially the same at all times past and will at all times in the future. It is the "Perfect Cosmological Principle" version of a steady state multiverse of big bang arenas as described in this link:*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Cosmological_Principle

I ran into a big problem when trying to accept the Perfect Cosmological Principle and that is galaxies. Most of all matter in the universe is all bunched up into these galaxies! So then how could the Perfect Cosmological Principle apply to when these galaxies get further away from each other? In the grand scheme of things, it appears that it would be impossible to describe a universe that is essentially the same at all times accross a greater landscape of the universe with the presence of galaxies. They do tend to expand away from each other exponentially for the most part.

quantum_wave

08-16-12, 08:45 AM

I ran into a big problem when trying to accept the Perfect Cosmological Principle and that is galaxies. Most of all matter in the universe is all bunched up into these galaxies! So then how could the Perfect Cosmological Principle apply to when these galaxies get further away from each other? In the grand scheme of things, it appears that it would be impossible to describe a universe that is essentially the same at all times accross a greater landscape of the universe with the presence of galaxies. They do tend to expand away from each other exponentially for the most part.A quote from the link: "The Perfect Cosmological Principle states that the Universe is homogenous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), ..."

I understand pretty clearly what you are saying. You have a problem with the Perfect CP because of the time aspect, i.e. the PCP, unlike the normal CP, says that time does not change the grand view. And your point is that the grand view would be continually changing if the universe was composed of a finite set of galaxies that are essentially all moving away from each other as evidenced by the redshift. Do I understand you correctly?

Quote from post #1: "...the large scale displays the effects of the presence of matter and gravity in the galaxy filled mature big bang arenas that play out in and fill the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe. For perspective, our observable "Hubble view" encompasses a portion of our own big bang arena, one of a potentially infinite number of active arenas that populate the landscape of the greater universe."

In my model there are multiple big bangs and each big bang marks the start of a new expanding arena within which galaxies form as the matter they form from is decreasing in density. I picture a sea of particles forming at an early stage in the arena. The arena is rapidly expanding and so the particles would be moving away from each other if it wasn't for the effect of gravity. Gravity and expansion are opposing forces going on at the same time in each new arena and so at short distances gravity defeats expansion momentum while on the arena level expansion causes the clumps of particles to continue to separate from each other. Eventually gravitational clumping yields galaxies which as we agree are essentially all moving away from each other.

But in my model, one arena will expand as its galaxies separate and it will eventually intersect with another arena. The analogy of the "forest and the trees" can apply here. If you are in an expanding arena you cannot see the other arenas that are expanding toward you, but if you could step out into the deep corridors of space between expanding arenas you would have a view of the larger portion of the arena landscape. The time aspect would present a similar view over time assuming that the expanding arenas overlap, galaxies crunch together from each "parent" arena, and collapse under the influence of gravity in a big crunch. My model proposes that the resulting crunch will reach "critical capacity" and "bang" into a new expanding arena. Do you see what my perspective is and why I invoke the PCP?

Prof.Layman

08-16-12, 09:07 AM

I understand pretty clearly what you are saying. You have a problem with the Perfect CP because of the time aspect, i.e. the PCP, unlike the normal CP, says that time does not change the grand view. And your point is that the grand view would be continually changing if the universe was composed of a finite set of galaxies that are essentially all moving away from each other as evidenced by the redshift. Do I understand you correctly?I am saying that I think the grand view would look differently even if there where an infinite number of galaxies. Even if galaxies are even distributed now, over time, the galaxies will move further away from each other and still have about the same consistancy. It makes it seem like the PCP could never be applied to galaxies, the most abundant thing in the universe.

quantum_wave

08-16-12, 09:14 AM

Prof.Layman

08-16-12, 10:00 AM

But in my model, one arena will expand as its galaxies separate and it will eventually intersect with another arena. The analogy of the "forest and the trees" can apply here. If you are in an expanding arena you cannot see the other arenas that are expanding toward you, but if you could step out into the deep corridors of space between expanding arenas you would have a view of the larger portion of the arena landscape. The time aspect would present a similar view over time assuming that the expanding arenas overlap, galaxies crunch together from each "parent" arena, and collapse under the influence of gravity in a big crunch. My model proposes that the resulting crunch will reach "critical capacity" and "bang" into a new expanding arena. Do you see what my perspective is and why I invoke the PCP? If I was going to try and take on such a task I think I would play it safe and just stick to the Cosmological Principle and not the "perfect" one. I think the universe can be infinite or have infinite galaxies and still conform to the CP but not PCP, or the region of our observable universe appears to be closer to the CP. If the PCP was correct, there would have to be another section of the universe (about the size of the observable universe) that we cannot see that is in complete chaos with almost all the galaxies being pulled inward towards each other. How lucky we must be! Even though the Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way, the observable universe doesn't seem to have enough of these occurances, so I think chances are the CP is the correct principle as the simplest solution tends to be the more likely solution. The Perfect Cosmological Principle would in effect have too many possible observable unknowns.

quantum_wave

08-16-12, 10:08 AM

If I was going to try and take on such a task I think I would play it safe and just stick to the Comological Principle and not the "perfect" one. I think the universe can be infinite or have infinite galaxies and still conform to the CP but not PCP, or the region of our observable universe appears to be closer to the CP. If the PCP was correct, there would have to be another section of the universe (about the size of the observable universe) that we cannot see that is in complete chaos with almost all the galaxies being pulled inward towards each other. How lucky we must be! Even though the Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way, the observable universe doesn't seem to have enough of these occurances, so I think chances are the CP is the correct principle as the simplest solution tends to be the more likely solution. The Perfect Cosmological Principle would in effect have too many possible observable unknowns.
Preumably you are a science enthusiast in the layman community, like I am. My thanks for taking the time to think through the concept of the perfect CP vs. the CP. I will write a response in which I will ask you to consider my model in more detail. The problem is with the CP and not the PCP if you are proposing that the galaxies separate forever, and if you consider the big bang as the start of that separation. More later.

Prof.Layman

08-16-12, 10:22 AM

I would also like to add that the Big Bang was very smooth and homogeneous(so much that it has been said to be unable to be describe as a normal explosion), it would seem like PCP would make it look otherwise (on smaller scales even as large as the observable universe). Even if you where to say that well, a part of the universe that had the galaxies expanding away from each other would be more likely to develop life, there is also a good chance that life could form in galaxies that are heading toward each other or in a more random haphazard fashion. So then observing our universe would be an incredible luck of the draw if PCP was the correct principle, then again the CP would be more likely because galaxies can support life equally regardless of what the other galaxies around it are doing at the time.

quantum_wave

08-16-12, 11:34 AM

I am saying that I think the grand view would look differently even if there where an infinite number of galaxies. Even if galaxies are even distributed now, over time, the galaxies will move further away from each other and still have about the same consistancy. It makes it seem like the PCP could never be applied to galaxies, the most abundant thing in the universe.
I'm going to ask you to go back to this post so that I can confirm my understanding of your argument. Correct me if I am wrong. I mentioned a finite number of galaxies in an observable arena (our Hubble view) and you are adding that you would still have trouble with the PCP if there were an infinite number of galaxies, right? And to paraphrase your last post, you think the grand view would be continually changing even if there were an infinite number of galaxies assuming they were all moving away from each other as essentially all of the galaxies, clusters, and galaxy groups appear to be doing. Do I have that correct? I'll move on to the next post from you where you responded in post #16, but I want to confirm understanding between us as we go if possible.

Prof.Layman

08-16-12, 11:49 AM

quantum_wave

08-16-12, 03:11 PM

Right, I think the formation of galaxies and the observed outward expansion of the universe would prevent PCP, unless there where galaxy formations outside the observable universe that did not correspond at all to what we see in the observable universe (like the forest through the trees example). *That is what my model speculates. We are in our big bang arena and there are other big bang arenas. The "large scale" referred to in the PCP is the arena landscape of the greater universe in my model. It is a dynamic landscape that is always changing on the "less than grand scale", but those changes maintain the arena landscape as arenas form, play out, and as new arenas take their places.

I believe that over time galaxies will remain closely similair to how they are now in their formation, but they will mostly be expanded further and further away from each other. *This would not show the same consistency of the universe, rather if there are an infinte number of galaxies or not. *On the galactic scale the consistancy of matter would be roughley the same, but at the scale of the observable universe, (that would grow larger) the same number of galaxies would be further apart in that area.
I can picture it the way you describe. I have pictured it that way in the past. I changed my view gradually as I contemplated various ramifications of it which you might be kind enough to let me explain so you can see how my delusions have come about :).

Edit: *I am not sure if the observable universe could actually grow larger, because the outermost parts of the observable universe is traveling away at the speed of light. *It is the space that is expanding FTL, so it is not the speed of light barrier I am concerned with, it is the ability for us to even detect an object traveling FTL even if it is traveling FTL along with the local space itself. *Then if the observable universe was not seen to be able to get larger, than there would be less galaxies in it over time as they where seen to hit the FTL observable universe barrier.

Edit #2: *It just occured to me that the observable universe could actually get smaller, if an object traveling FTL along with its local space became undetectable. *Since the rate of expansion is speeding up, the point where an object would go FTL would become increasing closer, although in the end there would be less detectable galaxies in the visable universe.Before I explain the FTL aspect in my model I am in hopes you will confirm that you understand the large scale aspect of the model so you will know the macro view of my delusions :).

Prof.Layman

08-16-12, 06:05 PM

That is what my model speculates. We are in our big bang arena and there are other big bang arenas. The "large scale" referred to in the PCP is the arena landscape of the greater universe in my model. It is a dynamic landscape that is always changing on the "less than grand scale", but those changes maintain the arena landscape as arenas form, play out, and as new arenas take their places.
I can picture it the way you describe. I have pictured it that way in the past. I changed my view gradually as I contemplated various ramifications of it which you might be kind enough to let me explain so you can see how my delusions have come about :).
Before I explain the FTL aspect in my model I am in hopes you will confirm that you understand the large scale aspect of the model so you will know the macro view of my delusions :).Spit it out then, it couldn't be any crazier than trying to assume that each universe in the quilted multiverse landscape is only the size of a galaxy, lol. It is beleived that a suppermassive black hole is at the center of every galaxy. It could only mean that white holes have been mistaken by their jet cousins. I think it would allow a lot more Big Bang scenarios come back into the picture if it was the case. Like even, there is a black hole at the center of the universe, but it is only speculation after all.

quantum_wave

08-17-12, 08:18 AM

Spit it out then, it couldn't be any crazier than trying to assume that each universe in the quilted multiverse landscape is only the size of a galaxy, lol. It is beleived that a suppermassive black hole is at the center of every galaxy. It could only mean that white holes have been mistaken by their jet cousins. I think it would allow a lot more Big Bang scenarios come back into the picture if it was the case. Like even, there is a black hole at the center of the universe, but it is only speculation after all.Are you confirming that you understand the grand scale, i.e. the arena landscape of the greater universe, and can therefore see why I invoke the PCP instead of the CP?

Does "spit it out" mean that you can see that my delusion is that the arena landscape is self-perpetuating, infinite, and eternal, and therefore complies with the PCP?

If so, can you confirm your understanding that my model includes the scenario of perpetual arena action that defeats entropy via its mechanics that bring about a matter-to energy-to matter cycle that plays out across the arena landscape. Each arena has the preconditions of being generated by the intersection and overlap of preceding arenas, i.e. there was no beginning, but instead the potentially infinite arena landscape has always existed?

Then do you acknowledge that the model includes the characteristic that each big bang event complies with the natural laws of the model, and as galaxies from separate arenas converge, gravity overcomes the separation momentum that galaxies exhibit within their own arenas causing the galactic material that enters the overlap space to accumulate around a center of gravity and a big crunch gradually forms from the galactic material provided by the individual parent arenas?

Do you confirm that you understand that the model features natural laws and mechanics that cause each big bang to occur when the point of "critical capacity" of the big crunch is reached? The model also features the concept that gravitational compression increases to the point where particles can no longer maintain their individual particle space and collapse, causing the big bangs?

If so, you can confirm that you understand the main features of the macro portion of the model and the reason I invoke the PCP, right?

Prof.Layman

08-17-12, 12:10 PM

quantum_wave

08-17-12, 01:47 PM

I have already stated that I think the PCP is very unlikely and that the CP is far more likely to be a correct description of the multiverse.I know. Since you said that I was trying to show why I invoke it in my model, not trying to change your mind about it.

Do you mean to show that the arena landscape is similar to the landscape multiverse proposed in string theory?
No, for two reasons. What I read as a layman about existing theories is a far cry from being qualified to compare my delusions with any scientific theory, and secondly, from my layman reading I don't get a feel for the mechanics of String Theory because it is too mathematically rigorous for me.

Or, is it more similar to the quilted multiverse of string theory?
I admit that I am not even slightly familiar with the "quilted universe theory", but would gladly review a link that explains it to your satisfaction.

I think string theory has allowed PCP to come into more of its recent development, but I do not agree that it is more correct or closer to the true nature of things. I see it still as a far fetched abstraction. I don't see any reason why it should be anything otherwise. Like I mentioned before I think that string theory will run into big problems trying to invoke the PCP when it is applied to galaxies. If the cosmological constant is related to the number of alternate universes, then it could prove impossible to show that there are sections of the multiverse that are involved in a big crunch type of scenario. Then if the cosmological constant is shown to be related to the number of universes then it could destroy the PCP. Then there wouldn't be a reason for there to be contraction of many galaxies if the universe where open. That it has recently shown signs to be. Then one universe may lead right on in to another universe. Then a vast multiverse could exist in a state where there was just one big universe, like you recently described. I think that would be one way of getting into why there should be just one infinitely repeating universe. The multiverse is the universe, in a sense and the universe seems to be pushing itself to the limit on how far galaxies can travel away from each other FTL. So then no matter what size you assume these universes are, the evidence shows that the multiverse is expanding exponential from what we see in the observable universe.Yes, and in my model there is just one universe. Stated simply, it is a steady state multiverse that complies with the PCP. Note that when I say it features big bangs and big crunches I hope you will allow my use of those terms even though I don't invoke Big Bang Theory. I do offer a layman view of the mechanics at the macro level that corresponds to the mechanics at the micro level which I describe under the concept of "quantum action".

Prof.Layman

08-17-12, 04:27 PM

I first heard about quilted multiverse, and landscape multiverse from Brian Greenes new book, Hidden Reality, I would reccomend reading it if you are into this sort of thing. I think they are some relatively new ideas, and it describes a lot of different multiverse models that seem to adhear to PCP. I think it was mostly an attempt to show conservation in multiverse string theories. I think they may have taken this conservation too far, and lost track what we observe to be the cosmological constant. I think this principle might actually prevent them from being able to find the cosmological constant in string theory. The principle in itself may directly violate the constant. The constant is that all galaxies are moving away from each other exponentially, not that an even number of galaxies are also contracting towards each other exponentially. If PCP where true, it makes it seem like the cosmological constant would have to come from more of an effect of conservation of the variation of the multiverse or universe. But, it is hard to imagine how the constant could be seen as just a variation when the universe is so homogeneous, because it is a pretty drastic effect on the visable universe, and it would mean that our part of the universe has gone to the extreme of expansion while maintaining homogeneity with respect to everything else. The principle just doesn't sit well with me because it doesn't fit the big picture on the movement of galaxies that I have read about. In Alan Guths Inflation, for example, he claims that the expansion of the universe if shown as negative that it could be conserved with the amount of matter in the universe. If that is true, PCP is an attempt at conservation then it may have just been applied incorrectly. The expansion would then have no need to have contraction in order to maintain conservation.

This paper talks about the homogeneity of inflation.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178v1.pdf

I lost track of Guths, 2004 paper, but I think that one talked about conservation in inflation, that I ment to link. I will try to find it. It was posted on sciforums not to long ago.

He talks about the energy of inflation and where it comes from at the end of 1.2
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0404546v1.pdf

Ah, the paper I was refering to that talks about inflation as a negative energy. 2001.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0101507v1.pdf

quantum_wave

08-17-12, 07:28 PM

Prof.Layman

08-17-12, 10:59 PM

I can't say that I agree with the title of the paper. It sounds more like an attack on Guth's theory itself. But, then it states that inflation itself is not able to happen after t=0 if it was in a state of a singularity, that is no surprise. Seems like Guth is attempting to stear clear of having to make any such type of calculation, and trying to describe what we observe as inflation with completely different methods that do not involve having to explain an open singularity. Like Guth, I think it would be wise to avoid the singularity altogether. The evidence is all around us, and it clearly shows that there was a Big Bang and there is inflation. Then recent discoveries have shown that the universe may be open or will expand forever. I think a better title would be singularities don't allow inflation. I don't think Big Bang cosmology will go much of anywhere unless we are able to take the singularity out of the equation or even show that a singularity was not even present at the start of the Big Bang. Then if a singularity was not present at the moment of the Big Bang then it would have the same laws of physics that we have now! If Guth is right about inflation being negative energy in relation to mass then all the mass of the universe would not even have to be present at the start of the Big Bang and then a lot of the mass of the universe could come in later. So this has lead me to beleive that the Big Bang was composed of mostly pure energy that increased during the periods of burst of inflation of the early universe, the total energy being what was generated during all these burst until they stopped. Then it could stay a bubble, but I do not think the universe being a bubble during this period would mean that it is also a closed universe or the required mass to collapse on itself. I think the final mass of the Big Bang was acheived after it got to dense or large for energy to be able to travel around the universe so that it could no longer intensify itself and energy would have to be able to be created in such a similar fashion. In a way, the early universe could act as a perfectly closed system of "mirrors"(perfect reflection, with nothing standing between them), energy could travel around the universe and repeat the same path an indefinite number of times. I think this could cause a self interaction of particles, that would increase the amount of energy present. If inflation itself counteracts the amount of mass in the universe and the mass in the universe is generated by energy, then energy could be conserved even if there is free energy. I don't know if that makes much sense, but I don't think everything was always here eternally into the past (singularities), so then everything had to have come from somewhere or something shortly after the Big Bang.

quantum_wave

08-18-12, 12:19 PM

I have already stated that I think the PCP is very unlikely and that the CP is far more likely to be a correct description of the multiverse. Do you mean to show that the arena landscape is similair to the landscape multiverse proposed in string theory? Or, is it more similair to the quilted multiverse of string theory? I think string theory has allowed PCP to come into more of its recent development, but I do not agree that it is more correct or closer to the true nature of things. I see it still as a far fetched abstraction. I don't see any reason why it should be anything otherwise. Like I mentioned before I think that string theory will run into big problems trying to invoke the PCP when it is applied to galaxies. If the cosmological constant is related to the number of alternate universes, then it could prove impossible to show that there are sections of the multiverse that are involved in a big crunch type of scernario. Then if the cosmological constant is shown to be related to the number of universes then it could destroy the PCP. Then there wouldn't be a reason for there to be contraction of many galaxies if the universe where open. That it has recently showns signs to be. Then one universe may lead right on in to another universe. Then a vast multiverse could exist in a state where there was just one big universe, like you recently described. I think that would be one way of getting into why there should be just one infinitely repeating universe. The mulitverse is the the universe, in a sense and the universe seems to be pushing itself to the limit on how far galaxies can travel away from each other FTL. So then no matter what size you assume these universes are, the evidence shows that the multiverse is expanding exponential from what we see in the observable universe.
I don't quite understand everything you said but it might be because between us we have mentioned or linked to several papers and I don't know which one you mean when you say you don't agree with the title of the paper; is it Mersini-Houghton's paper, Is Eternal Inflation Eternal? Guth himself brings up that issue in the paper you linked to. But let me jump to your last statement: You said, "I don't know if that makes much sense, but I don't think everything was always here eternally into the past (singularities), so then everything had to have come from somewhere or something shortly after the Big Bang."

You are at a different place than I am on that topic. There is no scientific answer to the question of "beginning". The math of popular theories works perfectly and yet the theories don't work together, and there are theories that cannot be tested and yet are based on millions of man hours of effort. I have moved on, lol. I have developed my own model from the bottom up using my personal logic and my layman understanding. I have not been able to find evidence of something from nothing; nothingness is impossible to test so some say that it could happen but I don't buy that possibility.

That leaves me in a precise place that you may not be in sympathy with, but let me state what that is. If we can't get something from nothing, then everything has an infinite past.

