Interesting idea tying Gravity and Dark Matter together

[goose]

FIRST... LET ME SAY... this "idea" is nothing more than an interesting idea that i came up with, (probably has been thought of before, but i havent found a place where it has been recorded). I am not saying that this is backed by anyone but myself, and since i am only in my second year in college studying astrophysics, i am probably way outside the rules of some law somewhere...

with that said, let me begin

In my idea/theory, i want to begin by saying that i believe gravity to be a little part of every partical, (all matter, anti-matter, anything with a value of anything). Lets say this gravity section basically has a negative mass (not exactly negative, but it takes away some of the mass of the particle), which makes the particle seem to have less mass than it actually does. This could account for some (not all) of the "missing mass" in space, known as dark matter.

Again, this is just a fun idea, an idea i made up one night when i was trying to go to sleep :)
And i need feedback on why this is impossible

[Steve100]

The only reason we come up with the idea of dark matter is that there is too much gravity for the amount of mass we can see.

This isn't going to help solve that problem.

[goose]

but because of that gravity, what im suggesting is that it actually takes away from the mass that we can see... so if you take away gravity there would actually be more mass

does that make sense?
I think i may have phrased it wrong in what i first put
i mean to say that the gravity takes away from the visible mass, and mass as we can measure it (makes it seem like there is alot less mass than there should be)

hope that makes more sense

[Steve100]

If you take away the gravity in your idea, yes you do get more mass. But then you also have no gravity, so there is no need for the extra mass anyhow.

[goose]

i meant to say if you take away the part of the gravity that takes away from the mass, (still having the particles attracted to each other with gravity), then you would in fact have more mass... but thats irrelavent, that was just an example to show that the gravity is taking away from the mass that we can see/weigh.
see what i mean?
im horrible at explaining what im thinking hahaha

[Steve100]

Why don't you draw a diagram?

[goose]

thats a good idea... ill draw it tomorrow the best i can and post it, i need to go to sleep now though

[OilIsMastery]

The only reason we come up with the idea of dark matter is that there is too much gravity for the amount of mass we can see.
Antimatter was discovered by Carl David Anderson in 1928 when he photographed positively charged electrons in a Wilson Cloud Chamber.

[Steve100]

Antimatter was discovered by Carl David Anderson in 1928 when he detected positively charged electrons in a Wilson Cloud Chamber.

Thanks for telling me that.

Shame we're talking about dark matter isn't it.

[goose]

well, i tried making a picture for what im trying to express... but its making it just more confusing
... does anyone see what im trying to say?

[Steve100]

I'm pretty sure I understand.

I have no faith in it at all, but if you can explain better I'll try and explain why.

[EndLightEnd]

with that said, let me begin

In my idea/theory, i want to begin by saying that i believe gravity to be a little part of every partical, (all matter, anti-matter, anything with a value of anything). Lets say this gravity section basically has a negative mass (not exactly negative, but it takes away some of the mass of the particle),

What are you trying to say here, that it "hides" the mass so we detect less than is actually there?

This would be a completely new mechanism in science, and its not really testable. Even if you managed to write up equations it would still be speculation.

If you want some alternate ideas on Gravity check out this book,
http://www.amazon.com/Gravitational-Force-Sun-Pari-Spolter/dp/0963810758/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223996762&sr=8-1

Summary:The book presents new concepts in the study of gravitation. A new equation for the gravitational force is introduced, which is the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law and which has been verified experimentally to very high precision. The equation is F = a.A, or force = acceleration Area. The book also presents equations for the sequential distances of the planets from the sun and of satellites from the centers of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, with correlation coefficients upwards of 0.99, concluding that gravitation is quantized. A simple and useful equation for eccentricity is presented as the ratio of the sum of perturbations to the gravitational force of the sun. It is shown that Kepler's second law is not a general law; i.e., equal areas are swept in approximately equal intervals of time only near aphelion and perihelion. There is now confusion between the concepts of "force" and "energy." In the last chapter of the book, new units are introduced to clarify the two concepts. Any equation containing "mass" relates to the concept of "energy". Force is independent of mass.

[D H]

If you want some alternate ideas on Gravity check out this book, "Gravitational Force of the Sun" by Pari Spolter
Or don't.

Note: I replaced the link in the quoted text because I will not deign to advertise a link to complete crackpottery. See EndLightEnd's post for the link.