Prof.Layman

08-18-12, 01:01 PM

I was referring to the paper, Is eternal Inflation Eternal? I have been thinking about it a bit lately, but I think PCP could become more of a prevelent principle if there is no free energy or energy is not canceled by inflation itself. Many theories have to show how they obey conservation laws, and I think a big difference between your model and my old model in a nut shell would vary in the application of conservation. My model is filled with many high hopes and broken dreams, and maybe even broken promises. But, I have considered it rigorously. I just found out this morning that the Eridanus Void may put a big cramp into my perspective. It may allow for your model to be able to be more easily described. I have based my own model on my own conception of particle precognition. Your model sounds similar to ones I have read about in popular books, so it may be seen as more scientific approuch in certain circles. I would also like to add that in one of Guths papers, he mentions that a universe that goes infinitely into the past could not have the same laws of physics before time zero. And, I think we have reached a scientific consensus that black holes or singularities cannot be described with our current laws of physics and that the singularity at the moment of the Big Bang would have different laws of physics. This would mean that a theory that claims to have conservation infinitely into the past would not have the same laws of physics all the time up to some time after the Big Bang, so then why should there be conservation even shortley after the Big Bang? This makes me wonder, do you think that just getting rid of the bubbles prevents a singularity in your model?

quantum_wave

08-18-12, 02:08 PM

:Humor: My model is like learning a foreign language. It has different words (and meanings) for everything.

A few examples from your last post:

Particle precognition: Please explain what you mean.

Inflation: do you mean the stretching of space or the superluminal expansion at the instant of the big bang? Do you consider inflation to be continuing or just during the first picoseconds? Space doesn't stretch or curve in my model.

Time zero: If there was no beginning there was no universal time zero. Each of the multiple big bangs would have preconditions, right? So there is a t=0 for each big bang arena but no T=0 for the universe.

New physics: The need for new physics is what stymies science professionals, but not layman, lol. It is obvious to me that new physics are needed to explain black holes, big crunches and big bangs and so I have introduced the necessary new physics from a layman's perspective.

In my model the physics don't change, they are driven by the conditions. The black holes, big crunches and bangs are extremes of wave energy density in my model that cause thresholds and limits to be reached that then initiate the physics peculiar to the conditions of high levels of energy density.

My model features a foundational medium through which wave energy traverses, and the amount of wave energy in a given volume of space defines the energy density of that space. Particles have synchronized inflowing and out flowing "standing wave energy" and high energy density relative to surrounding space which is filled with unsynchronized wave energy traversing all space between particles and coming and going in all directions; imagine the chaos at the foundational level ;).

Bubbles from the multiverse theories in the professional community would equate to arenas in my model.

Prof.Layman

08-18-12, 03:00 PM

quantum_wave

08-19-12, 08:31 AM

Particle precognition is a description of an event that happens to electromagnetic energy that is traveling down a wavequide. It states that an electromagnetic wave will not travel down a half wave quide even to begin with under any circumstances. This effect is used in Radar Theory in the waveguide that is the transceiver. It prevents energy from the transmitter from going into the receiver even though they are traveling down the same guide to the antenna at some point in time. This is in contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics. For instance, I could remove the antenna and then just let the radar run with no where for the energy to go, no energy would then be detected traveling into the reciever. The electromagnetic energy will not evenly distribute.

I think this process is similar to the one described on this wiki in the section of Fustrated Total Internal Reflection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection

In the section fustrated total internal reflection (FTIR), it states, under "ordinary conditions" an evenecent wave does not affect conservation of energy. But then it says, However (that is a big however), the evenecent wave can be different than under "ordinary conditions".
So in the example I gave earlier of electrons being sent through waveguide in radar, one would think that the energy should travel down the half wave and then reflect out of sync half a wave. This is not what happens! The energy cannot even be detected to have even begun to travel down the half wave quide to begin with. It is as if it "knows" that it is only half a wave long before it even makes the journey. This is why I think there is a self interaction of particles that exist completely out of time, even for particles as massive as the electron that are only traveling close to the speed of light. I think energy is in a way being destroyed inside radar receivers that is comeing out of the transmitter. I think this type of work as described in FTIR has lead us to another conservation loop hole, besides particle anit-particle pair creation.
Thank you for the explanation of particle precognition and FTIR. It is an interesting link that I have some thoughts about; perhaps for future discussion.

I have always seen inflation as being the stretching of space, and I think the evidence of the dopplar shift shows that to be the case. I may have used the term inflation losely to explain the inflation shortly after the big bang and the expansion of the universe afterwards. I think some new physics will have to come into play in order to describe the big bang more accurately(like the acceptance of FTIR), but I don't think the laws of physics have to have been different close to the time of the big bang.
Let me run this by you. We are aware of the relative motion of galaxies from the raw redshift data. That data then is modified to calculate the relativistic redshift. In my model there is no relativistic redshift and so the motion of the galaxies directly corresponds with the raw redshift data.

It shows that galaxies and galaxy groups are moving away from each other. In my model the relative motion of the galaxies and galaxy groups is a phenomenon of arena action. Each arena begins at its own specific t=0 that corresponds with the big bang of that particular arena. That event in my model is the violent collapse of the big crunch which causes an arena wave of energy that is the conserved energy of the particles that went into the preceding big crunch from the converging galactic material from multiple "mature" expanding parent arenas. A mature arena is simply one in which the galaxies have formed and have had "expansion momentum" imparted to them, and have not yet intersected with other expanding arenas.

How do galaxies get expansion momentum imparted to them according to my model? If interested, say so and I will describe how and why galaxies within a mature arena are essentially all actually moving away from each other instead of space stretching or being added between them. The explanation will include my layman delusions about new physics related to big bang events and particle formation during early expansion.

Prof.Layman

08-19-12, 03:57 PM

quantum_wave

08-19-12, 06:51 PM

I ran into a big problem that I have tried to address before with poeple online about the movement of galaxies, they are not subject to spacetime dialation. If the "expansion momentum" as you put it is the only thing driving this expansion, then it leaves the problem of why are relativistic affects only local? I never found an answer to this question, and it currently seems to be outside the bounds of science. But, it lead me to an idea of Relativistic Inflation. In special theory, if an object experiences spacetime dialation, the difference of the locations of objects in space are not affected by spacetime dialation because the amount of spacetime dialation has varied. That is the founding principle of the theory. For example, say an object is traveling close to the speed of light but then assumes that he is at rest. He could say I am not contracted and everything else is just contracted all around me. Then he changes speed, and then he again starts traveling at a constant speed. Then he says, hrm, I have accelerated but then started traveling at a constant speed again that looks to be equally valid than when I was at rest before. But, then he notices something strange. Everything else around him is contracted at a different value. The difference between the two values of each time he assumed he was at rest is not subject to spacetime dialation, it was an effect of it within itself. Objects would be seen at different distances from each other, but then there was no observed effect from SR that the "appearant velocity" would indicate from observing the exchange between these two different positions. If this is true, than the expansion of space itself caused by the expansion of the universe could be very real indeed.You point out an interesting dilemma that makes me happy that my model does not invoke SR or GR, lol. I do not try to debunk the standard mainstream theories. I only explain the effects of relativistic motion and changes in motion in terms of my model.

However, if I understand SR a little, I think that Lorentz transformations from one frame to another end up in establishing the extent of time dilation and length contraction between the frames. The values of those measurements increases as relativistic velocities are reached but there are several things to consider. The motion, I think, has to be linear, there is no gravitational effect, and changes in direction and therefore variable velocities introduce entirely new frames and the transformations for each new frame are independent of the transformations for the other frames. That might be at the root of the dilemma that you are portraying. Clearly by way of disclaimer, I am a deluded layman so those statements are to be waved off and I won't attempt to defend them because I'm not trying to debunk SR. I'm just relating my comprehension of what you are relaying to me in your post.

However, in my model there is an entirely different explanation for time dilation and length contraction. I replace the curvature of space time with the wave energy density of the foundational medium. I propose to be able to identify the rest frame relative to the CMBR; any relativistic motion will cause the measurement of the background radiation to increase in the direction of motion and that should be discernible. If we assume that the rest frame is "at rest" relative to the CMB, then the moving frame and the rest frame are specific and not interchangeable.

Applying that concept to your dilemma would change the perceptions of motion and rest frames and result in a different set of defining data about the scenario that you describe, I bet.

When you think about relativistic motion in terms of wave energy density, my model also gives an entirely different scenario. For example, assume you are an object being gravitationally attracted to a black hole. The wave energy density increases as you approach the black hole because matter in my model is composed of standing waves with inflowing and out flowing components. The two components make the wave energy density very near a black hole very high because of the inflow and out flow from the black hole. As you approach the black hole you are traversing greater and greater wave energy density in space. Not only that but as you approach the black hole you are being accelerated by gravity and are subject to gravitational time dilation.

These effects supposedly give the identical mathematical results that you would get in GR. That is why I allow the mathematics of the EFEs to predict the relative motion of objects in my model but don't invoke GR; really a fine delusion if you ask me, lol.

Prof.Layman

08-19-12, 08:30 PM

quantum_wave

08-19-12, 08:47 PM

So why energy wave density and not relativity? Do you think energy wave density could not warp spacetime? Funny, I have recently asked myself the question of how could energy wave density warp spacetime. I came to a blanck. It came from when I recently mentioned that photons that are intesified together with enough energy that would equate to the mass of an electron, (E=mc^2) that instead of having energy you know have mass. Then mass could be created by an energy wave density, like you say. Being a Professor of the Layman Arts, :) , I would then have to think that energy wave density would then have to warp spacetime in some way.There is no spacetime in my model, lol. Space is potentially infinite and time simply passes. The measurement of time however is determined by the wave energy density of the environment of the clock being used. Light for example can travel further in one second through low wave energy density than it can through high wave energy density when measured by an observer in a rest frame. The measurement of the speed of light though is invariant within any given wave energy density environment because the clock slows down at the same rate as light slows down when the wave energy density increases. The clock slows down because the functioning of particles slows down as the wave energy density increases. If you increase the wave energy density enough, in a black hole for example, the clocks will stop and light will stop in my model.

quantum_wave

08-21-12, 08:07 AM

Some of the new physics in my model comes into play in regard to the "separation momentum" (also referred to as expansion momentum) of galaxies as opposed to the stretching and curving of space-time. It starts with the concept of "critical capacity". When the critical capacity of a big crunch is reached, the gravitational compression is at its peak of wave energy density. Above that maximum density individual particles have not only ceased to function as in clocks stopping and light not moving, but to top it off, particles cannot maintain their own individual particle space. It is their inability to maintain their individual particle space that differentiates a big crunch from a black hole.

The particles I am referring to are the particles that survive the journey into the big crunch from the parent arenas. As two expanding mature arenas intersect and overlap, a lens shaped overlap forms. The galaxies from each parent arena converge in the overlap space from different directions and gravity interrupts the separation momentum of those particular galaxies. The separation momentum up until that point was evidenced by the raw redshift data from within each arena. In the overlap space blue shift becomes prevalent as galaxies from opposing arenas converge.

The galactic material from multiple arenas collapses at the center of gravity of the overlap space, forming a big crunch. When the amount of galactic material reaches the critical capacity of the crunch, the existing particles collapse as they give up their individual particle space. That collapse is the big bang event which marks t=0 in the new arena.

Emerging from the collapse is a wave of arena energy equivalent to the sum of the wave energy that was contained in the big crunch. There are no individual particles left in the emerging arena wave because they have been negated into dense state energy at the instant of the collapse/bang.

The emerging dense state energy has the maximum wave energy density allowed by natural law. This ball of dense state wave energy is surrounded by the low wave energy density of the space from which the galactic material was accumulated, i.e. the overlap space. The wave energy differential between the emerging dense state wave energy and the surrounding low energy density space is the greatest wave energy density differential possible in nature.

Here is where I introduce the concept of wave energy density equalization at the arena level. In my model, the wave energy density in any given energy environment tends to equalize across that environment, trending over time toward energy density equalization in the given energy density environment.

To apply the energy density equalization law to the environment containing the emerging dense state wave energy from the crunch and the surrounding low wave energy density space, the expansion of the dense state energy into the surrounding space is natural and is driven by the extreme wave energy density differential.

It can be said that the dense state wave energy is inflated by the surrounding low density wave energy as energy density equalization begins to occur, but I would phrase it that the dense state wave energy intrudes into the low wave energy density space. Either way, the the vast differential drives the growing arena and this process of equalization that drives the intrusion into surrounding space is the "dark energy" in my model.

In the first few picoseconds the arena becomes a "sea" of dense dark matter as the ball of dense state wave energy inflates, lowering the wave energy density to the upper threshold of particle existence. When the density passes below that upper threshold, the expansion reaches the point where the wave energy density of the space is sufficient to allow individual particles to form and establish their individual space.

When those initial particle spaces are established they are sustained by the inflowing wave energy coming form every direction within the expanding ball of dense state wave energy. The conditions are met to establish the standing wave patterns that develop into particles.

The initial standing wave patterns have higher wave energy density than the space between them and that wave energy density differential grows as the space separating the new particles increases. These initial particles meet the minimum particle description in my model, i.e. they are various sized standing wave patterns described as disturbed space but without uniformity, without charge, without electromagnetic radiation, i.e. dark matter. Here is the key point: The initial dark matter clumps that form at this stage in the expanding arena have separation momentum imparted to them because they formed in the rapidly inflating early arena environment.

Gravity is initiated simultaneously with the formation of dark matter and these individual clumps of dark matter immediately exert and feel gravity among themselves. In this model the explanation for gravity is also new physics, not the generally accepted space-time explanation. Gravity is caused by a directional imbalance between the inflowing and out flowing wave energy of the dark matter clumps. The dark matter tends to accumulate in larger and larger clumps due to gravity while at the same time the entire sea of dark matter is still growing in volume as the arena inflates. At this point in the arena, the distance between the clumps is so small that gravity is able to overcome the separation momentum of the particles and so they continue to clump together to form standard particles, atoms, and light. The earliest atoms clump to form stars, and galaxies form from the first round stars.

Gravity continues to be able to overcome expansion momentum right up and through the formation of galaxies. But then, as evidenced in our own arena by the raw redshift data, for the most part galaxy clumping is complete, so we observe that essentially all of the galaxies and galaxy groups are moving away with their own separation momentum that has been conserved and imparted to them from the very first particles that formed in the new arena.

quantum_wave

08-22-12, 07:45 AM

Defeating Entropy

Follow up to my last extremely important deluded post: I think it is obvious to cosmology enthusiasts that increasing entropy is a characteristic of many models. Therefore, I should address how entropy is defeated in my model enabling me to describe it as an eternal, steady state, big bang arena landscape model.

I acknowledge that increasing entropy is not about energy itself which is conserved in my model, but it is about the usefulness of the energy in any given system. In my model each arena across the potentially infinite arena landscape can be viewed as a "closed" system for purposes of contemplating how the energy in the initial arena wave is used throughout the arena maturation process. Wave energy in the arena starts as a ball of wave energy at the maximum possible density. That is the point of lowest entropy.

Inflation uses energy as the ball of dense state energy intrudes into the surrounding low energy density space. Next, the most significant use of the dense state energy occurs as standing wave patterns initiate the formation of matter from the dense state wave energy. The wave energy becomes contained in particles and the particles have kinetic energy imparted to them from the inflating dense state energy. The wave energy contained in particles is conserved as the particles accumulate into stars and galaxies.

The separation momentum of a mature arena represents the net use of the kinetic energy on the one hand and the opposing gravitational wave energy on the other. These are the two major opposing forces in my model. Separation momentum exceeds gravitational attraction as the distances between galaxies gets greater and greater, allowing the rate of separation to increase. As separation momentum plays out in the mature stage of the arena, a vast amount of the initial dense state arena wave energy has been put to use and the galaxies are on their eventual rendezvous course with adjacent arenas.

When those rendezvous occur, separation momentum is interrupted by gravitational attraction in the overlap space. You will note that I identify the separation momentum within each arena from the raw redshift data that one would expect to observe in my model. You will also note that when I discussed the overlap space where arenas expand into each other's space, there would be a prevalent blue shift based on the expectations of my model.

Redshift in the expanding arenas equates to increasing entropy of the individual arenas, and the blue shift that begins to appear in the overlap space indicates that the defeat of entropy is about to take place.

As the big crunch accumulates galactic material contributed by multiple parent arenas in the overlap space, the standing wave energy and the gravitational wave energy contained in and maintaining the particles that make up the converging galactic material is gathering. That wave energy is about to be refreshed into a new arena wave of dense state dark energy. That event occurs at t=0 of the new arena in the form of the collapse/bang event. The energy density returns to its lowest entropy state, ready to play out again in the form of expansion, particle formation, gravity, radiation, and separation momentum as the new arena matures and fills with a fresh armada of galaxies, all with their own separation momentum, heading out for their future rendezvous with opposing galactic armadas (literary delusion license invoked).

Note here that if the universe was one closed arena, the separation momentum would trend toward the completion of entropy in the form of a final heat death or the Big Rip. But in my model the arenas are "open" systems in a boundless arena landscape. Entropy is defeated by the arena process going on across the potentially infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.

quantum_wave

08-23-12, 06:56 AM

quantum_wave

08-25-12, 09:32 AM

Gravity thoughts

The quantum level of order is where particles form and are maintained by standing wave patterns in the foundational medium, and where gravity results from the net directional imbalance in the inflowing wave component vs. the spherical out flowing wave component. The mechanics at the quantum level are referred to as quantum action.

The arena level of order is where big bang arenas fill themselves with galaxies that have separation momentum that carries galaxies out to intersect and overlap with adjacent arenas, resulting in new big crunches continually forming from the galactic remnants of previous arenas across the landscape of the greater universe. The mechanics at the arena level are referred to as arena action.

Needless to say, there are limits to the detail that we can observe and the data we can collect from our finest technologies that scan the universe at the upper and lower limits, including Hubble and colliders like the LHC. The levels of order that I invoke are outside of our ability to observe, and therefore can't easily be tested and falsified or supported by repeatable results. But everyone suspects there is action going on above and below our ability to observe and out of that widespread conviction come the two levels of order that I invoke in my model.

That brings me to the point of explaining how I developed the as yet unseen mechanisms of both quantum action and arena action that are the center pieces of my model. I have compared the mechanics of the two levels of order, saying they are strikingly similar aside from the vast difference in scale, and both levels include spherical waves carrying gravitational energy across the foundational medium.

It is easy to imagine a big bang arena as being a spherical expansion out of a big crunch, but it is difficult to imaging a quantum wave as being a spherical expansion out of a high density spot in a standing wave pattern at the quantum level. The reason for the difficulty at the quantum level is that we don't have a day to day familiarity with the components of the action like we have with the components that go into a big crunch. We can look out at night and see our Milky Way galaxy and can visually pick out other observable galaxies. We know from the redshift data that most of the galaxies outside of our galaxy group are moving away from us and from each other due to separation momentum from the perspective of my model. We can visualize our Hubble view and extend that image to a big bang arena, and from there we can easily image multiple arenas in a landscape where they intersect and overlap, causing new big crunches and new big bangs.

But what visuals and first hand familiarity do we have with the components that go into quantum action; not much. As laymen, we know a little of the science of quantum mechanics, and are familiar with the Copenhagen accords, and the uncertainty principle, the wave function, and particle-wave duality, etc., but those are not really used and dealt with by laymen. They are more or less vague concepts unless you work with them as a professional in the scientific community.

I developed the basic ideas of arena action in my model to describe the common preconditions to big bangs, and developed the arena landscape model of the greater universe. Then I was faced with developing the mechanics of a big bang. Using gravity to accumulate a big crunch form parent arenas did not present a problem with general relativity and space-time, but I knew that I was going to need a means of propagation of gravity at the quantum level that did not invoke general relativity because I had a layman understanding of the incompatibility or at least that inapplicability of a macro theory within the micro realm.

What I needed was a quantum explanation for the big bang event because galaxies are made of particles and a big crunch full of particles must employ "as yet" unknown physics in order to "bang". Those new physics started to develop in my model slowly, starting with brainstorming ways a big crunch could produce a big bang. Of course I had the picture of novas and supernovas collapsing as the gravitational result of the accumulated density of stars, but known particles were produced and the black holes that remained were neutron stars composed of known particles. The mechanics of a big bang had to be different.

The big crunch had to produce an environment that could inflate before particles formed so that the observed separation of galaxies could be accomplished, meaning the separation had to be equalized across the arena instead of from a center point that would be produced by an explosion. What I needed was a connection between the two levels of order where particles could form from wave energy, and one that accommodated the wave propagation of gravity.

The foundational medium was born as a perfect aether fluid that had to exist because there was an unmistakable role that only such a medium could fulfill. That role was that particles could be composed of wave energy, and gravity could traverse the medium as wave energy, thus connecting particles. The foundational medium lets my model invoke a level of order below the fundamental level of quantum mechanics and the standard particle model. In my model, without such a lower level of order, crunches can't bang, particles can't form that have separation momentum imparted to them in an inflating arena, and gravity cannot traverse the inner space of particle composition.