Summary:The book presents new concepts in the study of gravitation.
No, it does not.
A new equation for the gravitational force is introduced, which is the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law and which has been verified experimentally to very high precision.
No, it has not. Kepler's third law represents the starting point of modern astronomy. Believe it or not, humanity has progressed just a tad the 400 years that have passed since Kepler published his laws. Kepler's Laws yield an estimate of the orbital period that is accurate to about three or so decimal places. We do many orders of accuracy better than that now. Kepler's Laws, and Spolter's crackpottery, only explain the orbits of the planets about the Sun. Neither explains the orbit of the Moon about the Earth, or an apple falling to Earth. Newton's law of gravitation, in comparison, is universal. We of course now have an even better of gravitation than did Newton in general relativity. Why take two huge steps backwards to Kepler's laws?

The equation is F = a.A, or force = acceleration * Area.
That is laughable. Force has units of mass*length/time2, end of story. She isn't even a good crackpot; if she was, she would have named this thing with units of length3/time2 a spolter.

This woman has nothing to offer to the body of astronomy or physics. The very existence of Pari Spolter debunks my own crackpot theory, which is that all crackpots are male.

[quantum_wave]

well, i tried making a picture for what im trying to express... but its making it just more confusing
... does anyone see what im trying to say?First you have to know what causes mass. Without speculating, no one has the answer.

Pause ... someone will challenge that statement ...?

OK, let's say mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. What is a quantum of energy? A quantum is the tiniest natural increment of energy that can have a meaningful impact, i.e. a quantum of energy is necessary to affect mass.

The mass of a particle is maintained by a force. That force corresponds with the quantum of energy. The force would be quantum action, i.e. the process of establishing the presence of a quantum of energy in mass. In order for mass to continue to exist, quantum action must be continuous within mass.

So your idea of gravity being a little part of mass is right on target.

Gravity is emitted by mass as a bi-product of quantum action that maintains mass. Quantum action in mass produces quantum waves that have a trough and a peak. The trough is negative energy and the peak is positive energy. As those waves pass through mass, some of the positive energy of the wave is used to maintain the mass, while all of the negative energy passes out of mass as gravity. The greater the mass of the object, the more of the positive energy is contained to maintain mass and the greater the differential between the emitted negative energy and the emitted positive energy of the quantum waves.

The differential between the trough energy and the peak energy emitted from mass changes as the mass increases. Therefore the greater the mass, the greater the differential between the emanated trough and the emanated peak of the quantum waves. The greater the differential, the greater the gravitation force emitted.

[goose]

First you have to know what causes mass. Without speculating, no one has the answer.

Pause ... someone will challenge that statement ...?

OK, let's say mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. What is a quantum of energy? A quantum is the tiniest natural increment of energy that can have a meaningful impact, i.e. a quantum of energy is necessary to affect mass.

The mass of a particle is maintained by a force. That force corresponds with the quantum of energy. The force would be quantum action, i.e. the process of establishing the presence of a quantum of energy in mass. In order for mass to continue to exist, quantum action must be continuous within mass.

Gravity is emitted by mass as a bi-product of quantum action that maintains mass. Quantum action in mass produces quantum waves that have a trough and a peak. The trough is negative energy and the peak is positive energy. As those waves pass through mass, some of the positive energy of the wave is used to maintain the mass, while all of the negative energy passes out of mass as gravity. The greater the mass of the object, the more of the positive energy is contained to maintain mass and the greater the differential between the emitted negative energy and the emitted positive energy of the quantum waves.

The differential between the trough energy and the peak energy emitted from mass changes as the mass increases. Therefore the greater the mass, the greater the differential between the emanated trough and the emanated peak of the quantum waves. The greater the differential, the greater the gravitation force emitted.

Beautifully said... and with my idea, i just take it a step further than that. Basically im saying that the through energy takes away from the mass that is being maintained by the peak energy... This would still make the wave equal on both sides, (Peak and Through would still be the same size), its just that the through energy "absorbs", (absorbs is a horrible word here, but oh well), some of the mass making it impossible to find and/or measure with the instruments that we have today.
I have no clue what kind of instruments or experiments that could be done to attempt to prove or disprove my theory... besides, this is just for fun thinking :xctd:


So your idea of gravity being a little part of mass is right on target.