With such a foundational medium, my model can invoke all of those characteristics, and the big thing is that gravity becomes as simple as an imbalance between the inflowing and out flowing components of standing waves in the medium. Gravity waves come from the direction of surrounding objects and goes away from objects spherically as a result of quantum action.

The aspect that differentiates quantum action from arena action, aside for the huge difference in scale, is that big crunches form from particles accumulated by gravitational attraction at the arena level, and the high density spots within standing wave patterns form from the converging crests of wave energy of which particles are composed at the quantum level.

Particles at the arena level play the role that wave energy density of converging wave crests play at the quantum level. It is energy-to matter-to energy at the quantum level, and it is matter-to energy-to matter at the arena level. Energy to matter to energy produces contraction under the force of gravity, and matter to energy to matter produces expansion under the force of wave energy density equalization, i.e. expansion and contraction are the two major opposing forces of the ISU.

quantum_wave

08-26-12, 01:15 PM

Thought for the day: Why am I'm holding back on the really deluded stuff ... :)

Like the CMBR; what is it really and how did it get here? Given the fact that my model invokes changes to all of the preconditions of the standard cosmology and the particle model, what could I possibly say about the CMBR that would comply with current theory? Not much really, except for its observed characteristics.

We have no observations to go by that would tell us what a supposed big crunch would produce in a collapse/bang event as proposed by my model. Mainstream views are that the photon energy released at the instant of the Big Bang event was contained in the inflating universe through a period of faster-than-light inflation until the opacity of the universe declined enough for it to be released. That release didn't occur until the distant reaches of the universe were so great that the CMBR we observe has been coming from all directions out of those far reaches for 14 billion years and we have no reason to suspect it will stop coming any time soon.

By way of disclaimer, that view of the mainstream explanation for the CMB is my deluded layman understanding of one of the scenarios, and not definite science at all. I only mention it to set the stage for the explanation of the CMB from the perspective of my model.

The background we observe is not coming from the contained radiation of our collapse/bang event, and has not cooled as a result of inflation of the "soup" that made up our universe in the first moment, but instead has been out there all the time and we are intruding into space that already contained it.

It can be said that our collapse/bang event accelerated it toward us from outside or in my terms, our expanding arena intruded on the space that already contained cosmic microwave background wave energy from a potentially infinite history of arena action.

Our big crunch, which might have been billions of light years across at the moment of collapse, would have inwardly stretched the wave energy in the background surrounding the big crunch and thereby supercooled it for the brief duration of the collapse. It was at the instant of collapse/bang that our ball of dense state wave energy was born. The collapse of the big crunch resulted in a what I call a "bounce" or pass through as the collapse turned into expansion. When the collapse passed through itself, the in-rushing background wave energy encountered the whip lash of the "bounce" of our dense state energy as it emerged out of the collapse.

The stretched and cooled low energy density of the surrounding/inflowing background wave energy began merging with the dense state wave energy that emerged from our arena's initial event. In my model that inflow is a major contributing source of our observed background and it is what our dense state wave energy ball was inflated with.
Addendum: I guess that if the source of the CMB is the corridors of the greater universe then it will keep coming from all directions for much more that 14 billion years; forever is more like it.

Also, if the source is external and independent of our "Big Bang" event, then some of the uncomfortable complications of Big Bang Theory and Inflationary Theory can be removed. The whole opacity and photon release wouldn't have to be invoked. All those initial photons from the big event could be allowed therefore to speed freely away out into space like the light from a big flash would be expected to do. In my model we can account for the CMBRs isotropy and homogeneity because those would be characteristics of a cosmic background that had always been "thermalized" to ~2.7K across infinite space. My model supposes that as big crunches form they pull in a huge amount of background radiation, and as the big collapse/bang occurs, a corresponding huge amount of hot photon energy would be released into the background.

And another delusion related to the existing background composition: Can QWC resolve the Lithium problem? If you mean in a quantified manner, no, but if you mean is there any logic that would explain the lithium abundance in QWC? Yes.

There is a predicted lithium content that would be expected after fourteen billion years addressed by the consensus cosmology, BBT. There are differing scientific theories all along the way, the observational evidence is still being uncovered, and the data is being sorted out, but the real lithium exceeds predictions by an uncomfortable and unpredicted order of magnitude.

Mainstream science is finding that the more data and the better the data, the more the problem is growing, i.e. there is a still greater abundance than would be predicted.

Consider the main difference between the age of our causally connected big bang universe and the potentially infinite age the arena landscape of my model. The comparison is fourteen billion years vs. an eternal matter-to energy-to matter churning of the ancient corridors that wind their way around the arena landscape, changing with the collapses and bangs, but never being fully refreshed by current crunch/bangs. If the amount of lithium would be predicted to increase as our big bang connected universe ages, then the extraordinary difference between the age of consensus BBT universe and the QWC universe would provide ample time for the production of the abundance. The lithium abundance would be pre-existing in the vast reaches of space and would be incorporated into our arena from outside right along with the CMBR.

How deluded is that?

Prof.Layman

08-26-12, 02:08 PM

How deluded is that?

IDK, you completely lost me. There seems to be a total lack of layman's terms in this. It seems like you just took physics principles and replaced them with a quantum wave. I don't see how you could apply logic to this line of reasoning.

quantum_wave

08-26-12, 02:15 PM

IDK, you completely lost me. There seems to be a total lack of layman's terms in this. It seems like you just took physics principles and replaced them with a quantum wave. I don't see how you could apply logic to this line of reasoning.
Like I told Origin, it is what it is. You will see in it what you see.

Prof.Layman

08-26-12, 03:32 PM

The foundational medium was born as a perfect aether fluid that had to exist because there was an unmistakable role that only such a medium could fulfill. That role was that particles could be composed of wave energy, and gravity could traverse the medium as wave energy, thus connecting particles. The foundational medium lets my model invoke a level of order below the fundamental level of quantum mechanics and the standard particle model. In my model, without such a lower level of order, crunches can't bang, particles can't form that have separation momentum imparted to them in an inflating arena, and gravity cannot traverse the inner space of particle composition.
You replied previously that your model doesn't have spacetime, but then you say here that there is a foundational medium that is made of some aether fluid. I have thought that the spacetime of GR is a type of aether in itself. It did replace the aether theory, but only as a more accurate description of what the "aether" is and how it behaves. In a way it is still a "substance" that fills the universe in GR. It warps and bends so that objects in the universe are affected differently. It did get me thinking, that like I said when a photon is intensified it can create an electron, so in a way does the wave density slow it down to form this heavier particle? Or, is the electron a higher density of these waves? Then how is the "aether" affected by this wave density, to produce gravity? It seemed to follow that in your model that a high wave density acts the same way as mass.

quantum_wave

08-26-12, 04:39 PM

Prof. Layman and space-time

I will give you credit for taking the time to put your finger on one of the most important aspects of my delusions.

You replied previously that your model doesn't have space-time, but then you say here that there is a foundational medium that is made of some aether fluid. I have thought that the space-time of GR is a type of aether in itself. It did replace the aether theory, but only as a more accurate description of what the "aether" is and how it behaves. In a way it is still a "substance" that fills the universe in GR. It warps and bends so that objects in the universe are affected differently.
We have reached different conclusions about what Einstein meant by space-time. No aether was found in careful experiments and yet gravity was obvious. The construction of SR based on simple postulates worked perfectly and received great acclaim but had many restrictions that kept it from applying to realistic scenarios, i.e. where gravity, energy density, and non-linear motion was involved. The math works perfectly, and so all the wannabees who attack the math are wrong. However, to my limited understanding SR works for linear motion, it does not consider gravity, the the math involves reducing all the equations to a common denominator, the speed of light, so obviously the math will always work perfectly. Time dilation in SR is not gravitational time dilation which is a real, observable fact and is invoked in my model. In SR it is mathematical time dilation which I don't accept. But I am grossly uninformed compared to those who defend SR and I am not qualified to defend my statement at a professional level or to debunk SR in any way.

GR is an entirely different matter from SR. The equations also work better than any theory that preceded them in the realm of relativistic motion. At less than relativistic velocities the differences are so tiny that they fall within the tolerances of the measurement. My supposition is that wave energy density causes the relativistic problems that we observe in real life, and my view is that either there is space-time or there is a foundational medium, not both. But I am not at all well informed on GR to talk at a professional level about it, and am not debunking it because I am far from being educated in the details. I'm sure the EFEs are very good at predicting the motion of objects in space but they are not something that a lazy layman could apply, and I am too lazy to learn all the math, the science theory, history, etc. to play with professionals. All of my knowledge is at a layman level from the Internet and popular science media, etc.

Since I can't defend it or debunk it, I don't invoke GR and therefore I don't use space-time, and I don't employ the action at a distance that is the result of matter/energy curving and stretching space-time. What I have done within my own personal, deluded, so call model, is start from known observations and data and build my ideas from the bottom up, over many years and with many restarts and back tracks. But no one has ever pointed out an error that has gone uncorrected, and my frequent disclaimers are my only defense to being called an idiot, bat shit, and deluded. I admit to those characteristics if anyone wants to use them, and my discalimers are a result of that broad brush criticism. That level of attack has resulted in me framing my model to fit within the perceptions of those who critique it with such disparagement. I just admit that, hell, I'm deluded and happy to be so.

It did get me thinking, that like I said when a photon is intensified it can create an electron, so in a way does the wave density slow it down to form this heavier particle? *Or, is the electron a higher density of these waves? Then how is the "aether" affected by this wave density, to produce gravity? It seemed to follow that in your model that a high wave density acts the same way as mass.
First, I don't agree that space-time invokes an aether so we have that difference between us before I get into explaining how wave energy density in a foundational medium could produce the effects that are attributed to space-time. We should resolve that before we try to come to any understanding.

I'll gladly give you some bullet points on wave energy density and my bottom up conclusions, and if you want I will convey my delusions about each point that you don't fully grasp yet. I am not saying that to grasp my model you have to condone or accept it. I am saying that it is internally consistent and not inconsistent with known observation and data. Note that I did not say it was consistent with known theory; it is completely inconsistent with current theory. My point is that science has limits as to what it can observe or extract data from, and the known science goes up to those limits, but beyond the limits of our ability to observe, test, and falsify, science is not "known" science, it is theory, hypothesis, speculation, and of course my favorite, delusion.

I owe you some bullet points and detail on how wave energy density in a foundational medium could mechanically do what the math of space-time does but it is a lot of typing and you may already have read enough to make that typing a waste of your time to read it. If that is the case you will save me doing it, lol.

Prof.Layman

08-26-12, 08:01 PM

quantum_wave

08-26-12, 08:50 PM

You should read this thread where I derive tau or the proper time as though the lengths and times have actually contracted relative to each other, in a Newtonian sense.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114534-Are-Delta-s-Valid-Necessarry-in-Physics

I would have to disagree, because I think SR has more deep relation to reality than most people would think.Disagree with what statement, I made several regarding SR.
I think it can apply to everything in modern physics, and yet it does, because it is the equation that started modern physics.Please re-read that sentence and see if you meant to say it that way. You say "can apply", and then "yet it does". They don't seem to both be consistent the way I read them.
You cannot really disagree with SR and accept anything in modern physics. I just don't see how this could be done.Quote for me the part of what I said that says I disagree with SR so I can respond knowing exactly the words I wrote that you take to mean I disagree with SR.
If you would like to discuss SR in further detail, I could help further explain it to you in this thread.I'll take a look, but here is what I said. What do I have wrong?
The construction of SR based on simple postulates worked perfectly and received great acclaim but had many restrictions that kept it from applying to realistic scenarios, i.e. where gravity, energy density, and non-linear motion was involved. The math works perfectly, and so all the wannabees who attack the math are wrong. However, SR works for linear motion, it does not consider gravity, the the math involves reducing all the equations to a common denominator, the speed of light, so obviously the math will always work perfectly, and the time dilation is not gravitation time dilation, it is mathematical time dilation. But I am grossly uninformed compared to those who defend SR and I am not qualified to defend my statement at a professional level or to debunk SR in any way.

Prof.Layman

08-26-12, 09:06 PM

In SR it is mathematical time dilation which I don't accept.

I was responding to this statement. That is why I offered to further explain where the time dilation comes from in SR. I don't see why anyone should not have a clear grasp of it, and I assure you that I do. It comes from the constant speed of light. No matter what speed you move you will always measure it to travel at the same constant speed. So then it is simply the relation to how much distance/time we measure in order to be able to measure something to travel the same speed no matter what speed something is traveling. Speed or velocity is distance over time, so then how we measure distance and time has to change in order for us to measure it to travel the same speed. So then c=d/t for a photon, just like in Newtonian Physics, but then placing that relation for the photon that travels at the same speed at all times makes other values in Newtonian Physics vary, just so we could all measure the same speed of light. This is the equation that is given at the beginning of Einsteins, 1905 paper on relativity.

quantum_wave

08-26-12, 09:12 PM

I was responding to this statement. That is why I offered to further explain where the time dilation comes from in SR. I don't see why anyone should not have a clear grasp of it, and I assure you that I do. It comes from the constant speed of light. No matter what speed you move you will always measure it to travel at the same constant speed. So then it is simply the relation to how much distance/time we measure in order to be able to measure something to travel the same speed no matter what speed something is traveling. Speed or velocity is distance over time, so then how we measure distance and time has to change in order for us to measure it to travel the same speed. So then c=d/t for a photon, just like in Newtonian Physics, but then placing that relation for the photon that travels at the same speed at all times makes other values in Newtonian Physics vary, just so we could all measure the same speed of light. This is the equation that is given at the beginning of Einsteins, 1905 paper on relativity.I see. When I say I don't accept mathematical time dilation, I mean that the physical time dilation and the mathematical time dilation are two different things. SR doesn't apply to the environment that includes gravity and SR only applies to linear motion. I don't see how that corresponds to reality. I said the math works perfectly and why it works perfectly. Some would say it works because SR is reality, and I say the math works because dividing everything by a common denominator makes all of the equations work.

Prof.Layman

08-26-12, 09:43 PM

I see. When I say I don't accept mathematical time dilation, I mean that the physcial time dilation and the mathematical time dilation are two different things. SR doesn't apply to the environment that includes gravity and SR only applies to linear motion. I don't see how that corresponds to reality.Say you turned on a flashlight, then tried to determine how far it traveled to a fellow camper. The distance the light traveled would then be its velocity times time. You could then point out that it traveled in a perfectly straight line. Then an UFO flies by these weary campers. It is crossing back and forth at break neck speeds, and then notices the two campers flashing a light. The UFO then measures the beam to travel at the same speed, but because of its velocity, it sees the light travel at a longer angle. At this longer angle, it would then travel a greater distance than the campers saw it move a shorter distance. So then how did the UFO and the campers measure the light to be the same speed? Well, since the campers saw it travel a shorter distance, then they would have to measure time to run more slowly. d=vt. There would need to be a smaller value for t in order for d to have a smaller value if v remained the same. The UFO would then have to measure time to have a greater value to measure the same velocity of light. As t increases d would also increase as v remained the same. That explaination is a little backwards, since the object traveling is normally seen as measuring time more slowely, but I think looking at it this way can give a better grasp of it. After all relativity says that the UFO could say that it is at rest while in constant motion, if it did this then the scenario would play out the way I have described. The values of distance and time are directly related to each other when it comes to the speed of light. It corresponds to reality because no matter what speed you travel, you will in fact measure the same speed of light that is d/t.

quantum_wave

08-26-12, 09:59 PM

Say you turned on a flashlight, then tried to determine how far it traveled to a fellow camper. The distance the light traveled would then be its velocity times time. You could then point out that it traveled in a perfectly straight line. Then an UFO flies by these weary campers. It is crossing back and forth at break neck speeds, and then notices the two campers flashing a light. The UFO then measures the beam to travel at the same speed, but because of its velocity, it sees the light travel at a longer angle. At this longer angle, it would then travel a greater distance than the campers saw it move a shorter distance. So then how did the UFO and the campers measure the light to be the same speed? Well, since the campers saw it travel a shorter distance, then they would have to measure time to run more slowly. d=vt. There would need to be a smaller value for t in order for d to have a smaller value if v remained the same. The UFO would then have to measure time to have a greater value to measure the same velocity of light. As t increases d would also increase as v remained the same. That explaination is a little backwards, since the object traveling is normally seen as measuring time more slowely, but I think looking at it this way can give a better grasp of it. After all relativity says that the UFO could say that it is at rest while in constant motion, if it did this then the scenario would play out the way I have described. The values of distance and time are directly related to each other when it comes to the speed of light. It corresponds to reality because no matter what speed you travel, you will in fact measure the same speed of light that is d/t.To me, you base that example on the UFO being able to say it is at rest. And because it can say it is at rest, you say that your example corresponds to reality. My deluded argument is that the UFO cannot say it is at rest in reality because motion in reality causes the observered temperature of the background radiation to change, getting hotter in the direction of motion. You can't measure a constant background radiation in all directions while in motion relative to the background, and so the UFO actually is in the moving frame and not the rest frame in reality.

Prof.Layman

08-26-12, 10:22 PM

To me, you base that example on the UFO being able to say it is at rest. And because it can say it is at rest, you say that your example corresponds to reality. My deluded argument is that the UFO cannot say it is at rest in reality because motion in reality causes the observered temperature of the background radiation to change, getting hotter in the direction of motion. You can't measure a constant background radiation in all directions while in motion relative to the background, and so the UFO actually is in the moving frame and not the rest frame in reality.I was just thinking that I may need to make sure the one that is slowing down is actually the one holding the light in my examples. This makes all the difference into what time is perceived to be slowing down. Sorry, the light should have been on the UFO, but the point is that both the UFO and the campers can carry the torch, so to speak. I would have to disagree with this statement. If it was true then we could observe the CMB to different values in other directions. On the contrary, I think homogenuity of the CMB proves that there is no absolute frame of reference, because it is measured by a device in orbit that can see around all sides of the Earth. Otherwise, it would be a different color at different times of the year, this hasn't shown to be the case.

quantum_wave

08-26-12, 10:37 PM

I was just thinking that I may need to make sure the one that is slowing down is actually the one holding the light in my examples. This makes all the difference into what time is perceived to be slowing down. Sorry, the light should have been on the UFO, but the point is that both the UFO and the campers can carry the torch, so to speak. I would have to disagree with this statement. If it was true then we could observe the CMB to different values in other directions. On the contrary, I think homogenuity of the CMB proves that there is no absolute frame of reference, because it is measured by a device in orbit that can see around all sides of the Earth. Otherwise, it would be a different color at different times of the year, this hasn't shown to be the case.Are you saying that motion relative to the background does not change the observed frequency in the direction of motion relative to the rest frame? Explain how the CMB can be traveling at the speed of light from all directions, and yet motion will not change the observed temperature in the direction of motion. Motion does not change the speed of light, it changes the observed temperature in that direction. I can find a scholarly reference to support that I think.

http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/CMB.html

"The CMB is nearly isotropic. This COBE all-sky image in galactic coordinates spans only the temperature range 27250004 K. The dipole anisotropy is caused by the Earth's 600 km s−1 motion, and some foreground emission in the galactic plane is visible."

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html

The orientation of the maps are such that the plane of the Milky Way runs horizontally across the center of each image. The top pair of figures show the temperature of the microwave sky in a scale in which blue is 0 Kelvin (absolute zero) and red is 4 Kelvin. Note that the temperature appears completely uniform on this scale. The actual temperature of the cosmic microwave background is 2.725 Kelvin. The middle image pair show the same map displayed in a scale such that blue corresponds to 2.721 Kelvin and red is 2.729 Kelvin. The "yin-yang" pattern is the dipole anisotropy that results from the motion of the Sun relative to the rest frame of the cosmic microwave background. The bottom figure pair shows the microwave sky after the dipole anisotropy has been subtracted from the map. This removal eliminates most of the fluctuations in the map: the ones that remain are thirty times smaller. On this map, the hot regions, shown in red, are 0.0002 Kelvin hotter than the cold regions, shown in blue.

Prof.Layman

08-26-12, 11:21 PM

Prof.Layman

08-27-12, 01:15 AM

Are you saying that motion relative to the background does not change the observed frequency in the direction of motion relative to the rest frame? Explain how the CMB can be traveling at the speed of light from all directions, and yet motion will not change the observed temperature in the direction of motion. Motion does not change the speed of light, it changes the observed temperature in that direction. I can find a scholarly reference to support that I think.

http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/CMB.html

I read in Brian Greenes, book that George Mamow and his students contributed to 2011 discovery of the new cosmological constant. There work was used to find that the universe had accelerated some 7 billion years ago, and it has recently increased in speed. I guess there are two types of doppler shift for light. One caused by expansion of space, and one caused by relative motion itself. It is hard to imagine a universe that can be seen to have many absolute frames, because after all everything in the universe is accelerating. Stranger even is the fact that we are accelerating very quickly now and hardly even realize it. I have wondered before if the acceleration itself could be what everything is actually traveling relative too, but then this frame seems to even be able to change. So, idk, it seems like even an object that is accelerating with the expansion of space can assume that it is at rest. You would think that if we were actually accelerating at these speeds that we should at least feel something from it, but we don't. It doesn't matter if the Klingons or the Vulcans are watching us through there telescopes accelerating at completely different speeds, we don't feel anything from it. You would think from all this acceleration that we would be able to say, yes, everything is accelerating out from the Big Bang, but maybe this. But, the fact of the matter is that even though everything in the universe is accelerating, we can't make heads or tails of it. Relativity says we should know and feel the force of acceleration, but I guess the force is not with this one today.

quantum_wave

08-27-12, 02:15 AM

I read in Brian Greenes, book that George Mamow and his students contributed to 2011 discovery of the new cosmological constant. There work was used to find that the universe had accelerated some 7 billion years ago, and it has recently increased in speed. I guess there are two types of doppler shift for light. One caused by expansion of space, and one caused by relative motion itself. It is hard to imagine a universe that can be seen to have many absolute frames, because after all everything in the universe is accelerating. Stranger even is the fact that we are accelerating very quickly now and hardly even realize it.
In short distances, the feel of gravity far exceeds the feel of separation momentum. We feel gravity instead of separation momentum. If you refer to the CMB as a universal reference frame, there is only one, not many. If you hold the view that there is only one arena in the universe then you would hold the view that there is one cosmological constant which is also referred to as "vacuum energy density". If you hold the view that there is a greater universe and space was not created by our big bang, then vacuum energy density and the cosmological constant are wrong. I'm saying that the physics of a cosmological constant would be wrong if there were preconditions to the Big Bang like other arenas that intersect and overlap. Instead of vacuum energy density being the mysterious dark energy, the expansion of our arena would not be due to the cosmological constant, but it would be due to something else. I say that something else, given the preconditions in my model, would be energy density equalization between the high density big bang arena and the low energy density surrounding space. My delusions have different answers for everything, just like the French have different words for every thing, lol.

I have wondered before if the acceleration itself could be what everything is actually traveling relative too, but then this frame seems to even be able to change. So, idk, it seems like even an object that is accelerating with the expansion of space can assume that it is at rest. You would think that if we were actually accelerating at these speeds that we should at least feel something from it, but we don't.
We don't feel it because everything is separating with us. It is like being in a moving train. You toss a ball in the air and you catch it as if the train was at rest.

It doesn't matter if the Klingons or the Vulcans are watching us through there telescopes accelerating at completely different speeds, we don't feel anything from it. You would think from all this acceleration that we would be able to say, yes, everything is accelerating out from the Big Bang, but maybe this. But, the fact of the matter is that even though everything in the universe is accelerating, we can't make heads or tails of it.
The universe is much bigger than our local big bang arena in my model, and the cosmological constant is not a part of my model because it says that our arena (aka the mistaken view that our arena is the whole universe) is all there is. The arena landscape of the greater universe (a multiverse) is part of my delusions. Reject them if you want, I don't care.

Relativity says we should know and feel the force of acceleration, but I guess the force is not with this one today.I guess not, lol.

quantum_wave

08-27-12, 02:31 AM

The background radiation can be detected in a unhooked T.V. or antenna. I haven't detected that much of a change in it yet, idk, it does look pretty random. The T.V. fuzz does seem to keep a steady constant pitch. An object traveling along with the expansion of the universe can travel at any relative speed and not show any signs of relativistic effects. The is one of the most popularized ideas in current Big Bang Theory. There are parts of the expansion that can be seen as going faster than the speed of light.If you mean that things can both have separation momentum in opposite directions, and the sum of their motion exceeds the speed of light, I agree. If you are saying that FTL is because space is stretching or being added between them, then that violates my model because space is already everywhere.
I think it could be possible to not see a big change in the CMB from relative motion, idk maybe I should hook my T.V. to a rig and find out, lol. I don't think there have been any reports of metal getting hotter by being in relative motion, that is a new one for me.Where did you get the "metal getting hotter" comment? Obviously when metal moves rapidly during space travel when it encounters the atmosphere it gets hot enough to melt, as in meteors. But seriously, you haven't allowed yourself to consider the concept of wave energy density at relativistic velocities, and you haven't asked yourself how gravity works if there is a foundational medium and gravity waves that traverse it. The gravity waves are an element of wave energy density. What gives off gravity waves? Matter. If matter gives off and receives gravity waves, is there higher wave energy density around large masses relative to small masses? Yes. If that is so, as it is in my model, would that require a change in thinking about the physics of motion? Space doesn't curve, the wave energy density surrounding matter increases as the mass increases. Light travels slower in high wave energy density and so it appears to curve around the sun, as in the Eddington measurements.

Prof.Layman

08-27-12, 03:24 PM

I think the point I was trying to make is that I don't see how it is possible for the expansion of the universe to be described accurately without space being a type of "thing" that is stretching out as everything accelerates from each other. I don't think it can be just seperation momentum on its own or we would feel the force of this momentum. You mentioned that something could change its temperture by relative motion to the CMB, I thought metal would be the best conductor that would see this change in frequency of the CMB. If that is true than you should notice something differently on your T.V. or a peice of metal (antenna) by seeing it travel in relative motion as a peice of metal or plug on the back picks up on the CMB. I think the change in temperture from any redshift from the link you gave is the temperture of the Big Bang itself, and not other objects receiving the signal as the value of T is way to hot. I think the effect would be similar to the effect seen in changing red shifts/blue shifts of objects that are traveling quickly against the rate of expansion of the universe. If you take it to the extreme and say that relative motion could turn a CMB signal into an X-ray, then it would have little interaction with matter and then not cause a change in temperture. So I don't think a change in frequency directly relates to the temperature of a moving body.

quantum_wave

08-27-12, 04:59 PM

I think the point I was trying to make is that I don't see how it is possible for the expansion of the universe to be described accurately without space being a type of "thing" that is stretching out as everything accelerates from each other. No problem :). You are just not going to be able to see how my model works, which makes you the sane one, lol.

I don't think it can be just separation momentum on its own or we would feel the force of this momentum. *
Can't agree with you there. You can't really detect motion through space if you are also feeling acceleration due to a strong gravitational field. You feel the pull of gravity toward the ground, but both you and the ground are moving together through space.

You mentioned that something could change its temperature by relative motion to the CMB, I thought metal would be the best conductor that would see this change in frequency of the CMB.*
Actually I said that the measured temperature of the background radiation would appear to heat up in the direction of motion. If I didn't say it that way or clearly enough I should go back and change that, but that is the well known effect of motion relative to the universal rest frame.

If that is true than you should notice something differently on your T.V. or a piece of metal (antenna) by seeing it travel in relative motion as a piece of metal or plug on the back picks up on the CMB. *I think the change in temperature from any redshift from the link you gave is the temperature of the Big Bang itself, and not other objects receiving the signal as the value of T is way to hot. *I think the effect would be similar to the effect seen in changing red shifts/blue shifts of objects that are traveling quickly against the rate of expansion of the universe. *If you take it to the extreme and say that relative motion could turn a CMB signal into an X-ray, then it would have little interaction with matter and then not cause a change in temperature. *So I don't think a change in frequency directly relates to the temperature of a moving body.You are kindly bringing to my attention my failure to communicate. I'm saying that the CMB gives us a universal rest frame according to current theory. That is no big deal in physics because the laws of physics are not changed by the presence of the universal rest frame.

I'm saying that in your SR example, if one frame is a rocket moving through the background at relativistic velocity, that rocket cannot then be considered to be at rest relative to the universal rest frame. I'm saying that if the crew on the rocket took readings from the moving rocket ship of the temperature of the background in all directions, they could easily see that they were not at rest because the temperature of the CMBR would be elevated in the direction of motion (and correspondingly reduced in the opposite direction).

That same concept can be applied to the galactic redshift. Relativistic motion will cause you to see blue shift in the light from the galaxies out in the direction of motion, so you can tell if you are in motion relative to the universal rest frame from either the CMBR or the galactic redshift readings from your moving rocket.

The business of hooking a TV up and searching between channels allows the static from the CMBR to show up on the screen, but you can't tell anything about the CMBR from that since only a tiny bit of the static is CMBR; most of the static is Earth based interference. FYI, you can also "hear" meteorites during a meteorite shower by tuning a portable radio between stations.

This bit about metal heating up. I don't get that part at all. If it is something I said, forget it, for now; it is an advanced QWC topic, lol.

And your concerns about separation momentum, i.e. your belief that you would feel the motion are unfounded. This motion is not rapid acceleration from a position of rest. The motion has been roughly even and essentially smooth and you just don't feel it.

Is that Mamow/student discovery (shouldn't that be Gamow?) of a new cosmological constant in 2011, and an acceleration in expansion about 7 billion years ago peer reviewed (give me a link). As I have said, my model, which you are having understandable difficulty sifting out of my poor explanations, does not feature a cosmological constant. I tried to point out that Vacuum Energy Density, aka the cosmological constant (see http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html)
is not necessary in my model, but you are not quite up to speed on what I mean by that, I bet. Maybe it will come to you if you re-read. I'll probably try to re-write that part so maybe you will check back for it.

One last point about the separation momentum. I'm sure you know that observations are showing accelertion in the rate of separation. I attribute that to the fact that there are two opposing forces at play. The separation momentum on the one hand, and the gravitational attraction on the other. As the distance between galaxies increases, the inverse square rule comes into play and reduces the gravitation attraction, allowing the accelaration that we observe.

quantum_wave

08-28-12, 10:22 AM

What is the universe expanding into?

http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-is-universe-expanding-into.html

The universe that they are talking about at the start of this video is not the same universe that I talk about in Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC). My model of the universe is called The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) and QWC describes the mechanics of the model in strictly layman terms. I often repeat the disclaimer that QWC is not science and is not supposed to be hints or clues to the scientific community. It is just that there are many questions that science cannot yet answer, and until they get the bugs out, my model simply presents my delusions about a cosmology that is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

The following is the narrative from the video with my comments inserted to differentiate my model from the standard model.

The Universe, as far as we know, is all there is. Physics provides no real way for us to ever look anywhere but within it. We are cocooned from any possible communication from other dimensions or alternate realities. Other dimensions may exist and there may even be a boundary to the cosmos, but so far, we've never observed anything remotely resembling one.
Of course my model agrees that the universe is all there is because that too is my definition of the word. And it is true that there may be other dimensions and boundaries that we cannot see, but my model excludes any other dimensions, and considers our universe to have no boundary, i.e. it is spatially infinite.

On very large scales, the universe is actually a pretty simple place: it has been around for a finite amount of time, roughly 13.5 billion years; it looks pretty much the same everywhere - galaxies are almost evenly distributed across the cosmos - everywhere we look we see about the same number of galaxies;

Here is where my model begins to differ from the standard view. I agree with the finite amount of time, but that time only applies to our big bang arena. 13.7 billion years is from t=0 in our big bang arena, and my model is a big bang multiverse where every arena has a t=0 in arena time, but the greater universe has always existed and so there is no t=0 universal time.

The standard model refers to the look of the universe as stated by the cosmological principle, i.e., "it looks pretty much the same everywhere - galaxies are almost evenly distributed across the cosmos - everywhere we look we see about the same number of galaxies.."

The difference is that in my model I invoke what is called the Perfect Cosmological Principle, which adds that the universe has looked pretty much the same for all time. That makes my model a steady state big bang arena multiverse.

My big bang multiverse features an arena landscape across the potentially infinite greater universe, and so though mature arenas like ours have galaxies that are almost evenly distributed within the arena, in the larger view there are "corridors" or ever changing spaces between the active arenas except where expanding arenas are intersecting and overlapping in the greater universe. The statement would read, "it looks pretty much the same everywhere - with many mature galaxy filled expanding arenas, some intersecting and overlapping, and some new arenas forming in the overlaps spaces where arenas converge."

Out of the converging arenas you would see some big crunches forming from the converging galactic material and some big crunches collapsing and bursting (big bangs) into expanding new arenas, each big bang starting the new arena clock at t=0.

... it is also big. Very, very big. And its getting bigger. The spacetime between all 100 billion galaxies in the universe is increasing. Like a roiling, seething froth, new, empty spacetime is being created as the universe ages, increasing the distances between the galaxies, pushing them apart.

Since the universe is expanding, it is a natural question to ask, what is it expanding into?

When we peer deep into the cosmos, we cannot see a boundary. So far, we have uncovered no evidence that a boundary exists. Space may extend to infinity or it may not, but in Einstein's universe things can be curved, and if things can be curved, they can be curved in on themselves, twisting and bending the shape of the universe into virutally anything imaginable. General relativity makes it possible to live in an infinite universe with no boundary at all.

Spacetime being added between all galaxies is the way the standard cosmology has of saying that the universe is not expanding into existing space, it is creating new space all the time and it is the new space that is causing the expansion.

My model doesn't have to invoke what seems to be the contrivance of new space. Being a layman, I am able to make my model bow to the intuitive, or I should say what I find intuitive, and to me space is infinite and has always existed, and is tied to energy that cannot be created or destroyed. In my model all space contains wave energy density in a foundational medium; some call it an aether.

Because of general relativity, spacetime is not a static entity. It is a dynamic and ever-changing fabric within which the locations of all galaxies are woven. Galaxies are not themselves moving very much, but they appear to move to us, because of new, cosmic real estate continually injected, increasing their distance from us.

It is this creation of new spacetime, and the rate at which it is being created, which determines how fast a galaxy appears to be moving away from us.

I know that is what they say, and it works nicely if the universe began ~14 billion years ago, and if the big bang created space, and if space has been dynamically adding new space since then.

If not, my model works as an alternative. It has preexisting space, multiple big bangs, a steady state arena landscape of the greater universe where arenas expand, mature by filling with galaxies, intersect and overlap, and it is in the overlaps where converging galactic material from the contributing arenas collapses into a big crunches and burst into new big bangs arenas.

You could say that I replace spacetime with an infinite foundational medium where matter and energy are composed of waves traversing the medium. Matter is composed of standing wave patterns in the medium, and gravity is the net directional imbalance between the inflowing wave component of the particle standing waves, and the spherical out flowing component. The directional component comes from other objects and the spherical out flowing component comes from the mechanics of quantum action which I describe in my deluded layman terms in my model.

So what is the universe expanding into? When new spacetime is created, into what do the edges go? The answer depends on whether or not there are edges.

If we live in an infinite universe, then the answer has to be nothing. Adding more fabric to infinity doesn't make more infinity. An infinite universe would have no edges that expand and the question is meaningless. In such a universe, there would be no 'outside'.
This section of the narrative explains that even if spacetime is being added to cause the separation of the galaxies, that could still be a fact in an infinite universe, because new space added to infinite space still equals infinite space.

My model too has infinite space, but new space is not being added between galaxies to cause them to separate. The galaxies form from the wave energy of the new arena, wave energy that emerges in the new arena out of the collapse/bang of a big crunch.

Matter forms from the dense state energy of the new arena, and in the standard model the matter forms from what some characterize as a hot dense ball that was present in the first picoseconds of the universe in the standard model.

On the other hand, if the universe is finite, with a boundary that we have not yet discovered, then the answer may be that we are expanding into something. If that is true however, then the boundary is so far away that we cannot see it and it can therefore never, ever affect us. We have already seen photons that have been travelling since the universe was only 500 million years old. Anything much further away lies beyond our detection forever. Given that our universe is expanding - if we cannot see the boundary now, this expansion guarantees we never will - it will forevermore get further and further away. it will always lie beyond our detection.

Not so fast there, lol. If we are expanding into something, there could be other big bang arenas like ours expanding into the same something; lets call that "something" preexisting space. Then you have my model and its potentially infinite arena landscape. If there were other arenas converging with ours the clues might exist in the WMAP data, and in fact there are anomolies in the data that some attribute to another arena intersecting with ours (check Dark Flow).

Only one hundred years ago, we had no idea there were other galaxies besides our own. It was thought that humanity and the galaxy we inhabit was an island, adrift in a universe of 100 billion stars. We now know that our universe is a vast, dynamic cauldron of activity: home to 100 billion galaxies, all racing away within a boiling ocean of spacetime. While we may yet find our universe is just an island, we have discovered it is much larger than we ever thought. (end of video)

My model describes a different universe from the standard model, but it is the same observable universe, the same Hubble view, but without spacetime, and with infinite space filled with wave energy density across a potentially infinite foundational medium.

Prof.Layman

08-28-12, 03:59 PM

My model describes a different universe from the standard model, but it is the same observable universe, the same Hubble view, but without spacetime, and with infinite space filled with wave energy density across a potentially infinite foundational medium.The standard model doesn't use spacetime because it is particle physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model I don't think the standard model not using spacetime really varifies that spacetime does not exist. For one, the mass of particles is just too low to really be detected with todays technology. If you can't accurately detect differences in mass then you can't develop an accurate theory on gravity. There is just little or no interaction of particles due to the effects of gravity in particle accelerators. GR more accurately describes things on the macro scale, so if you didn't use that and used Newtons Laws, then thinking it should bring about a more accurate theory would just be simply a delusion.

quantum_wave

08-28-12, 05:26 PM

Thank you for your participation, I has been fun.

The standard model doesn't use spacetime because it is particle physics. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model*
I'm sorry to offend you, but paying attention is a big part of a discussion. I feel comfortable that if you had read my thread with the intent of trying to discuss and communicate, you would have realized that I know the difference between QM and GR, and that I know about the inconsistencies or at least the inapplicability of macro and micro theory. I have also stated my disclaimer and relied on being a layman, talking to a layman, in laymen terms, and taking laymen liberties. In my deluded layman terms, mainstream cosmology is the Standard Cosmology or what I also call the consensus cosmology. Also in my layman terms, the Standard Particle Model of Quantum Physics is referred to as the standard model. In my model I address both the micro and the macro levels of order and so I have to refer to both realms.

I am aware that I use the term standard model interchangeably to the chagrin of professionals but feel at liberty to do so with my intended audience; science enthusiasts in the laymen community. Your correction about spacetime vs. particle physics was an indication that our discussion is not going forward and so we may as well bring it to a conclusion. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were pretty fed up with having to keep up with the discussion that I seem to be pushing and probably would not have responded further. If you do, please read the thread and accept the disclaimers; but really, you are off the hook if you want to be, lol.

I don't think the standard model not using spacetime really varifies that spacetime does not exist.
Of course not. I don't need it and have an alternative to it for reasons I have mentioned. I made it a point to say that I am conveying to you and the community what my model is, not what I think anyone on Earth will consider as material for a scientific paper.

For one, the mass of particles is just too low to really be detected with todays technology.
Of course. You should have picked up in my obvious understanding of that fact from the first reading of my OP.

If you can't accurately detect differences in mass then you can't develop an accurate theory on gravity.
There are a couple of things in that statement that are indications of our disconnect in intentions.

I am very careful not to call any of this "theory" and yet you do, and you do so as if you feel I am passing it off as theory. Let's be clear, I am very well aware of what theory is, and how it is based on evidence and testing, and subject to falsification. I'm not claiming I have evidence for any of my delusions. I'm just saying that my delusions as presented in my model are internally consistent, meaning they all work together hypothetically, in place of existing incomplete and inconsistent theories that are not intended for laymen. I am also saying that the model is not inconsistent with actual scientific observations and data.

That should not be the first time you saw me say that. It should also be a huge clue that the mechanics I call quantum action and arena action occur on scales too small or too big to observe. I am saying that if those mechanics were reality instead of my delusions, then the solutions to questions that science cannot answer would be included in my model. We can both be certain that I am wrong, but I did say IF. I explain the presence of particles and gravity, preconditions to the big bang, dark energy, dark matter, expansion. accelerating expansion, and various other things that mainstream has problems with. The lack of consensus answers in the mainstream is why I have a model at all, deluded as I admit it is :).

Gravity in my model is a deluded hypothesis; I thought I made that clear. It was offered as ideas for discussion. If you reject the ideas you don't need to fall back on the approach of trying to make this thread about science and point out the departures from the scientific method, or take exception to the license I take in conveying my model, my ideas, and my discussion.