Thanks, at least i know im on the right track somewhere, even if everyhting else it wrong :)

[quantum_wave]

Beautifully said... and with my idea, i just take it a step further than that. Basically im saying that the through energy takes away from the mass that is being maintained by the peak energy... This would still make the wave equal on both sides, (Peak and Through would still be the same size), its just that the through energy "absorbs", (absorbs is a horrible word here, but oh well), some of the mass making it impossible to find and/or measure with the instruments that we have today.
I have no clue what kind of instruments or experiments that could be done to attempt to prove or disprove my theory... besides, this is just for fun thinking :xctd:




Thanks, at least i know im on the right track somewhere, even if everyhting else it wrong ...Remember that we are speculating and that if you are a student you would be expected to know current theory. My views are not current theory :). I am way ahead :D.

But if you are thinking about this you are ahead too.

How can the trough of a quantum wave cause gravity? The answer is in the mechanics of quantum action.

The premise is that quantum waves are pervasive in space, all space including space occupied by mass and space between mass. Quantum waves are spherically expanding energy waves. They emanate from a high density spot that forms at the convergence of intersecting quantum waves. The energy contained in the convergence increases as the intersection of quantum waves proceeds as they expand spherically.

As soon as there is a quantum of energy in the convergence we have a "high density spot" formed at that instant in the space where the convergence exists.

At that very instant, the energy density of the spot is much higher than the energy density surrounding the spot. This low energy density is the reason that the quantum wave emanated by quantum action is negative energy. Here is how. The wave begins with the rush of energy surrounding the spot. The energy surrounding the spot rushes into the low energy density surrounding the spot creating a pull of the surrounding universe toward the spot. This pull is the trough of the quantum wave generated by the formation of the high density spot within mass.

The high density spot cannot exist for more than that instant because the quantum waves that intersected (overlapped) to force the convergence continue to expand and the spot of high energy density disburses itself in the form of positive energy which forms the peak of the quantum wave.

Within mass there is continual quantum action and high density spots are forming and bursting at all times within mass. Though the trough of the waves passes out of mass as the entire universe shifts toward the high density spot, the push of the peak of the quantum wave doesn't immediately follow the pull trough. Only the uncontained portion of the peak of the wave follows the trough. As the peak passes through the mass some of its energy is contained in subsequent high density spots and is therefore delayed relative to the trough.

The net energy of a quantum wave emanating from mass is the trough energy minus the peak energy.

If there was no containment of the positive energy, the net energy of the wave would be zero since the trough and the peak both are associated with the same quantum of energy. But since some the peak of the wave is delayed, the net energy emanating from mass becomes negative. Remember that the negative trough pulls the entire universe toward the mass.

The percentage of the peak energy of the quantum wave that is contained is directly related to the gravitation force emanating from the mass. The higher the mass, the higher the containment and the greater the delay of the push portion of the wave. The higher the containment, the greater the net pull force of the wave emanation. The greater the net pull force, the greater gravitational impact of the shift of the universe toward the mass.

[Billy T]

but because of that gravity, what im suggesting is that it actually takes away from the mass that we can see... so if you take away gravity there would actually be more mass

does that make sense? ...No.

I think you basic problem is reflected (unintentionally) in "the mass that we can see"

We "see" gravity ONLY via the accelerations it can produce. Lets assume only two large (moon size at least) spherical non-spining objects, A & B, center to center separated by L and mutually orbiting their common mass center with known observes masses ma and mb (which, for example were measured by a known test mass hung on calibrated spring on their surfaces).

Now the force producing their orbital acclearations is F = (mb)G(ma)/ L^2.

What you suggest, I am almost sure is that their real mass if it were not for gravity reducing their appearant masses are actually Ma & Mb (bigger)

We observer the orbits and still have F = (Mb)g(Ma)/ L^2 where G > g.

Still same formula, same force, only if we make Masses bigger by factor of k then the gravitational constant is smaller by factor of k^2 but none of this is real or observable. You could achieve the same thing if every one agreed that we were going to replace the old Kilogram standard (which once was a physical alloy of gold and ? kept in Paris) with a new one only 1/2 as massive. I.e. redefine the kilogram so the mass of Earth in "new kilograms" (and of Ma, ma, Mb & mb) is twice as many new kilograms. Then of course both G & g are changed to be only 1/4 as large.