There is just little or no interaction of particles due to the effects of gravity in particle accelerators. *GR more accurately describes things on the macro scale, so if you didn't use that and used Newtons Laws, then thinking it should bring about a more accurate theory would just be simply a delusion.
Uh, aside from you insisting my model is theory for your own reasons, I think you grasp one point; the delusion bit.

This part is directed to the general membership (none of whom are likely to read it, lol): People who come with an intention of showing that I don't have science going on here, and deriding the content because they are looking for science or theory, have completely ignored what I have said from the very first post, or they have a hidden (or an overt agenda in Origin's case) of insulting and disparaging without any intention of friendly forum chat.

In the future I will limit my posts and thus reduce the aggravation they give some, and make you detractors happy by no longer posting in any other threads unless responding to someone who is responding to me, at least until there is some indication that the forum will become more friendly. I'll only respond to posts that are well intended and appropriate to the content. Future posts from anyone, and I don't think there will be many after explaining my position clearly like this, will be responded to if there is an indication in the post that the thread has been read and the disclaimers are an acceptable basis for discussion on a layman level. If I don't respond, you will know why.

Prof.Layman

08-30-12, 03:50 PM

I think people put to much infesis on the word theory, or law even. I don't think it is a good indicator of how valid a theory actually is. For instance, no matter how much they prove relativity, I don't think they will ever call it the Special Law of Relativity. Newtons Laws, have stood to be corrected, and yet they are still laws. The law of conservation of energy has a loop hole, but yet it is still a law. So I don't think we have come to the point where we must say that a theory is the "Hypothesis of _______". So I tend to use the word theory loosely, because calling something hypotheses instead just doesn't feel right to me.

I would have to admit it makes it really hard to get into the grand illiusion here when you don't accept relativity. I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the theories, and I guess you can say that I am a relativity extremist. Some people that accept relativity only think it is an illiusion, but I think it is very more real than that. So then it is hard to just throw it out the window, and delve into ideas that are completely void of it. Sometimes I get people thinking that I don't accept relativity, by trying to explain why spacetime actually dialates from the equations. There seem to be a lot of people online that have different views on relativity so it is hard to pick out what group they are in.

I don't think it would be a good idea to make up your own laymans terms. I think you should try to use actual terms or the actual things you are trying to describe. Otherwise, it would make the reader have to refer to some type of secret code book or legend. Then it can be really hard to follow. This is why I was unsure of how much of the material you actually know. I think it would be better to explain what lead you to certain ideas instead of just laying them down as the final product. It can be very hard to chew when you reject accepted physics. Thanks for letting me off the hook.

quantum_wave

08-30-12, 07:22 PM

...

I would have to admit it makes it really hard to get into the grand illiusion here when you don't accept relativity. I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the theories, and I guess you can say that I am a relativity extremist. Some people that accept relativity only think it is an illiusion, but I think it is very more real than that. So then it is hard to just throw it out the window, and delve into ideas that are completely void of it. Sometimes I get people thinking that I don't accept relativity, by trying to explain why spacetime actually dialates from the equations. There seem to be a lot of people online that have different views on relativity so it is hard to pick out what group they are in.
My model and relativity aren't as far apart as you might think, and when I say I don't invoke spacetime, I do replace every effect attributed to the curvature of spacetime by matter, with my models wave energy density of the foundational medium. And though it is hard sometimes to tell, my model uses energy density of the foundational medium to explain dark energy, dark matter, preconditions to the big bang, the mechanics of the big bang, the mechanics that establishes the presence of particles and gravity in the new big bang arenas, and more. It is the simple invocation of a foundational medium at a level below the fundamental level of the standard particle model that permits energy density to replace spacetime. It is the simple invocation of the foundational medium to enable the mechanics of big bang preconditions, big crunches and big bangs and they enable my model to explain the macro level of order, the separation momentum of galaxies, the acceleration of the expansion, and the source of the CMB. My model allows some contrivances of the mainstream theories to be superseded by internally consistent mechanics that do not violate know observations and data.

I don't think it would be a good idea to make up your own laymans terms. I think you should try to use actual terms or the actual things you are trying to describe. Otherwise, it would make the reader have to refer to some type of secret code book or legend. Then it can be really hard to follow. This is why I was unsure of how much of the material you actually know. I think it would be better to explain what lead you to certain ideas instead of just laying them down as the final product. It can be very hard to chew when you reject accepted physics. Thanks for letting me off the hook.
Thank you and I accept that as good advice, and I recognize you as a stand-up guy who responded to my request for stand-up members to participate.

quantum_wave

08-31-12, 09:22 AM

Dark Energy

The issue with Arbitrageur in another forum where I first posted this boils down to "what is dark energy". He kindly posted a graphic (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts_exp.html) showing the best scenarios we have and how the motion of the galaxies can be addressed under different combinations of dark energy and dark matter. The red line was the most recent addition and it was the line that represents accelerating expansion.

I see a skilled science professional in his posts. If not, he is a science enthusiast in the laymen community like me, but he knows mainstream science. Him being mainstream oriented and me being alternative hypothesis oriented leads to our disconnect on the cause of the "mysterious" dark energy.

I know his mainstream views, but he doesn't yet know my hypothesis, but from what I can tell I bet he wouldn't wave it off until after he heard it. Having him read it ... cool. So let me tell my view of dark energy.

My model is a steady state, big bang arena landscape model that defeats entropy and is in accord with the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP). The cosmological principle (CP) describes a homogeneous and isotropic universe on a large scale, and within the Hubble view of our universe, the large scale is made up of galaxies and galactic structure. The view changes as time passes because the galaxies are observed to be moving away from each other at an accelerating rate.

On the other hand, the PCP adds one characteristic to the CP. It adds that the universe on a large scale looks the same throughout time and eternity.

Clearly, if the mainstream invokes the CP, and I invoke the PCP, we are not talking about the same "large scale". In CP, large scale is galaxy related, and in my model, large scale is big bang arena related. I hypothesis that the universe is a steady state, big bang arena multiverse.

The difference between what we mean by "large scale" in the mainstream view and mine is what differentiates my model from any single Big Bang universe model.

It follows that the dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant, a.k.a. vacuum energy density in the mainstream model must be working entirely from within the causally connected space of the big bang, while my view allows the dark energy to be caused by a differential in energy density between high density of the big bang and low density of the space surrounding it in a greater universe. The hypothesis is that the mainstream universe occupies a tiny arena of space within a potentially infinite greater universe. If so, then the energy density of our arena is very high relative to the immediately surrounding space, and the principle of energy density equalization causes our arena to "inflate" as it intrudes into the surrounding space.

Even though the initial expansion after the big bang event is caused by energy density equalization between our arena and the surrounding space, there is another important detail that must be disclosed about my model before the story of the "mysterious" dark energy is complete. The matter that formed within our arena did so during early inflation and as the individual particles took shape, they had separation momentum imparted to them. Ignoring gravity at the first instant of formation, all of the new particles that formed in our arena were moving away from each other just like the raisins in the loaf of raisin bread as it bakes, and quite similar to how the galaxies are observed to be moving now.

But the story of dark energy still isn't complete until we define it as the force driving the accelerating rate of observed separation of the galaxies, and that includes the hypothesis that gravity and particles occurred simultaneously, i.e. particles "have" gravity (I will address the mechanics of gravity later). The fact that particles were formed having separation momentum and gravity is part of my hypothesis. Gravity is very strong in the close quarters of the early arena, and so particles clump together, atoms and molecules form and they clump together, and in my scenario hydrogen clouds form, and separate clouds of hydrogen gas collapse into stars, and finally the galaxies form having the conserved separation momentum of the particles from which they formed.

We know that gravity obeys the inverse square law, and so as the galaxies begin to establish their own space, the distance between them grows. The dark energy equation, if I had one, would quantify the balance between dark energy and gravity. It would gradually show separation momentum gaining the upper hand, and as a result, would quantify the observed accelerating rate of expansion or a range of values for energy density.

The mainstream "mystery" exists because the mainstream physics consensus does not have low energy density space surrounding the high energy density arena, and does not consider the physics where energy density equalization could drive the observed expansion.

quantum_wave

08-31-12, 09:25 AM

Dark Energy

The issue with Arbitrageur in another forum where I first posted this boils down to "what is dark energy". He kindly posted a graphic (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts_exp.html) showing the best scenarios we have and how the motion of the galaxies can be addressed under different combinations of dark energy and dark matter. The red line was the most recent addition and it was the line that represents accelerating expansion.

I see a skilled science professional in his posts. If not, he is a science enthusiast in the laymen community like me, but he knows mainstream science. Him being mainstream oriented and me being alternative hypothesis oriented leads to our disconnect on the cause of the "mysterious" dark energy.

I know his mainstream views, but he doesn't yet know my hypothesis, but from what I can tell I bet he wouldn't wave it off until after he heard it. Having him read it ... cool. So let me tell my view of dark energy.

My model is a steady state, big bang arena landscape model that defeats entropy and is in accord with the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP). The cosmological principle (CP) describes a homogeneous and isotropic universe on a large scale, and within the Hubble view of our universe, the large scale is made up of galaxies and galactic structure. The view changes as time passes because the galaxies are observed to be moving away from each other at an accelerating rate.

On the other hand, the PCP adds one characteristic to the CP. It adds that the universe on a large scale looks the same throughout time and eternity.

Clearly, if the mainstream invokes the CP, and I invoke the PCP, we are not talking about the same "large scale". In CP, large scale is galaxy related, and in my model, large scale is big bang arena related. I hypothesize that the universe is a steady state, big bang arena multiverse.

The difference between what we mean by "large scale" in the mainstream view and mine is what differentiates my model from any single Big Bang universe model.

It follows that the dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant, a.k.a. vacuum energy density in the mainstream model must be working entirely from within the causally connected space of the big bang, while my view allows the dark energy to be caused by a differential in energy density between high density of the big bang and low density of the space surrounding it in a greater universe. The hypothesis is that the mainstream universe occupies a tiny arena of space within a potentially infinite greater universe. If so, then the energy density of our arena is very high relative to the immediately surrounding space, and the principle of energy density equalization causes our arena to "inflate" as it intrudes into the surrounding space.

Even though the initial expansion after the big bang event is caused by energy density equalization between our arena and the surrounding space, there is another important detail that must be disclosed about my model before the story of the "mysterious" dark energy is complete. The matter that formed within our arena did so during early inflation and as the individual particles took shape, they had separation momentum imparted to them. Ignoring gravity at the first instant of formation, all of the new particles that formed in our arena were moving away from each other just like the raisins in the loaf of raisin bread as it bakes, and quite similar to how the galaxies are observed to be moving now.

But the story of dark energy still isn't complete until we define it as the force driving the accelerating rate of observed separation of the galaxies, and that includes the hypothesis that gravity and particles occurred simultaneously, i.e. particles "have" gravity (I will address the mechanics of gravity later). The fact that particles were formed having separation momentum and gravity is part of my hypothesis. Gravity is very strong in the close quarters of the early arena, and so particles clump together, atoms and molecules form and they clump together, and in my scenario hydrogen clouds form, and separate clouds of hydrogen gas collapse into stars, and finally the galaxies form having the conserved separation momentum of the particles from which they formed.

We know that gravity obeys the inverse square law, and so as the galaxies begin to establish their own space, the distance between them grows. The dark energy equation, if I had one, would quantify the balance between dark energy and gravity. It would gradually show separation momentum gaining the upper hand, and as a result, would quantify the observed accelerating rate of expansion over a range of values for energy density.

The mainstream "mystery" exists because the mainstream physics consensus does not have low energy density space surrounding the high energy density arena, and does not consider the physics where energy density equalization could drive the observed expansion.

quantum_wave

09-01-12, 10:13 AM

If you believe there are multiple universes next door to ours..*
Please call them "arenas" because in my model there is only one universe composed of the interacting big bang arenas that make it up.
But yes, there are arenas "next door to ours", and our arena had "parent" arenas that were "next door" to each other and intersected with each other to spawn our big bang arena out of their galactic remnants.

do you state that they may collide and interact with ours?*
Our arena is the result of such an intersection and overlap. "Collide" is not the best operative word because though galaxies do collide in the process, in my model arenas rendezvous, :o. They rendezvous into a swirling accretion at the center of gravity of the overlap of the parent arenas.

do all the potential universes outside of ours have the ability to interact with one another,, or if so can you conceive of a mechanism which would prevent them from interacting ( how can a universe be strictly contained?)?
The arenas can interact with their neighbors directly, and indirectly they will eventually interact with a broad swath of other arenas. The mechanism for such broad interaction has to do with the fact that a new arena always contains a certain "critical capacity" of galactic material and energy accumulated by gravity in the overlap space, and it bangs when it reaches that capacity, making all arenas essentially the same in energy. If you think about it, that means that if two arenas rendezvous then the new arena will come away out of the resulting big crunch/bang with half of the galactic content of the two, while if the rendezvous is three arenas, the new arena will form from a big crunch that all three "parents" contribute to. Since each new arena only contains the critical capacity, that leaves much of the content of the parent arenas to continue away from the overlap space via their own somewhat altered separation momentum. Those free galaxies no longer belong to a single mature expanding arena and become remnants traversing the "corridors" of space between active arenas. Eventually they will get caught up in subsequent overlap spaces and become part of some new distant big crunch/bangs, and thus an original mature arena will have contributed to innumerable other arenas across a wide swath of the greater universe.

There is no way in my model to contain an arena for very long, but I do call the big crunch stage of the arena's life cycle "containment" for the period of time it takes for the crunch to form and collapse/burst (bang).

*what I attempted to ask with my [strike through]silly[/strike through] arena in arena all the way down question was... how many universes side by side could there be,,,, and what would be beyond the most beyond one,,, would all of those be contained in an arena,, and what would be beyond that contained arena,,, its completely contrived and unknowable because the past is potentially infinitely ancient,,,
I think you will acknowledge that I "confine" my model to the two levels of order that are just beyond our ability to observe, the quantum level and the arena landscape level, but I would like to address a question that your statement brings up, i.e. Turtles all the way down (TATWD :)) Turtles (http://wordplay.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/numberplay-turtles-all-the-way-down/). TATWD is defeated by the energy density of the foundational medium in my model, and so I do dismiss it. The original TATWD is only vaguely defined as you can see from the link, but that doesn't keep wild enthusiasts from hypothesizing about the possibility. Since I invoke wave energy traversing the foundational medium, a particle becomes a standing wave pattern of wave energy with inflowing and out flowing wave components. The standing wave pattern is filled with high density wave energy but clearly not infinite wave energy. My point is that the wave energy to produce a whole operative universe in the space of a particle requires wave action at such an extreme that the standing wave of a particle in my model's quantum level would not be able to host all of that energy. Some would still say that waves can be infinitely small and object to my explanation, but if that is the case, my model is compatible with it but does not bother to invoke any level order below the quantum level.

You are so kind to ask such great questions, and I am interested in your views because I bet your approach to discussion has exposed you to a wide range of models.

Thought for the day: So I dazzle myself in singular way, not alone in my discontent about not knowing, but alone in my specific delusions of knowing. :p

quantum_wave

09-28-12, 10:04 AM

Another beautiful morning at the Maple Pavilion! This place is a perfect environment for concocting delusions about the nature of the universe and so I have some to add :). I have been discussing elsewhere the nature of wave energy and the idea of the waves being concussion waves in the foundational medium, so I'll post this here to keep my Pseudoscience presence alive at my "sort of" home base over the years.

My opening post addressed spacetime vs. wave energy traversing a foundational medium. Whether you are a science professional or a science enthusiast, you are familiar with how current theory explains that the presence of matter and energy can cause a curvature of spacetime; a curvature that accounts for gravity. Though the effects are described mathematically, there is no physical explanation or mechanics, or at least no consensus as to how space curves or warps in the presence of matter.

That is why I started to hypothesize about an undetectable foundational medium that would cause the same effects that we observe as gravity.

Experiments had pretty conclusively falsified the luminiferous aether theory by the time that Einstein came up with the Theory of General Relativity, and the spacetime mathematics of Einstein's field equations (EFE) are extremely accurate at describing the observed and predicted motion of objects in space. And they are very accurate in general relativity for the same reason that they are very accurate in my model; wave energy density has almost the same effect on the motion of objects as the mathematical spacetime effect.

Any hypothesis about quantum level mechanics that would physically describe how gravity might work has to also describe gravity at every level of particle accumulation from the quantum realm right up to the macro realm of observable objects including planets, stars, and galaxies, i.e. one set of rules that apply everywhere. We cannot have two sets where one set applies to the quantum realm and one set applies to the macro realm as we have in current theory, i.e. quantum mechanics and General Relativity. My model attributes gravity to the directional imbalance of the inflowing wave energy component of a standing wave pattern vs. the spherical out flowing component; objects move toward the highest net wave energy inflow.

My initial hypothetical starting point is that there is a foundational medium that fills all space, and thus would affect all levels of order from the quantum realm to the macro realm. It is a simple starting point, but such a medium must not be our great granddaddy's fixed luminiferous aether which objects in motion were supposed to pass through. My view of a foundational medium fixes that problem by hypothesizing that wave energy traverses the foundational medium, and by hypothesizing that particles at the quantum level are patches of disturbed space that contain and maintain the presence of standing wave energy in quantum increments, i.e. standing wave energy with two components, inflowing and out flowing waves that are traversing that foundational medium. Particles are all composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and objects right on up to galaxies are composed of particles, so the quantum action that sustains the presence of a particle also sustains the presence of particles in aggregate.

It isn't hard to envision waves in the foundational medium, or to consider them the basic form of energy of the universe; energy that is imparted to everything else because everything is composed of that foundational wave energy.

But to think of the convergence of those waves as concussions, now that may be not be the first thing that comes to mind. But the way I think about it, if we have nothing to compare the perfect fluid to except that which can be prescribed as the singular most necessary component of the hypothetical realm into which we cannot observe, then we should not be surprised if that fluid has characteristics that allow it to function as it must. It then also is not an impossible concept that waves in the medium are all there is, that those waves must have a means to interact with each other, and so when they intersect and overlap, they are colliding.

But still it is hard to think of a concussion wave emerging from such an ethereal (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethereal) collision of almost no energy in almost no space in almost no time. But that is the basis for my argument that they are collisions. They do involve the clash of energy from opposing directions, the collisions cause a spongy overlap in the smallest of spaces, and the duration of the collision is a finite amount of time. The concussion emerges as the overlap compression is resisted and reversed by the medium at the point of intersection, reversing the directional flow of energy from the converging waves into a single spherical expanding wave of energy in the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU). Wave energy is conserved.

quantum_wave

09-30-12, 04:20 PM

Spherical equalization of wave energy density through photon energy relocation:

In my model a photon is a particle composed of standing wave energy that traverses the medium at the invariant speed of light. The medium is filled with wave energy in all directions, so you might think they would be slowed down by those repeated and continual collisions, and their advance would be limited to one tiny spherical wave increment after another. Am I saying that photons can still travel at the speed of light in spite of the time delay caused by repeated concussion waves emerging from those continual collisions as they advance?

Yes, they are slowed down to the invariant speed of light from what would otherwise be a potentially instantaneous transmission across empty space if it weren't for the fact that the foundational medium governs the speed of light between particles and objects. The medium only permits wave transmission to take place at one invariant speed relative to the specific wave energy density of the surrounding energy density environment. For example, in my model a perfect vacuum is a waveless medium, and I am saying that in a waveless medium a photon would travel at the maximum invariant velocity which would be almost precisely equal to current measurements in vacua, the difference being that a perfect vacuum is a virtual impossibility in my model and so no current measurements exist of light traversing a perfect vacuum.

Futher discussion:

Within particles and objects, the waves that make up the standing wave patterns that establish the presence of particles are traversing the medium at the local speed of light, but the time delay associated with the process of collision and concussion wave transmission in the particle space involves a time delay much greater than the time delay in open space, regardless of the energy density of the environment.

All waves originate from collisions and the point of collision establishes the center point from which the concussion sphere's radius expands at the speed of light. Within a particle the frequency of the collisions is so extreme, trillions and trillions more collisions occur every instant within the particle space than would occur within the open space between particles and objects. Of course the wave energy density of the open space is a factor in determining the relative velocity of light across that space, but even in the densest energy environment, particles are much more dense than the space between them.

Addressing the seemingly obvious contradiction:

But isn't it an obvious contradiction to say that photons are particles and yet they traverse the medium at the speed of light like unquantized waves would traverse the vacuum? Isn't it part of the rule of particle motion that particles need inflow from every direction and if they are moving at the speed of light, no inflow can catch them from behind? Doesn't that screw up all of the internal consistency of your model?

No, photons don't violate the particle motion rule, they maximize the directional rule. The rule is that particles move in the direction of the highest net directional inflowing wave energy. All wave energy entering a photon standing wave comes from the direction of emission, so the rule is not violated. In other words the time delay is at a minimum because the collisions and concussion wave advances are limited to one direction instead of from all spherical directions.

Describe the physical nature of a photon and the means of transmission:

Photons are produced by atoms and molecules that function as oscillating dipoles and always consist of a whole number of energy quanta equal to the number of quanta given up by the electron that emits them.

Electrons in those dipoles have a theoretical rest energy, and they have the capacity to absorb additional energy quanta from photons upon contact. The absorption of photons increases the energy of the electron and as a result, the energized electron occupies more orbital space around the nucleus. The function being performed, in my model, is referred to as the spherical equalization of energy density across an energy density environment, or simply photon energy relocation.

The number of quanta added to the electron can be released in increments by the electron, and the release is in packets of quanta equal to the number of quanta given up by the electron release. There is an ebb and flow of quanta between electrons which is the means of photon energy relocation throughout the given energy density environment.

The photon itself, a packet of quanta, is a standing wave whose inflow is perfectly one directional, and that means that all of the inflowing wave energy component is from the direction of motion. The photon therefore moves at the maximum rate allowed by the foundational medium, i.e. the speed of light.

quantum_wave

10-02-12, 03:56 PM

...

Describe the physical nature of a photon and the means of transmission:

Photons are produced by atoms and molecules that function as oscillating dipoles and always consist of a whole number of energy quanta equal to the number of quanta given up by the electron that emits them.

Electrons in those dipoles have a theoretical rest energy, and they have the capacity to absorb additional energy quanta from photons upon contact. The absorption of photons increases the energy of the electron and as a result, the energized electron occupies more orbital space around the nucleus. The function being performed, in my model, is referred to as the spherical equalization of energy density across an energy density environment, or simply photon energy relocation.

The number of quanta added to the electron can be released in increments by the electron, and the release is in packets of quanta equal to the number of quanta given up by the electron release. There is an ebb and flow of quanta between electrons which is the means of photon energy relocation throughout the given energy density environment.

The photon itself, a packet of quanta, is a standing wave whose inflow is perfectly one directional, and that means that all of the inflowing wave energy component is from the direction of motion. The photon therefore moves at the maximum rate allowed by the foundational medium, i.e. the speed of light.I attempted a little graphic of the process of photon emission and transmission. This is one of the first depictions in my model of the concept and it may have a few bugs, so if you think it could be improved let me know ... :

http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/photonemission5.jpg
#1 represents an oscillating dipole with an energized electron shown as a cloud in its orbital space around the nucleus.
#2 is a depiction of the emission of a photon as the electron orbit contracts toward the nucleus, giving up space and a corresponding amount of energy. See the photon being ejected.
#3 depicts the first collision of the photon with the inflowing wave energy. Since the photon traverses the medium at the speed of light, all of the wave energy that it encounters is coming from the direction of motion. The photon energy is refreshed from the inflowing wave energy and emits a spherical out flowing wave of energy (see off set 3a). The refreshed quanta of the photon move toward the direction of the inflowing wave energy and ...
#4 depicts the refreshed photon quanta relocated along the path of the directional inflowing wave energy.
#3 and #4 repeat themselves as a continuous sequence of collisions and concussion waves as the photon moves in increments along its path at the speed of light.

quantum_wave

10-03-12, 08:30 AM

Quantum Units Wild Guess updated for this thread

“In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete.” ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

In my model, which is not likely to have anything to do with a change in paradigm, lol, the proton’s presence (three quarks if you like) is literally composed of the high density spots that form at the overlap of the multiple quantum standing waves within the proton. It is these high density spots that preceded the concussion waves.

Concussion waves are spherical waves that are bursting out of high density spots (HDSs), expanding spherically, overlapping, and forming new HDSs within the proton. It is a continual process where the wave energy out flow that escapes the proton from the surface spherically (equal in all directions) is replaced by wave energy arriving at the surface (directionally) from the out flow of wave energy from other particles. Thus the presence of the proton is maintained by the inflowing and out flowing standing wave action.

Let’s say that we can freeze the quantum action process that has established the presence of a proton. That freeze frame will contain a finite number of spherical quantum waves in overlap positions within the proton. Each overlap is a high density spot in my jargon. There are a finite number of high density spots within the particle space where the spherical waves have overlapped at the moment of the freeze frame. That close configuration of high density spots (lattice-like) has stability because there is no niche on the surface for any additional surface quanta or high density spots in a stable environment, i.e. the surface wave energy out flow is equal to the wave energy inflow in a stable energy density environment, like at rest. (Increase the energy of the environment or accelerate the proton and there are more surface quanta and proportionately more total quanta, hypothetically.)

The question is, from what we know about the proton at rest, and from what I hypothesize about the process of quantum action at the foundational level, can we derive a ball park figure or even a wild guess of the number of high density spots (or shall we say quantum units) within a proton lattice? A quantum unit would be the foundational unit of energy in a universe composed of wave energy in a foundational medium, i.e. in my model.

In this exercise you might point out that the units of measure don’t work unless we define the whole exercise in terms of a new unit, i.e. a speculative “quantum compression unit” that occupies an average amount of space per quanta in the freeze frame or lattice view inside a proton. We are not talking about energy in joules for example because the units of measure wouldn’t work. We are talking about energy in quantum units. Each quantum unit is a quantum of wave energy, not only the individual spherical waves, but the high density spots that accumulate a full quantum and burst into new spherical waves. So the number of quantum units would be the total number of spherical wave intersections that are present as hypothetically represented by the high density spots that form and burst into quantum waves. Supposedly we could count the HDSs in a freeze frame of the proton, and if we could we would know the total energy in quantum compression units of a proton at rest.

This hypothetical exercise is to put some perspective on the number of energy quanta in a proton and an electron at rest to quantify my idea of the composition of a lattice of quantum units within a stable particle. For simplicity we will call these “average quantum compression units” which simply occupy the space within the proton; a quantum unit would consist of one high density spot at the overlap of multiple spherical quantum waves. This can also be thought of as the wave energy, in quanta, in a volume of space occupied by the proton, accounted for unit by unit in a whole number. I am suggesting the following widely speculative guess at the number of these quantum units within the space occupied by a proton.

I am using the approximate ratio of the rest energy of an electron vs. a proton, which is 1/1836, to equate the number of quantum units in the proton to the number of units in the electron which give me some basis for a calculation.

In addition, I am supposing that the number of quantum units in an electron is equal to the number of quanta at the surface of the proton for various reasons, but for this exercise that is just to have a relationship to allow us to do the calculations.

Area/Volume = (4 pi r^2)/(4/3 pi r^3) = 3/r = 1/1836,
therefore r=3*1836 = 5508, thus the radius of the proton is equal to 5508 quantum units.

4 pi r^2 = surface area of a sphere
4/3 pi r^3 = volume of a sphere
pi = 3.14159265

Quantum units in an electron = 381,239,356
Quantum units in a proton = 699,955,457,517

I'll just call it 400 million and 700 billion respectively, or even just hundreds of millions and hundreds of billions respectively :shrug:.

quantum_wave

10-04-12, 09:27 AM

I attempted a little graphic of the process of photon emission and transmission. This is one of the first depictions in my model of the concept and it may have a few bugs, so if you think it could be improved let me know ... :

http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/photonemission5.jpg
#1 represents an oscillating dipole with an energized electron shown as a cloud in its orbital space around the nucleus.
#2 is a depiction of the emission of a photon as the electron orbit contracts toward the nucleus, giving up space and a corresponding amount of energy. See the photon being ejected.
#3 depicts the first collision of the photon with the inflowing wave energy. Since the photon traverses the medium at the speed of light, all of the wave energy that it encounters is coming from the direction of motion. The photon energy is refreshed from the inflowing wave energy and emits a spherical out flowing wave of energy (see off set 3a). The refreshed quanta of the photon move toward the direction of the inflowing wave energy and ...
#4 depicts the refreshed photon quanta relocated along the path of the directional inflowing wave energy.
#3 and #4 repeat themselves as a continuous sequence of collisions and concussion waves as the photon moves in increments along its path at the speed of light.
Work from quantum units

In the graphic I have depicted the collapse of the electron orbital cloud and the corresponding emission of a photon, one photon that has a specific amount of energy, and no frequency. We need a beam of photons to measure frequency, and if a light source emits a beam of light, and if the light is of a constant photon emission frequency, then the beam produced is a sequence of individual photons like the photon I depict in the graphic.

If true, then the values for frequency and wavelength can be measured from the beam. We know that energy of the photon can be calculated using h (Planck's constant) * frequency. That gives us the amount of work in joules per second that can be expected from a photon beam.

We do not yet know how many of the quantum units described in my model are required to make up that amount of photon energy in joules per second, but if we did we could determine the amount of work we could expect from one quantum compression unit assuming the internal quantum composition of the photon standing wave.

I believe that I could figure out a pretty good ball park figure just by knowing that it is roughly quantifiable, given my Quantum Units Wild Guess as to the quanta in an electron (~400 million at rest), the concept of the oscillating dipole/photon emission of my model (i.e. the mechanical relationship between the photon and the change in energy state of an electron), and known science related to the change in energy of electrons that emit photons and the work that can be performed in joules per second for electrons and photons.

It will take me awhile to refresh my memory on the science involved and I don't know if it matters that much given the deluded model, but I am open to estimates from the community :). Who wants to take a stab at it, lol?

In the mean time, I'll just use 1 * 10^-50 joules per quanta for the fun of it. That has to be off by many zeros one way or the other but this is not science.

quantum_wave

10-05-12, 12:59 PM

Motion of Objects in the Medium

Just like I am modeling gravity differently from the curvature of spacetime in conventional models, I am describing light transmission differently from the standard self-propagating transverse electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetism. Conveniently though, I am modeling gravity and the propagation of light using the same principle of motion; motion is in the direction of highest net wave energy, which for the photon was depicted in the last graphic.

We have the relocation of the photon, one increment at a time, in the direction of the inflowing wave energy; essentially a one directional motion in response to a one directional inflow.

None of the other particles traverse the medium in a straight line at the speed of light. All other particles and objects*in relative motion always follow curved paths due to the time delay of gravity. The greater the distance between objects, the greater the time delay.

http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/TimeDelayofGravity.jpg

Time delay is simply a reference to the fact that out flowing wave energy from distant objects traverses the medium at the speed of light in ever increasing spheres until it reaches the local object. In that time, the distant objects have moved. However, the directional inflow points back to the location in the medium where the distant object was back in time, equal to the time delay. The incremental motion of the local object is in the direction of the net inflow, and that points to a place in the medium that is no longer occupied by the original source of wave energy. Never-the-less, our local object sets out in that historic direction as it utilizes the inflowing wave to refresh its own location by one increment per quantum period.

Naturally enough, the next wave to become the inflow of our local object was emitted from a slightly different location since the path of the distant object was playing out back in time. This slight change in the directional inflow allows the local object to make a slight course change, again directing it to a new, but still out of date location due to the time delay of gravity. Plot out a few of these tiny course corrections and you notice that your local object is following a curved path, even though each increment was in a straight line toward where the distant object was, if you play back the time delay.

quantum_wave

10-06-12, 07:36 AM

Overview of the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life

Arena action of my model defeats entropy and perpetually produces galaxy filled expanding arenas throughout the universe where it is natural for stars with solar systems to host habitable planets and where the conditions are conducive to the generation of life.

Given the right mix of chemistry and environment, my model assures that physical iterations of all the finite possible combinations occur and the combinations for reproductive life inevitably arise. *Life is adaptive and evolvative, meaning that as early life takes hold, and as evolution occurs, life forms take full advantage of the hospitable environments across the host planet.

As evolution proceeds, natural characteristics that are the mark of advanced life forms develop, bringing them consciousness, self awareness, and individually developed consciences.

All highly evolved contemplative life forms across the Infinite Spongy Universe (my name for the universe - ISU), given sufficient duration to experience it, will share an inevitable course from their origin of natural generation to the culmination of high evolution, and with that comes the realization that all life is causally connected by the same Eternal Intent.

quantum_wave

10-07-12, 12:19 PM

That brings up the topic of Eternal Intent, which is what I call the philosophy that I derive from the model. In the early years of my contemplations I considered the various explanations for the existence of the universe and always seemed to narrow it down to three basic ideas: 1) God did it, 2) It came from nothing, or 3) It has alway existed.

There is no clear right or wrong answer and so it comes down to an individual view point, and having such a view point comes down to the conscious intention of the individual to actually define it for themselves.

I have done that for myself over the years and have shared the journey in my threads to some extent, and so if you care, you know my views. But I don't often elaborate on the details of Eternal Intent because one's personal views of life and living is not a popular internet topic by any means. I don't care that it is not, because I do this as much or more for myself than I do it for the community, but from time to time I like to post about it, and this is one of those times.

Let me state the nutshell version of EI so that I can philosophize a little about it in a few future posts. EI is the simple philosophy that the universe has always existed and is governed by invariant natural laws, many of which are as yet unknown. The first principle that I like to derive is that maybe God and the universe are one and the same, and that principle then lays before me the science of the known natural laws, and the mystery of the unknown natural laws.Within that mystery there is the possibility that if the universe has any characteristic of God to it, it is not only in the eternal nature of a universe that has always existed, but it is in the connection of the conscious, contemplative, free-willed, conscientious, highly evolved life forms with whatever God aspect of the universe there is; a connection that is made through the as yet unknown natural laws.

For me that connection takes the form of the possibility of seeking and receiving acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of known science and into the realm of the as yet unknown natural laws. Said simply, the faith and hope is that there is a connection that can be activated by the individual to experience acknowledgements. If it exists, Eternal Intent is there for intelligent beings to discover and use, seemingly derived from sound reason and logic that would be required to get you there. There is nothing to keep you from that faith and hope accept a fear of being deluded, lol, and you know I'm not afraid of that.

Eternal Intent is the natural common ground between all contemplative individuals. It is the highest standard for setting the correct rules of free and conscientious interaction. It is a characteristic of the universe, compatible with the natural laws of the ISU and with the concept that maybe God and the universe are one and the same. It is there for all of us as a source of hope and council throughout our lives, and for faith that the future can unfold as we would have it. It is there for us for free if we choose to use it.

The concept of Eternal Intent is the stimulus for highly evolved beings (humans in our case, human-like elsewhere I suppose) seeking acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of known science and expecting a response in accord with as yet unknown invariant natural laws.

I'll close this post with the thought that anything that seems supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand.

quantum_wave

10-19-12, 08:31 AM

With the groundwork laid in the last post, what I wanted to discuss was a philosophy of what causes us to interact with each other and what determines our form of interaction.

First, I suggest that there is the spectrum of individual self values. There is no clear right and wrong in any given set of circumstances aside from what we have learned through life, and so the individual often has to choose a course without clear agreement of others, or often with clear disagreement for that matter, and it is the individual's set of values that most often leads to their actions. So how different can those values be and how can we discuss them in generalized terms?

One way is define the spectrum of individual values with high spiritual values like helping others or following a religion on one end and high physical values like enjoying drugs/stimulants and promiscuity on the other; our options are phenomenal, lol. There is no absolute right or wrong set of values unless you have some connection to the Supernatural that I don't have, and so any set of values has equal merit from the perspective of any given individual; why wouldn't my views be as good for me as yours are for you? I equate it to conscience; this is not about societal imposition, this is about our self image, freewill, and conscience and where we fall on the spectrum.

The distinction between spiritual vs. physical is individually determined, and is quantified as those views that one holds as the self-image they strive for. Does the individual aspire to have high spiritual satisfaction or do they aspire to have high physical satisfaction, or some combination; we all float somewhere along that spectrum and each important action can be seen as a pushpin that defines us. Our set of pushpins is how others see us, and our conscience that is at work as we place those pins throughout our lives defines how we see ourselves.

Second, there is also a sphere of tolerance that can be supposed to characterize every individual even though many will not be able to define their precise tolerance levels because they are so subjective and their full range is rarely tested. We tolerate things from some that we wouldn't tolerate from others. The act of intolerance is very different form individual to individual, not only in regard to what we allow without objection, but also in how we react when someone crosses our line of tolerance. Our line of tolerance defines our sphere which encompasses what we allow others to act out as they express their freewill. When that line is crossed, perhaps by someone doing careless harm to us or others during their exercise of freewill, our tolerance is tested. How much careless harm can someone else cause to us or to others before we inject ourselves into the fray? That is determined by what I call the individuals sphere of tolerance.

I have defined the two spheres of action: our individual sphere of values on the spectrum from high spiritual to high physical values of conscience that determines our actions, and our individual sphere that determines our personal line of tolerance that causes us to react when others cross it. These are generalizations of the determinants of interactions between individuals.

When applying Eternal Intent we are applying faith and hoping for guidance and favorable outcomes to requests for acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of science and into the realm of the possibilities afforded us by the mystery of the as yet unknown invariant natural laws. The success of our individual approach to applying Eternal Intent in our lives certainly could be determined by the extent that our two spheres of action are in accord with equations that define the as yet unknown natural laws.

quantum_wave

10-21-12, 08:34 AM

Is it possible to be alone in the ISU?
Taking the last paragraph:
"When applying Eternal Intent we are applying faith and hoping for guidance and favorable outcomes to requests for acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of science and into the realm of the possibilities afforded us by the mystery of the as yet unknown invariant natural laws. The success of our individual approach to applying Eternal Intent in our lives certainly could be determined by the extent that our two spheres of action are in accord with equations that define the as yet unknown natural laws."

The talk of EI as faith based does not invoke the Supernatural because the faith is in the idea that within the invariant natural laws there are laws that govern consciousness and thought that we do not yet understand. If we understood those laws and the equations that could be derived from that understanding we would not be dealing with mysticism, so instead of invoking the Supernatural we would be saying that anything that appears Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand.

What I called faith and hope in that quote could also be stated as a suspicion that there are forces at work that could produce outcomes in our lives based on thoughts instead of actions, and that those outcomes could be invariant natural effects of consciousness and thought via the wave energy of quantum action connecting the coherent aggregate wave energy presence of individuals within the foundational medium.

Invoking those natural laws without understanding them might be the same as an exercise in trial and error, and the feedback loop leaves much to be desired since any actual acknowledgement in the form of guidance and favorable outcomes to requests is so subjective that it is of value only to the individual experiencing it, and carries value for others only to the extent that they are willing to have faith in an individual instead of in the idea of there being invariant natural laws that can be put to use for our individual purposes. The faith in any individuals who might relate their success in applying EI is a completely different matter from faith in EI, and my philosophy shrugs at simply believing someone else on matters of EI; you must apply EI and experience the results for yourself to determine if it works for you given your set of spheres of action. And taking a position of faith or suspicion that EI may work seems that it would be one motivation for trying it.

It seems entirely reasonable to me to assume that there are invariant equations that all play together in an internally consistent interaction of natural laws that represent the interconnectedness of all events including conscious thought, and if so then it is safe to assume that our ability to invoke any existent Eternal Intent would be dependent on the compatibility of our sphere of values and our sphere of tolerance with those equations, but maybe that conclusion is an individual delusion on top of the undaunted delusions of my model.

But no, we are not alone in the ISU. In my philosophy we are all connected by the wave energy that emanates from us as we exist and think. Universal togetherness, whether agreeable or disagreeable, is in the effect our thoughts have on one another and on anyone and everyone within the speed of light sphere of our wave energy emanations through the foundational medium.

quantum_wave

10-22-12, 11:39 AM

The Universe, Infinity, Life, and Eternal Intent
Including how to invoke EI and what to expect (or what not to expect):

QWC, my model of the physical universe, involves the foundational medium and the conservation of wave energy traversing the medium, including the presence of matter and gravity, without regard to any consciousness that emerges from it. QWC can be thought of as the host platform that perpetually presents the hospitable environments and the conditions necessary for the generation and evolution of life in the ISU.

Where QWC leaves off, the generation of life from the non-living elements and the environment takes over, and given the finite number of combinations of elements and natural environmental changes over time, combined with an iterative process of chemical combinations, eventually the living molecule emerges, capable of replication and subject to evolution. To the extent that those habitable environments are existent for a sufficient duration as in any arena in my model, the living molecule evolves and adapts to potentially fill all of the available life hosting niches in the environment; and here we are, apparently at the higher end of evolution where our minds can discover and invoke Eternal Intent.

When you then think of a highly evolved living being in the context of the ISU, you are thinking of a coherent being, meaning something that retains its living presence in the foundational medium. In terms of QWC we are each a set of standing waves internal to the particles that are bonded in aggregate and are organized into a living being with consciousness and with senses and with the ability of thought and the motivation for action. Our senses are the benchmarks of life within the foundational medium and from that context of living senses comes what individuals perceive as reality.