My point is that imagining something increase or reduces the "real mass" is no different than changing the definition of the kilogram mass. What you are suggesting can not make any observable difference. A & B will orbit the same way, the force F will be the same, that quadratic changes in the gravitational constant by factor f^2 will compensate for the mass changes. You can make Newton's apple be 100Kg if you like, by changing the definiton of a Kg, but it will still fall to the ground exactly the same. You can say that the real mass is 9 or 900 times larger but you can not "see" it as you never see gravity.

I am sorry, but there is nothing in your idea, but speculation about things that in principle can not be observed or "seen".


BTW: Gravity and dark matter are already "tied together." The existance of dark matter is due to this tie - the mass of visible matter is not the only source of gravity. I did have an interesting (but wild idea, until someone put the numbers to it) new idea as to what dark matter might be. Name E/C^2 where is E the is the energy of all the photons "trapped in the box" we call the universe.

See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2035596&postcount=26
For wild idea on what dark mater may be - Idea probably will not survie numerical evaluation but at least that is possible and told how in the above link.

[goose]

My point is that imagining something increase or reduces the "real mass" is no different than changing the definition of the kilogram mass. What you are suggesting can not make any observable difference. A & B will orbit the same way, the force F will be the same, that quadratic changes in the gravitational constant by factor f^2 will compensate for the mass changes. You can make Newton's apple be 100Kg if you like, by changing the definiton of a Kg, but it will still fall to the ground exactly the same. You can say that the real mass is 9 or 900 times larger but you can not "see" it as you never see gravity.

I am sorry, but there is nothing in your idea, but speculation about things that in principle can not be observed or "seen".

If you read what i was saying from the beginning, you would realise that what you said is exactly what i said... i said it cant be observed or measure with any instruments that we have now, and i said its nothing more than a thought i had when i was falling asleep one night, which is nothing more than a speculation
So thanks for repeating what ive already said.



And Quantum Wave... ill get back to you in a bit, i got to go and dont have time for a good response yet :)

[Billy T]

If you read what i was saying from the beginning, you would realise that what you said is exactly what i said...I must have missed where you said you were talking about something that is in principle unobservable - of no consequence - only nonsense.

[quantum_wave]

I must have missed where you said you were talking about something that is in principle unobservable - of no consequence - only nonsense.Please post how gravity works so we can be sure the idea is nonsense.

[goose]

I must have missed where you said you were talking about something that is in principle unobservable - of no consequence - only nonsense.

post #1
post #15

Its implied that what im saying has no background value, and is probably worthless... its just a fun idea, nothing more

[goose]

How can the trough of a quantum wave cause gravity? The answer is in the mechanics of quantum action.

The premise is that quantum waves are pervasive in space, all space including space occupied by mass and space between mass. Quantum waves are spherically expanding energy waves. They emanate from a high density spot that forms at the convergence of intersecting quantum waves. The energy contained in the convergence increases as the intersection of quantum waves proceeds as they expand spherically.

So, your basically saying here that as the "bubbles" converge, or overlap, more and more, the energy increases right?

As soon as there is a quantum of energy in the convergence we have a "high density spot" formed at that instant in the space where the convergence exists.

Is this spot where they overlap, and only where they overlap... or can the high-density spots appear somewhere else??

At that very instant, the energy density of the spot is much higher than the energy density surrounding the spot. This low energy density is the reason that the quantum wave emanated by quantum action is negative energy. Here is how. The wave begins with the rush of energy surrounding the spot. The energy surrounding the spot rushes into the low energy density surrounding the spot creating a pull of the surrounding universe toward the spot. This pull is the trough of the quantum wave generated by the formation of the high density spot within mass.

I have never thought of gravity like this, but this makes perfect sense... the greater the mass, the greater the high density spot, the greater the pull, the greater the gravity :D

The high density spot cannot exist for more than that instant because the quantum waves that intersected (overlapped) to force the convergence continue to expand and the spot of high energy density disburses itself in the form of positive energy which forms the peak of the quantum wave.

Within mass there is continual quantum action and high density spots are forming and bursting at all times within mass. Though the trough of the waves passes out of mass as the entire universe shifts toward the high density spot, the push of the peak of the quantum wave doesn't immediately follow the pull trough. Only the uncontained portion of the peak of the wave follows the trough. As the peak passes through the mass some of its energy is contained in subsequent high density spots and is therefore delayed relative to the trough.