Without life there is no perception or acknowledgement of reality, of color or heat, feel or touch, taste or smell or sound. Without life the ISU is simply Quantum Wave Cosmology characterized by the eternal motion of compression waves traversing the potentially infinite foundational medium. It takes living beings to quantify any aspect of the physical universe. We can say fundamentally that the universe exists, hosts conscious and contemplative life that thinks and exercises freewill, and that is characterized by individuals that interact with their environment and with other such beings based on individual sets of values and tolerances; a self evident reality that is axiomatic.

Let's say that you want to invoke the concept of EI in your life by seeking some worthy acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of known science. You would have to acknowledge that you do so by going beyond the boundary of known science and into the realm of the as yet unknown natural laws that govern consciousness and thought. That gets you to the starting place. From there it is easy.

Just do it. Say, "I seek an acknowledgement from beyond the boundary that would take the form of ..." and describe the outcome that you desire.

I don't predict much success if you start by seeking unearned wealth or undeserved rewards, but the arbiter of what is earned or deserved starts with you so who am I to judge what success you may have; my conclusion is that it could be related to your individual set of spheres of action that I have defined earlier. I maintain that the nature of your spheres of action needs to be compatible with the equations that represent the natural laws, and not knowing those natural laws or equations, we cannot know the necessary nature of our spheres of action that would trigger the desired natural response. Yours could be as good or better than mine.

Minimally it starts as a process of trial and error, and ultimately can lead to self analysis and a remake of your self image before you begin to feel that the feedback you get from your requests is meaningful. But if you start minimally, and if what you seek is worthy in the context of the natural laws, something that only the results can confirm, then favorable responses could begin immediately. If you insist that wealth or fame is your rightful destiny, then favorable outcomes might require some degree of self reflection and causative action over time, but if you just want to feel that you are being acknowledged every time you see a butterfly, then keep your eyes open and you may be rewarded by realizing that you are seeing more butterflies.

quantum_wave

10-23-12, 11:31 AM

Contemplating the mysteries of life

If I were to list what to me are the biggest mysteries of life I would include:

1) the explanation for the existence of the universe.

2) the origin of life.

3) the mystery of the purpose of life.

4) the grasp of the infinities of space, time, and energy.

5) the Supernatural; the existence of and nature of God.

My contemplations have focused on those mysteries and I have come to my own conclusions on all of them.

My conclusion on the explanation for the existence of the universe is that the universe has always existed.

My conclusion on the origin of life is that it is generated from non-living matter in hospitable environments through an iterative process that eventually produces a molecule that replicates itself and evolves to conscious beings.

My conclusion on the purpose of life is that individuals who seek purpose will find/define their own.

My conclusion on grasping the infinities is that anything finite is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never relative to the infinite.

My conclusion on the Supernatural and the nature of God is that God and the universe are one and the same, infinite and eternal and characterized by living conscious individuals that act and react with freewill based on their learned values, consciences, and tolerances. That means to me that nature is completely compatible with the concept of God and God is completely compatible with the invariant laws of nature; anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes based on laws that we do not yet understand. I suspect and have faith that the mysteries of those unknown natural laws are activated by the process of seeking and receiving guidance and acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of science; the equivalent to prayer utilized by organized religions and individuals alike. I attempt to define myself with a set of values and tolerances that I call my spheres of action that I try to live by, and to the extent that I live by them and make good choices in my actions and interactions, I have faith that the connection with the Eternal Intent of the universe surrounds me and enables me to take what comes in stride with common sense and grace.

Some points worth elaboration in that statement:

In regard to the learned values, consciences and tolerances; we are responsibility to our children in that regard. We must teach values and tolerances both by education and example. We must enable parents to get help in teaching values to their children if they seek help with that as many do, and those parents should have a full understanding of what values will be taught through Eternal Intent. My view is that the teachings of Eternal Intent in the education of children would have common ground that could be seen as productive and helpful to many parents within and without organized religions. I'm not proposing a government program; I'm wishing that EI was widely understood and that there was some way to implement a program that was widely accepted and supported and that taught values that are common among all religions.

In regard to the nature of God; In Eternal Intent, God is the sum of our natural environment and of the actions and interactions of living free-willed individuals, and so the concepts that God is Love and God is Good are the highest hopes and expectations that we might wish that all people would emulate, but we know by experience that not all individuals live by the highest virtues at all times. Therefore the religious representation of God and my representation are different, and though my view has a supposed foundation in the invariant natural laws, and my representation does not carry the religious doctrines that characterize the organized religions, I have no desire to refute the view of God as Love and Good. However, I oppose the view of "my God is better than your God", and "my religion teaches our children that our version of God is the only true path in life and death", and I do desire to refute religious versions of God in those respects. Not all organized religions can be right, and my view is that Eternal Intent is the best common ground among all religions that convey a God concept. EI can be right in spite of all the other views because no religion is excluded from the realm of Eternal Intent, while most religions exclude the view of many other religions.

Oktober

10-24-12, 12:25 PM

A lot of Quantum, this thread.

quantum_wave

10-25-12, 01:03 PM

The Foundational Medium

Space could be thought of as empty, but in my model it is filled with the foundational medium. Space is not the medium, it is where the medium exists. The reason for making that distinction is that space has no characteristics except volume and it is potentially infinite in volume in three dimensions. However, the medium that fills it has to have certain characteristics in addition to volume, starting with the following:

1) It has to carry waves so I refer to it as a fluid.

2) The waves it carries represent energy and since energy has to be conserved, the medium must be a perfect fluid that waves can traverse frictionlessly.

3) Wave energy works at both the macro and micro levels because the quantum waves and quantum action in the medium are active at a level below the fundamental particle level of quantum physics. In that unobservable quantum realm where the natural laws seem to currently be interpreted as various forms of quantum weirdness, the foundational medium replaces both spacetime and quantum weirdness with an actual physical continuum of wave interaction in the foundational medium.

4) The medium has a presence that is more substantial than empty space and its presence exerts a pressure equally in all directions which causes it to remain disbursed, filling all available space. I have found it futile to try to equate the perfect fluid with anything that is observable from our macro level perspective; considering it ethereal works for me in the absence of any science to quantify and describe it. It must be there in my model just like spacetime must be a fact in the current General Relativity model.

5) To help clarify the nature of the pressure of the medium, any patch of space contains a corresponding volume of the medium. If you keep all of the medium and reduce the space it occupies, the pressure increases, so the equation for the pressure exerted by a perfect gas comes to mind. The pressure of the medium assures that the medium is equally distributed throughout that patch of space.

6) Pressure in a patch of medium can be increased by flowing wave energy into the space. The pressure of a patch of medium equates to the wave energy density of that patch of medium because waves carry energy and as more waves occupy the medium the pressure increases.

7) In my model space is potentially infinite and the pressure of the medium that fills all space has a positive value stated in terms of a pressure constant meaning that there is a potentially infinite amount of the perfect fluid that exerts a constant pressure at all points in the medium.

8) In an infinite waveless medium there would be a single pressure constant across all space, and in the wave filled medium that I invoke, there is a universal average constant pressure.

9) There is a huge range of pressures possible in the medium and there are huge arenas of high pressure and huge corridors of low pressure patches of medium across the greater universe.

10) A single wave in the medium propagates spherically and the space within the sphere is continually equalizing across the entire volume of medium within the sphere. The pressure of the medium at the crest is always higher than the pressure in the volume of medium within the sphere behind the crest.

11) A single wave scenario in an otherwise still medium the high pressure wave front carries the wave energy and will potentially expand forever (or until it is interrupted by intersection with opposing waves in a multiple wave scenario), introducing the concept of the infinite reach of wave energy across the medium.

12) The wave energy density of the medium determines the speed that waves traverse it. A single wave traverses an otherwise waveless medium at the speed of light in a vacuum. As the wave energy density of the medium increases, a single wave traverses it more slowly; the reduction in speed is proportional to the increase in the wave density, i.e pressure of the medium.

13) From a grand perspective of multiple wave energy density environments in the medium which characterizes the multiple big bang arena environment of my model, the speed of light is variable based on the wave density, i.e. the pressure of the medium through which it passes. That applies to light in its wave state that traverses the wave energy density of space.

14) The pressure of space through which light passes also affects the rate at which particles in that space function since in my model particles of matter are also composed of wave energy traversing the foundational medium; the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components of the standing wave patterns that establish and maintain the presence of matter in the medium. So in my model, though light really does slow down as it traverses higher wave energy density space, the standing waves of the particles of matter slow down correspondingly as the pressure due to the wave energy density of the medium increases. The particles of the measuring devices and everything else, including your body, are composed of matter that is composed of wave energy that is traversing the same density medium that the light we are measuring is traversing. Due to that mutual slowing of wave action relative to the density/pressure of the local medium, our measurements of the speed of light are invariant, through we recognize that the density of the medium affects the speed of light relative to its velocity in a vacuum.

15) All waves traverse the medium at the speed of light, and at the same time the speed of light is variable relative to the wave energy density of the foundational medium. This means that clocks will slow down as they are accelerated, people who are accelerated will age more slowly, gravitational time dilation is measurable, and the speed of light and gravity are dependant on the pressure of the medium through which their waves pass.

OK, you probably find the medium hard to accept, but you might also find it hard to accept the consensus alternative that empty space can be warped by the presence of matter if there is no medium. It is also hard to reconcile the consensus spacetime theory of General Relativity with quantum level mechanics, and so in my model I invoke the perfect fluid that enables action at a distance with a time delay as waves traverse it.

Our Hubble view observes a portion of a our big bang arena which is an expanding high pressure energy environment. Our big bang arena is surrounded by lower energy density and lower pressure medium, and the larger patch of space called an "arena vicinity" includes our big bang arena and the remnants of the parent big bang arenas whose collision spawned our arena. Our arena vicinity as a whole is surrounded by still lower energy density corridors remaining from the remnants of an infinite history of arena action. There are a potentially infinite number of arenas that form and play out in an entropy defeating perpetual process called arena action. The potentially infinite universe is composed of active arenas and arena remnants that, though in a constant state of change, have appeared essentially the same on a grand scale across all time and space, and I therefore invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle in my model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Cosmological_Principle).

Oktober

10-25-12, 01:29 PM

I like to think about ''the waves'' crossing each other. Are the waves ''Straight'' or are the ''Round?'' Probably Round effecting each other?

quantum_wave

10-26-12, 10:41 AM

I like to think about ''the waves'' crossing each other. Are the waves ''Straight'' or are the ''Round?'' Probably Round effecting each other?
Description of waves in my model

The nature of a waves and wave interactions in the foundational medium is not entirely intuitive, and I will describe them from the perspective of my model and point out what is not intuitive, in this post.

We must also acknowledge that I invoke infinities and in a universe that has always existed and complies with the perfect cosmological principle, the medium has never been in a state of wavelessness. I mention that because in my model waves beget waves, but there was no First Wave.

With no First Wave, there is no singular event that I can describe that causes waves. In my model the only cause of a new wave is the collision of existing waves. For example, our big bang was the result of a collision of parent big bang arenas that themselves formed from similar collisions and started expanding through the medium.

I use the arena wave as my first example because it is the highest pressure wave in my model. It trumps any other wave that it encounters. Tiny waves that an expanding arena encounters every instant during its expansion are simply incorporated into it as it traverses the surrounding low pressure medium left behind by the parent arenas.

Specifically, that low pressure surrounding our arena wave is the remnant pressure of the parent arenas and to state it clearly, the new arena is intruding into the pressure zone left behind by the parent arenas. Those parent arenas are significantly expanded and so their pressure is significantly reduced and are much lower than the pressure of our new arena.

Our arena and the remnants of our parent arenas make up what I call the arena vicinity. But to take that concept one generation further, there are the remnants of the grandparent arenas which will have been much more expanded and will represent a much lower pressure surrounding the current arena vicinity. You should be able to envision lower and lower levels of arena pressure as you view larger and large arena vicinities and arena generations until those large vicinities interact.

That vicinity scale view of the pressure of arena waves might include 4 grandparent waves, two parent waves, and our child arena wave; at total of 7 arena waves and maybe 25 different major pressure zones where various stages of overlap of those 7 waves have occurred.

There is a process going on in each of those zones where the pressure is continually declining as the spheres continue to expand, and one can imagine that our expansion into the older zones will accelerate. This acceleration of wave expansion intruding into older lower pressure zones as the pressure of those zone decreases is a corollary to the twelfth characteristic of the medium from my last post:

The corollary would read, 12.1) As the wave energy density of the medium decreases, a single wave traverses it more rapidly (never to exceed the speed of light of course); the increase in the rate of expansion is proportional to the decrease in the pressure into which the wave is intruding.

This concept can help us understand the cause of the observed accelerating rate of separation of the galaxies in our arena.

This arena action wave scenario also applies to the action taking place in the quantum realm where the process is called quantum action. To put it into perspective, a 7 wave, 25 pressure zone patch of space at the arena level may be, say, three trillion light years across for a wild ass guess. In the quantum realm, the same 7 wave patch of space will have many more tiny pressure zones because there are maybe a trillion tiny quantum waves in a single proton, and the distance across that 7 wave patch of space inside a proton may correspond to less than a single Planck length for a wild ass guess.

It is not intuitive that waves are expanding pressure zones. It is not intuitive that there is a process of pressure equalization caused by the nature of the foundational medium to equalize across interacting pressure zones. It is not intuitive that our observable universe is only one big bang arena in a potentially infinite arena landscape. It is not intuitive that the waves at the quantum level are smaller than the Planck length. It is not intuitive that arena expansion will accelerate as they intrude in the ever declining pressure zones of their parent arenas. It is perhaps intuitive that I could be so deluded, lol.

quantum_wave

10-27-12, 07:49 AM

Saturday Morning Thinking

It is interesting for me to observe that when I am thinking about the arena level, everything that applies in terms of arenas also then applies to the quantum scale waves and wave interactions. For example the pressure zones in my last post at the arena level can equate to quantum wave interactions within a particle, i.e. the 7 arenas vs. the 7 quantum waves I used in the last post.

Correspondingly, the aspect of big crunches / big bangs (crunch/bangs) at the arena level equates to the high density wave overlaps I have called high density spots in the past at the quantum level. Both produce a spherical out flowing wave; the new big bang arena from the parent arenas at the arena level, and the new quantum wave that emerges from the high density spots within the particle standing wave pattern.

At the arena level the time from the point of intersection of two parent arenas to the crunch/bang is lengthy and requires the "critical capacity" to be reached, while at the quantum level the overlap seems instantaneous and becomes an expanding quantum wave within one quantum period. That makes the crunch/bang time delay and the quantum period equate to each other, and that leads to another means of comparison of the mechanics between the two levels. Galaxies composed of particles composed of contained standing wave energy accumulating around the center of gravity in the arena overlap space are characteristics of the arena crunch/bang period, and energy density equalization of overlapping quantum waves is the corresponding characteristic of the quantum period.

There seems to be an inverted association between the two scales. All of the particles of the crunch/bang beget arena waves at the arena level, and quantized standing waves beget particles at the quantum level. This is to say that all of the matter in the galaxies, etc. at the arena level that enter the crunch and then emerge from the crunch as dense state wave energy would equate to all of the inflowing wave energy at the quantum level that gets synchronized as standing waves to produce particles at the quantum level, and that is exactly how entropy is defeated in my model. The mutually opposite processes of arena action and quantum action negate particles into wave energy and then rebuild particles out of wave energy.

Now that I have defined wave energy as pressure zones at both levels, arena pressure waves are created by gravity defeating the particle structure, and particles are created by synchronization of pressure waves creating the particle structure.

quantum_wave

10-28-12, 09:56 AM

Description of Particles in my Model

Particles in my model are disturbed patches of the foundational medium composed of wave energy traversing the foundational medium within the particle in the form of expanding pressure waves traveling at a relative velocity determined by the pressure of the medium that occupies the particle space.

That internal velocity is slow relative to the velocity of a wave arriving to a particle as an inflowing wave. The inflowing wave will travel at the velocity permitted by the density/pressure of the medium filling the space between the source of that wave and the particle. Wave energy emerging from the particle as an out flowing wave will also travel at the velocity permitted by the medium surrounding the particle and between adjacent particles and objects.

The difference in velocity of the wave energy inside the particle space and outside the particle space is due to the difference in the density/pressure caused by the wave energy density of the medium inside the particle vs. outside the particle.

The portion of the arriving wave that encounters the particle will pass into the particle and will be time delayed as it passes through, and will then pass out of the particle in all directions later, i.e. directional inflow is slowed down and converted to spherical out flow by the process of quantum action going on within the particle. Said again, the directional energy represented by the portion of the arriving expanding pressure wave is time delayed and redistributed spherically within the particle before it flows out of the particle space equally in all directions.

The medium within a particle in my model is extremely dense with very high wave energy and very high pressure. Waves travel very slowly through a proton for example. When I talk about waves inside a particle I remind you that in my model a proton contains hundreds of billions of quanta, each represented by a tiny pressure wave within the particle space and the pressure of those tiny waves is refreshed billions of times within the particle space before the inflowing energy becomes out flowing energy.

The particle space is not like a whirlpool that forms on the 2D surface of a fluid; it is more like an orchestrated disturbance called a standing wave pattern in a patch of medium that contains wave energy by reducing its velocity as it jitters through the particle space under the control of quantum action which cannot be hurried.

So what is a quantum in my model?

I specify this definition to apply to the formation and maintenance of particles at the quantum level of order in my model. That level of order, and the quantum action that deals with wave energy in quantum increments at that level, is functioning in the foundational medium at a scale far below anything that we can currently observe. It is in the territory of the manifolds and quantum weirdness of multidimensional theories.

However, if the particle hypothesis of my model is to be considered true for sake of discussion, it allows me to state that particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and that the number of quanta can increase as the wave energy density (pressure) of the environment increases (i.e. as particles are accelerated relative to the surrounding medium).

The definition of a quantum specific to the process of quantum action is that a quantum is the fundamental increment of energy within a particle, and the quantum is the smallest amount of wave energy that is meaningful in the exchange of quanta orchestrated by the process of quantum action. It is the smallest meaningful pressure increment and pressure reduction that can measurably (as if it could be measured, lol) affect the mass/energy of a particle. Of course we can't measure the quantum, but it is the premise of my model that there is a real quantum amount of energy associated with a real process of quantum action that establishes, maintains, and moves the presence of particles in the real foundational medium; yikes the height of delusion!

So to state the description of a particle, it is a standing wave pattern that has such high internal pressure that the speed of the quantum waves that enter it and traverse the medium inside is so slow that the out flowing wave energy is extremely tiny relative to the total wave energy of the particle. These particles get established very early in the arena history when the pressure of the dense state wave energy emerging form the crunch bang is phenomenally high and as the pressure of that dense state arena declines to the particle formation threshold where they are easily maintained by the exchange of the trickle of out flowing wave energy that then speeds up and crosses the lower density medium between particles as the particles separate due to arena expansion.

quantum_wave

10-30-12, 05:32 PM

Higgs :shrug:

My model has an explanation for every scientific observation, even if there is no single consensus within the scientific community. Many of those explanations have been addressed in this thread. Now I want to introduce an explanation for something that I haven't really seen addressed outside of my model unless it is somehow comparable to the source of matter searched for by the LHC; I am talking about an arena particle.

To compare and contrast the characteristics between particles that form at the quantum level with the concept of an arena particle let's expand upon the concept that quantum action is reversed by arena action, the two gate keepers that operate at opposite ends of the size scale to defeat entropy. Together they produce useful energy to fuel new arenas and then reclaim and refresh the usefulness of the remaining energy from particles after galaxy filled arenas have formed and played out as parent arena waves converge. The concept is that the quantum particles that everything is composed of within an arena are defeated and negated by the formation of an arena particle, the rarest and most energetic of all particles in the universe.

The quantum particle I refer to is the single high density spot within the standing wave pattern of an established fundamental particle. I have supposed that it might take hundreds of billions of them to establish one proton, and hundreds of millions of them to establish one electron, but in a minimalist view, a single high density spot at the quantum level, the building block of atomic particles, equates to a single big crunch at the arena level.

While a single high density spot is orchestrated by the process of quantum action at the quantum level, a single big crunch is orchestrated by arena action at the arena level. For comparison, within the proton or any particle at the quantum level, high density spots form from the intersection and overlap of quantum waves described in my last post, and at the arena level big crunches form from the intersection and overlap of arena waves.

On that basis a big crunch is an arena particle and only one of them forms for each new arena.