So if there was a way to stop the quantum action... then you would basically have mass that didnt have gravity, but there would also be nothing to hold that mass together right??

The net energy of a quantum wave emanating from mass is the trough energy minus the peak energy.

If there was no containment of the positive energy, the net energy of the wave would be zero since the trough and the peak both are associated with the same quantum of energy. But since some the peak of the wave is delayed, the net energy emanating from mass becomes negative. Remember that the negative trough pulls the entire universe toward the mass.

And the negative is why it pulls other mass objects together, instead of repelling it right??

so many questions i have, but it will help if i perefctly understand it so i can adjust my theory to fit everything :)... or realise that my theory in no way could work what-so-ever, which is probably the case :p

[quantum_wave]

So, your basically saying here that as the "bubbles" converge, or overlap, more and more, the energy increases right?
Is this spot where they overlap, and only where they overlap... or can the high-density spots appear somewhere else??
I have never thought of gravity like this, but this makes perfect sense... the greater the mass, the greater the high density spot, the greater the pull, the greater the gravity ...I can see you are beginning to get it. Let me correct you a little on the above:
The “bubbles” are not called bubbles. They are spherically expanding quantum waves, quantum waves for short and each expanding quantum wave contains a quantum of energy. As they expand spherically they intersect and each intersection is an overlap of spherically expanding quantum waves. Each spherically expanding wave still contains the original quantum of energy as the intersection begins.

They are not bubbles because that implies that as the waves expand spherically, there is an empty interior surrounded by an expanding balloon like surface and that implies that the surface is where the energy is. This is not correct. They expand as moving coordinate systems and the energy density remains distributed equally through the expanding sphere as the radius increases. Therefore as the expansion progresses the energy density of the spherical wave declines, but it declines in an equalized fashion throughout the sphere and is still equal to a quantum of energy. Each point within the sphere always has the same energy density as every other point and the density changes at the same rate throughout the entire expanding sphere.

Now for a discussion of the overlap. Where the quantum waves intersect the overlapping space is the convergence space. Let’s think about what the energy density is in the overlap space and how much of a whole quantum of energy occupies that convergence space. The simplest convergence is two overlapping spheres though in nature each convergence space involves many overlapping spheres. In the simple example the overlap of two intersecting spheres forms a 3-D lens shape. Study these links for some the math of convergences and of Wolfram's intersecting spheres. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1968701&postcount=6
And this link http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere-SphereIntersection.html for how I developed the math.

Do you see that the convergence will contain a percentage of each overlapping sphere and that the energy density in the convergence space will be twice the average energy density of the two contributing spheres? This might take some time; ask questions if you don’t see it.

When the energy content of the overlap equals a quantum of energy, then the convergence becomes a high density spot. As soon as the high density spot forms it begins its own expansion into the lower energy density space that previously was occupied by the intersecting quantum waves from which the convergence formed.

There is one high density spot for each quantum action going on within mass and each quantum action represents one quantum energy increment of that mass. In any respectable mass there will be billions of quanta. The quantum action and quantum waves continually reform new high density spots that burst into new quantum waves. The mass is maintained by the repetitive quantum action within it.
So if there was a way to stop the quantum action... then you would basically have mass that didnt have gravity, but there would also be nothing to hold that mass together right??
And the negative is why it pulls other mass objects together, instead of repelling it right?? Yes, that is right and it shows that you are getting a grasp of how mass exists and causes gravity. You are one of a few in the world that has that same understanding of my speculations. I assure you that the knowledge that you will gain from this will stay with you for your entire life. Don’t let this knowledge make you boastful or arrogant because science will not catch up for a long time and you will not be able to do much to bring about the change so do it patiently.
so many questions i have, but it will help if i perefctly understand it so i can adjust my theory to fit everything :)... or realise that my theory in no way could work what-so-ever, which is probably the case :pYou are learning Quantum Wave Cosmology. Mass has gravity from the instant that mass forms, even if that mass is just a few coordinted quanta. Before you get excited remember that particles with mass also have other characteristics, electrical charges, and electrical and magnetic fields among many other characteristics. Quantum Wave Cosmology is consistent with all of the fundamental particles of the Standard Particle Model but you are far from understanding the knowledge void between QWC and particle physics. Learn what you can about QWC and if you can improve on it just keep me in the loop :).

[goose]

I can see you are beginning to get it. Let me correct you a little on the above:
The “bubbles” are not called bubbles. They are spherically expanding quantum waves, quantum waves for short and each expanding quantum wave contains a quantum of energy. As they expand spherically they intersect and each intersection is an overlap of spherically expanding quantum waves. Each spherically expanding wave still contains the original quantum of energy as the intersection begins.

One question here... Can the quantum waves start off with different energies??... that is to say, can one start off with twice as much quantum energy as another??, or are they all equally starting out the same? or does it depend on the mass?? (so far, my thought is that they are the same, but i want to make sure, and the reason more massive objects are in fact more massive is because there is alot of quantum waves)

They are not bubbles because that implies that as the waves expand spherically, there is an empty interior surrounded by an expanding balloon like surface and that implies that the surface is where the energy is. This is not correct. They expand as moving coordinate systems and the energy density remains distributed equally through the expanding sphere as the radius increases. Therefore as the expansion progresses the energy density of the spherical wave declines, but it declines in an equalized fashion throughout the sphere and is still equal to a quantum of energy. Each point within the sphere always has the same energy density as every other point and the density changes at the same rate throughout the entire expanding sphere.

Ok, like a solid shere, where the inside has the same density and the surface... and as it expands, it would have the same effect as going further away from the sun... if you start at point "A", and you go twice as far from the sun, point "B", you have to square the area in order to get the same amount of energy as from distance "A", right? maybe not exactly square, and this is area and i know were talking about volume... but same basic idea

Now for a discussion of the overlap. Where the quantum waves intersect the overlapping space is the convergence space. Let’s think about what the energy density is in the overlap space and how much of a whole quantum of energy occupies that convergence space. The simplest convergence is two overlapping spheres though in nature each convergence space involves many overlapping spheres. In the simple example the overlap of two intersecting spheres forms a 3-D lens shape. Study these links for some the math of convergences and of Wolfram's intersecting spheres. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1968701&postcount=6
And this link http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere-SphereIntersection.html for how I developed the math.

Do you see that the convergence will contain a percentage of each overlapping sphere and that the energy density in the convergence space will be twice the average energy density of the two contributing spheres? This might take some time; ask questions if you don’t see it.

Of course, the average of two spheres density is them added and devided by 2... and if you put them together in the same spot, you have to do the exact same thing to get the density inside the convergence space... i get that part :)

When the energy content of the overlap equals a quantum of energy, then the convergence becomes a high density spot. As soon as the high density spot forms it begins its own expansion into the lower energy density space that previously was occupied by the intersecting quantum waves from which the convergence formed.

This parts a little confusing... are you saying that when the energy inside the convergence space equals a certain amount of energy, called the quantum of energy, then it will begin its own expansion? Like the quantum of energy is a set value?
And once it begins its own expansion, it acts just like any other normal quantum wave, just with a much higher density, right?

Before you get excited remember that particles with mass also have other characteristics, electrical charges, and electrical and magnetic fields among many other characteristics. Quantum Wave Cosmology is consistent with all of the fundamental particles of the Standard Particle Model but you are far from understanding the knowledge void between QWC and particle physics. Learn what you can about QWC and if you can improve on it just keep me in the loop :).

Of course, as i said earlier, im only a sophmore in college... i got a long way to go :)... and i will keep you updated if i learn anything, or have my own thoughts, questions, or anything else to do with Quantum Wave Cosmology

[quantum_wave]

One question here... Can the quantum waves start off with different energies??... that is to say, can one start off with twice as much quantum energy as another??, or are they all equally starting out the same? or does it depend on the mass?? (so far, my thought is that they are the same, but i want to make sure, and the reason more massive objects are in fact more massive is because there is alot of quantum waves)Your question encompasses the essence of the quantum structure of mass and gravity. I’m not a philosopher but this paragraph will run the risk of being called philosophical. It is self evident that mass exists. If mass and energy are equivalent then nature has a way of accounting for the energy content within mass. And the conservation of energy requires accounting for that exact precise amount of energy with zero tolerance for error. Further, the gravitational force associated with a given object is always directly related to that mass, no margin for error, every object of equal mass will have the same gravitational effect. In QWC that natural accounting for energy in mass, gravity associated with mass, and the equivalence between the mass and energy is accomplished via the energy quantum. Philosophically there is comforting feeling in QWC that there are no fundamental particles, only energy and force. From the QWC perspective the fundamental particles of the standard particle model are predicted to be composed of energy and force and yet in particle physics various fundamental particles and various forces are observed and/or predicted to exist with no explanation of how there can be no internal structure to a fundamental particle, i.e. fundamental particles in particle physics are not composed of energy but there is a force carrier for each particle that manages how particles combine and manage to work within mass. Equivalence gets very complicated in particle physics compared to QWC.