Having introduced the description of the arena particle, the explanation for it and its importance in my model is that it defeats the entropy that is continually increasing within every arena from the moment the wave density and pressure in the new arena allows for the formation of a new set of particles.

Thus the perpetual nature of the arena process fuels the perpetual process of quantum action and vice versa. In the energy-to matter-to energy nature of quantum action, the first "energy" is the quantum wave, the "matter" is the high density spot, and the second "energy" is the quantum wave that emerges from the high density spot. At the arena level, in the matter-to energy-to matter nature of arena action, the first "matter" is the big crunch, the "energy" is the dense state wave energy negated from the matter contributed by the parent arenas to form the crunch/bang, and the second "matter" is the formation of particles in the new big bang arena.

quantum_wave

11-10-12, 01:51 PM

Infinite regress
If you are slightly familiar with my model you know that it deals with the realms that I hypothesize exist above and below our ability to observe; the unobservable far reaches of our big bang arena and beyond, and the infinitesimal inner realm of quantum action. When you examine my discussions of those realms you will notice occasional references to "turtles all the way down" which is the problem of infinite regress on the size scale.

I address infinite regress in my model by hypothesizing natural limits to pressure in the medium, i.e. limits to the wave energy density on the high side and the low side of the size scale. Those particular hypotheses are based on the high and low limits of wave energy that can be brought to bare on a give spatial environment.

At the macro level the limit is called "critical capacity", which is the maximum pressure that can be applied to the particles accumulated in a big crunch before the particles are negated and cease to exist as individual particles. They are said to have given up their individual particle spaces and have collapsed to form a dense state of wave energy that exists at the maximum possible pressure allowed in the medium at the instant of the big bang.

At the micro level the limit is called equalized energy density, i.e. when all of the tiny intersecting and overlapping pressure zones that are expanding into a given infinitesimal patch of medium in space are of equal pressure and so there is no high density spot at the intersection of that convergence. Even though the medium fills that space and has a positive pressure relative to empty space, there is no further equalization occurring at that point in space and time; the micro limit of low energy density has occurred.

Given those natural limits to pressure of the medium, there can be no further "turtles", and my model has a satisfying resolution to the fallacy of infinite regress.

quantum_wave

11-15-12, 08:11 AM

I'm close to finishing out my updates for the year with a few posts remaining to flesh out the concept of equalized energy density that I mentioned in my last post. Avoiding infinite regress has always been problematic on both the time and the size scales. QWC has invoked the eternal sameness of a universe that has always existed, putting an end to temporal regress with a model that exemplifies the Perfect Cosmological Principle, but putting an end to infinite regress on the size scale has been more of a goal than an accomplishment until this year. True, I have always said that there is not enough energy in the universe to support a level of order above the arena level or below the quantum level, i.e. the "turtles problem". At the top end of the size scale I invoke the "critical capacity" of a big crunch which ends the aggregation of particles with the inevitable big bang, but the lower end of the size scale has been open. Now I have put the conviction that there is a limit to the lower end of the size scale into words, drawing on an a modest aptitude for visualized mechanics and on some refitted classical Huygens thinking about the way waves advance through the medium. That will be the topic of these few posts to end out this years improvements to QWC and to conclude this years ISU/QWC/EI model/philosophy update.

To be continued ...

And just as a side note, it is interesting to see that my thread is getting hundreds of views daily lately, and even more interesting that none of those viewing seem to be human members, but instead, web crawlers and registered aliens (if you go by the way their names sound when voiced phonetically, lol). I'm almost sure that the hoard of spammers will be a more memorable phenomenon at SciForums than my 2012 updates, but I don't apologize because when I am advancing my model I feel in tune with the infinite; a living connection to the infinities of space, time and energy. My model is my hobby and my game, and I am in full charge of my view of cosmology and philosophy; it is a big part of my deluded existence. I am even learning how to invoke Eternal Intent, supposedly.

origin

11-15-12, 10:01 AM

but I don't apologize because when I am advancing my model I feel in tune with the infinite; a living connection to the infinities of space, time and energy. My model is my hobby and my game, and I am in full charge of my view of cosmology and philosophy; it is a big part of my deluded existence. I am even learning how to invoke Eternal Intent, supposedly.

I'm glad it makes you happy, really.:)

quantum_wave

11-19-12, 09:51 AM

I slightly rewrote the following paragraphs from a recent post and it serves as the initial point for describing the nature and role of "equalized energy density":
"At the micro level the limit is called "equalized energy density", i.e. when all of the tiny intersecting and overlapping pressure zones that are expanding into a given infinitesimal patch of medium in space are of equal pressure, that patch of medium is equalized. Without a pressure differential there is no high density spot at the point of intersection of those convergences and therefore there is no spherical outflowing wave energy from a high density spot, meaning that the wave front has advanced past that point as it traverses the medium. Even though the medium fills that space and has a positive pressure relative to empty space, there is no further equalization occurring at that point in space and time; equalized energy density has occurred within that patch of medium.

In my model at the macro level, big bangs happen all the time across the arena landscape of the greater universe, while at the micro level, equalized patches of medium occur all the time as a result of the advancing wave front of a pressure wave. Their appearance indicates that equalization of the differential between the advancing wave front and the pressure of the medium it is intruding into has occurred and the pressure behind the advancing wave front is equalized to the net combined pressure of the converging pressure waves. The accumulation of tiny equalized pressure zones merges in behind the advancing front to create the equalized condition between the two waves after they converge. That zone of equalized energy density exists until it is interrupted by converging with another pressure wave."
Of course there is no foundational medium to become equalized in General Relativity Theory, but in GR the approach of heat death is the trend toward the elimination of energy differentials and the related elimination of any ability for life to exist or of any available energy to do work in the universe on a grand scale. You can immediately see the distinction between the GR heat death and the equalization of energy density at the micro limit in my model simply by realizing that I am talking about the infinitesimal end of the size scale, i.e. in the tiniest space, patches of medium at the point by point intersection of intersecting wave fronts. Never have I given any indication that the grand scale heat death is possible in my model, and I will confirm that again, the universe in my model is infinite and filled infinitely with the foundational medium and every tiniest patch of medium is always being intersected by waves of varying pressure from all directions. That is until energy density equalization occurs in the tiniest of all possible patches of space and accumulates behind any given advancing wave front for a short duration.

Given that introductory explanation of equalized energy density, you should be able to relate it to descriptions in my model about the process of energy density equalization. The process is where two expanding pressure differentials intersect and create a high density spot, and where these spots then expand spherically as they equalize with the lower pressure of the adjacent medium. The completion of equalization results in "equalized energy density".

Those equalization related descriptions in my model raise questions about the mechanics of how waves or pressure zones traverse the medium. Just saying that the wave motion is frictionless and the medium is a perfect fluid, or that high pressure intrudes on lower pressure ignores the mechanics taking place along the wave fronts as the high pressure intrudes into the surrounding lower pressure medium. This advance of high pressure waves into surrounding lower pressure zones has been said to function at both the macro and micro levels of my model. I identify it as the cause for expansion of our big bang arena and for the perpetuation of quantum action within a standing wave pattern. In both the macro and micro cases there is a pressure differential that is in the process of equalizing between the two pressure levels. Of course two intersecting and overlapping waves is the simplest example but the concept applies to multiple waves converging at a given point.

Equalization is taking place at all points across the expanding surface of an advancing pressure wave. Intuitively, each point becomes equalized to the net pressure of the two converging pressure zones as the intruding wave advances, and it is the mechanics of that equalization along the pressure front that is being addressed here as the mechanics of wave advance that I call pinhole mechanics.

To be continued:

quantum_wave

11-21-12, 10:22 AM

...

Equalization is taking place at all points across the expanding surface of an advancing pressure wave. Intuitively, each point becomes equalized to the net pressure of the two converging pressure zones as the intruding wave advances, and it is the mechanics of that equalization along the pressure front that is being addressed here as the mechanics of wave advance that I call pinhole mechanics.

To be continued:In the micro and macro realms of my model, it is easy to think of the high density spots representing pin holes where the directional inflowing wave energy creates a pinhole and emerges spherically, disbursing the inflowing wave energy equally in all directions. That is a description that could pertain equally to the quantum action within a particle, and to arena action that includes the arena particle, a big crunch from which emerges the spherical wave energy of the big bang; the spot and the crunch would be the "pinholes". Pinholes, in the context of the micro and macro levels can have vastly different pressures converging on them when they become the point of intersection.

Pinhole Mechanics of Wave Advance

Generalizations:

Every point in the medium is subject to waves passing from all directions at all times and the concept is that there are "pinholes" established at the points of intersection of those waves

Every pinhole that is established at each wave intersection produces a high density spot, a portion of which intrudes into each side of the intersection where the higher density wave intrudes on the lower presser zone

The high density spot produces a spherical out flowing wave proportional to the pressure of the intersecting waves; I call this a wave/spot/wave event

In the time delay during which the w/s/w event takes place, the spherical out flowing wave portion of the event occurs and the intruding wave front advances into the low pressure by an increment equal to the radius of the out flowing pinhole spherical wave

Each incremental advance of the intruding wave front leads to the next pinhole event and the w/s/w process is perpetuated

The time delay of a wave/spot/wave event

The entire event includes the point of intersection (t=0), the subsequent overlap that produces the high density spot (t=0+t1), and the spherical expansion of the pressure in the high density spot (t=0+t1+t2). Because of the time delay, a volume of medium becomes involved in the intersection event immediately following the point/time of the intersection. That delay can be described as the length of time between the point of intersection that forms the high density spot, and the time that the spherical out flowing wave has formed and begins to expand out of the overlap space. The time delay ends when the out flowing wave encounters a difference in pressure to start a new w/s/w event. Thus the time delay segregates each w/s/w event into individual uninterrupted events starting at t=0, wave intersection, and lasting until another intruding wave interrupts and ends the event (t2); the wave front advances in pinhole wave increments.

Time t1 in the above description is a factor of the sponginess of the medium which allows an overlap to occur before a spherical outflowing wave is produced.

All of these w/s/w events can be taking place on a smaller and smaller scale until the limit of pinhole mechanics in the foundational medium is reached. That limit is reached when tiny out flowing and converging waves at the pinhole level have the same pressure. When waves of equal pressure converge, no high density spots are produced, signaling that equalization between two larger converging waves has been achieved in those tiny spaces, pin hole wave by pinhole wave, along the advancing wave front; thus the wave front has advanced past the previous point of intersection. It is the pinhole effect that causes the high pressure wave to advance, one out flowing pinhole sphere at a time, one after another into the lower pressure zone.

Pinhole mechanics establishes the lowest level of action in my model, and quantum action at the particle/gravity level is characterized as a client or customer of pinhole mechanics, just like arena action at the macro level utilizes it on the grand scale. The contrast is that at the lowest pinhole level there are the tiniest of pressure variations present to accomplish their function, while both quantum action and arena action are characterized by significant and meaningful pressure variations on larger scales needed to accomplish their functional mechanics (particles, gravity, and big bangs).

Every wave that traverses the medium uses this natural pinhole level function to propel the wave front forward in tiny spherical outcroppings from the point of intersection between the two more meaningful pressure zones, and if you could get down to the smallest possible playing field of events, it would be a sameness of pinhole mechanics playing out right down at the lowest pressure differential limit allowed by natural law as the limit approaches equalization. Equalization of energy density then occurs during the time delay of the last level of pinhole action, and when it occurs it means the operative pinhole process has moved on from where it has occurred, along with the advancing wave front that has then passed that space; pinhole mechanics has accomplished its task of advancing the wave front.

quantum_wave

12-03-12, 06:58 PM

I have to laugh ...

First, don't think I think 90% of you care ... and maybe only two or three of you who have any interest will read this, so Hi to you few, lol.*

But I am working on the current version of the ISU model, incorporating the 2012 changes and prior changes that have been made since the last revised version back in 2010. So I get a quarter, or maybe a third of the way into it, and as I'm going I'm making notes at the end reminding me of parts that need to be added or expand to move the model in directions I want to go.

Then as I'm reading and writing the current version I come to places where the new material I plan to write will change the material that I have just written. I should learn to try not to think about changes until I get the current update done, I guess, but I already have a few changes that will get me started nicely into next year.

I was telling my wife that my hobby of describing my view of cosmology is like an infinite crossword puzzle, where the form you are filling in is endless and the words and definitions keeping coming, and you work at it methodically trying to expand the filled in blanks without leaving any gaps or unknowns, but no sooner do you feel good, than you come to a new word or definition that relates to words already filled in, and you realize that you might have used the wrong answer earlier.

I asked her if she thought that would be a bad thing, i.e. a project that could not only never be completed, but one where you never know if the answers you have already put into place will fit there for long or will you discover later that you have to erase a lot of words and redo the puzzle through that point. She said she thought it would be hopeless, and I said, to the contrary, it is a project that will keep my interest and keep my mind occupied for as long as I have the wherewithal to keep at it. And as I go I am continually learning "real" physics and cosmology, and interfacing from time to time with people who I like and whose ideas I respect, even if they are different from mine.

Just a note, but when I'm done with the 2012 revision and writeup, I will post a link at the beginning of next years update thread, which I don't recommend you read unless you have no life, or unless you are so interested in aether cosmology and a steady state multiple big bang arena landscape cosmology that complies with and exemplifies the Perfect Cosmological Principle, that you want to talk with someone who thinks about it a lot. (5731)

quantum_wave

12-04-12, 07:51 AM

Trying to keep on track and trying not to start the 2013 rewrite before I get through the 2012 year end updated version, here is the Introduction to the document I am working on:

The Infinite Spongy Universe: Hypothesis of the Foundational Medium

Introduction

When we refer to the raw redshift data, or the consistent ~2.7K temperature of the cosmic microwave background, both are recognized as well understood and quantified electromagnetic phenomena; wave energy traversing the relative vacuum of the open space that separates the stars and galaxies. Whether seen in the redshifted light from stars and galaxies, or the thermalized light whose wavelength has stretched out during thirteen billions years of traversing an ever expanding universe, they represent the continuous arrival of photons that were emitted by the earliest atoms, stars and galaxies in our expanding big bang connected arena of space; our observable universe. Their journeys are characterized as self-propagating electromagnetic wave energy originating from the electrons of atoms and molecules, and their propagation through space is dependent on their individual transverse electric and magnet fields propelling them through space at the invariant speed of light without the need or presence of any medium.

Individual photons can't tell us their wavelength or energy, but their discrete packets of energy are quantized and we are able to determine their wavelengths and frequencies from a beam of starlight because we know their discrete energies are separated by multiples of Planck's constant. Knowing that, light spread physically into a spectrum is understood to reveal the wavelength and frequency of the photons that make it up. Though the light from that distant past seems to be a seamless, continuous flow to us from all directions, it isn't technically seamless, and in fact it is mechanically discrete packets of energy that are mathematically characterized as continuous waves with crests and troughs that correspond to the frequencies and wavelengths that we are able to indirectly observe. I say indirectly because we are not detecting and quantifying individual packets of energy moving through space, even thought that is theoretically what is arriving. A beam of starlight consists of trillions and trillions of photon wave-particles covering a wide range of energies, and given our tools and theories, we can quantify an incoherent light beam in to wavelengths and energies, and can detect both the wave nature and particle nature of light through experiments like the two slits, and the photoelectric effect.

Photon energy, and the associated atomic scale particles occupy the quantum realm of science, quantum mechanics, meaning that all of the energies involved change in discrete amounts, or quanta. However, science also deals with quantum mechanical nature of the atomic and sub-atomic realm in a mathematical context as if light was a continuous wave scoring out a mathematically two dimensional wavy path through space. That mathematical model is based on the wave-particle duality of quantum particles, the uncertainty principle, and the wavefunction which reduces to probabilities the location and momentum of the individual photons and particles. The math deals with complex numbers and linear functions, and that gives rise to the concept of a harmonic oscillation, a resonance so to speak, produced by atoms and molecules.

As a result, the quantum realm is a dynamic and chaotic non-classical realm where the ground state is never at rest in the classical sense of zero kinetic energy and a particle is not something that can be located and followed individually, only in aggregate mass and/or in mathematical theory.

Introducing the Infinite Spongy Universe with that very brief layman view of the quantum mechanical realm is quite appropriate because the ISU model was born out of what used to be referred to only a few years ago as the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Though I view the standard theories today to still be inconsistent and "as yet" incomplete, one would have to view my model as one among a potentially infinite number of possible alternatives to the consensus theories, and on that basis, though it is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, it is not scientific and is not being presented as if it is.

Let's characterize general relativity and big bang cosmology as being the history and the future of the macro realm, which in its full glory today represents the other end of the scale from the quantum realm. The macro realm is where aggregations of quantum particles into objects moving through space obey spacetime mathematics instead of quantum mathematics. Never-the-less the lines separating the two are narrowing to what I referred to as the "as yet" unreconciled inconsistencies between them. That reflects progress toward the unification of the standard consensus theories into a unified model which is the quintessential goal of cosmologists.

The ISU takes it from there by departing from the realms of science altogether and audaciously invoking a foundational medium at the bottom and working up the size scale to a big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. The wave bearing medium is the starting point, and the step by step hypotheses about physics and cosmology are the building blocks that all work together in an internally consistent model. I think of the ISU as the "as yet" unknown invariant natural laws that govern the universe.

There is an apparent contradiction between the mechanically produced and self-propagated quanta of the photon whose particle packets seem to be real and discrete products of the oscillating model of the atom and molecules, and the mathematical rendition of the two dimensional wavy line path which seems to be continuous and whose peaks and troughs neatly correspond to the energy and wavelength/frequency of light. Perhaps you don't see that contradiction, but it is inherent in the inconsistencies between the consensus theories, and it is the apparent contradictions between those two theories that continues to motivate me to advance the ISU model. It is the ISU message of internal consistency and compatibility that becomes apparent when you become familiar with documentation of the hypothetical foundation medium model. (5774)

quantum_wave

12-07-12, 04:39 PM

Continued from above ...

No Room for SR or GR

In the Hypothesis of the Foundational Medium, there is no room for Special Relativity or General Relativity. Their math may be perfect, so its not that, but if there is an aether like the foundational medium of my hypothesis, then ...

1) The pressure of the medium determines the velocity of waves traversing it,

2) Matter, light, and gravity are all effects of waves traversing the medium, and so all are affected by the pressure of the medium,

3) As the pressure increases, light slows down relative to the medium, particles function slower, and the attraction of gravity increases as objects approach mass,

4) The measurement of time with clocks of any kind composed of matter have the same variability as light given the same wave pressure environment.

5) The acceleration of objects due to gravity is due to the increase in the pressure of gravity waves as objects approach mass. Objects move in the direction of the net highest wave energy density (pressure in the medium).

Pressure is the effect of waves traversing the medium, i.e. waves compress the medium. More substantial objects contain more substantial wave energy and exert more pressure. Particles have very high pressure standing wave patterns relative to their surrounding medium, and as the pressure of the surrounding medium changes, the pressure of the standing wave patterns change correspondingly.

Though in my hypothesis of the Foundational Medium no perfect vacuum exists, my theory says that a perfect vacuum would be the absence of the medium. So using the special definition of a perfect vacuum invoked by this hypothesis, the correct statement would be that light will not traverse a perfect vacuum; nor would gravity.

Newton's water filled bucket spinning in deep space which was intended to spin in the practical absence any gravitational effect, if also it were to be out there in the absence of the medium itself, would disappear into space. There would be no medium to carry the waves that establish the presence of the particles that make up the bucket or the water.

The fundamental particles of the Standard Particle Model, which are "fundamental" because they are defined to have no internal composition, do have internal composition in my model. The foundational medium and wave energy traversing it exists at a level of order below the "fundamental" level of the Standard Particle Model. Those particles are replaced by the Standing Wave Particle Hypothesis, where the "fundamental" particles of the standard model have an internal standing wave composition governed by quantum action that operates in the realm of the tiny, i.e. in that tiny realm between the fundamental level of the quantum physics model and the "foundational" level in my model.

Standing wave patterns have inflowing and out flowing wave energy components. The inflowing component is from across a distance and is directional from some source of out flowing wave energy, like other particles or objects separated by the medium in the space between them.

Particles composed of standing wave patterns in this model are continually refreshed by inflowing wave energy, and the process of quantum action that establishes and maintains the patterns also produces a spherical out flowing wave component.

Gravity is the directional imbalance between the directionally inflowing wave energy component of standing waves and the spherically out flowing component of quantum action.

There are natural limits that governs the amount of wave pressure that can be brought to bear on any point in the medium, and those limits establish the range within which particles form, function properly, and/or are negated and cease to function as individual particles.

To be continued ...
(6303)