So the simple answer is that a quantum is always the same amount of energy and that amount of energy is determined by nature. It follows that the force associated with that exact amount of energy will always be the same, i.e. the force of quantum action that works with mass and gravity always produces a quantum wave with precisely a quantum of energy in the wave it produces. A lesser amount of energy would not produce quantum action but would just form and fade within the energy background. Remember that in QWC all space contains energy in the form of energy density and the background is always being “jostled” by the quantum waves that traverse it. Once a quantum wave is produced, it expands spherically forever, and as it expands its energy density decreases as its volume increases. This means that the energy background consists of innumerable quantum wave intersections and if you think about it, any given volume of space will contain portions of many different quantum waves in various stages of expansion. This condition is referred to as space being composed of tiny energy density fluctuations.

When the energy density in a given space is high enough, as in and around mass, then the size of the fluctuations can contain a quantum of energy but no more. They can’t contain more than a quantum because nature has determined that once a quantum of energy exists in a given fluctuation, that fluctuation bursts into expansion of its own. That means that a high density spot has formed and the energy in the spot equals a quantum. If the energy density of the environment is not high enough to produce fluctuations that contain a quantum of energy then no high density spots will form and mass will not be able to maintain itself or its precise gravity.

From that statement it follows that the energy density of the background might always be the same across great expanses of space so that when matter moves from one location to another location, the background energy will be able to accommodate it :) with the proper energy density to allow the mass to be maintained. The topic of the energy density of the background in an expanding universe is very interesting but not exactly on topic.
Ok, like a solid shere, where the inside has the same density and the surface... and as it expands, it would have the same effect as going further away from the sun... if you start at point "A", and you go twice as far from the sun, point "B", you have to square the area in order to get the same amount of energy as from distance "A", right? maybe not exactly square, and this is area and i know were talking about volume... but same basic ideaYes. Here is a good link. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html and http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/isq.html






Of course, the average of two spheres density is them added and devided by 2... and if you put them together in the same spot, you have to do the exact same thing to get the density inside the convergence space... i get that part :)



This parts a little confusing... are you saying that when the energy inside the convergence space equals a certain amount of energy, called the quantum of energy, then it will begin its own expansion? Like the quantum of energy is a set value?
And once it begins its own expansion, it acts just like any other normal quantum wave, just with a much higher density, right?Yes, each spherical quantum wave starts out at the average energy density of the waves that produce it times the number of waves that produce it. The more waves involved in the convergence, the higher the energy density of the high density spot relative to the energy density surrounding the spot if you follow that logic. A high density spot always contains a quantum of energy and any convergence that does not have a full quantum has not yet formed a high density spot and will not produce a quantum wave until it does. Once the convergence has a quantum of energy the spot will "burst" into spherical expansion and the radius will increase at the speed of light.



Of course, as i said earlier, im only a sophmore in college... i got a long way to go :)... and i will keep you updated if i learn anything, or have my own thoughts, questions, or anything else to do with Quantum Wave CosmologyAnd I will continue to answer your questions so if you have any about this post send them back.

[Saxion]

One question here... Can the quantum waves start off with different energies??... that is to say, can one start off with twice as much quantum energy as another??, or are they all equally starting out the same? or does it depend on the mass?? (so far, my thought is that they are the same, but i want to make sure, and the reason more massive objects are in fact more massive is because there is alot of quantum waves)



Ok, like a solid shere, where the inside has the same density and the surface... and as it expands, it would have the same effect as going further away from the sun... if you start at point "A", and you go twice as far from the sun, point "B", you have to square the area in order to get the same amount of energy as from distance "A", right? maybe not exactly square, and this is area and i know were talking about volume... but same basic idea



Of course, the average of two spheres density is them added and devided by 2... and if you put them together in the same spot, you have to do the exact same thing to get the density inside the convergence space... i get that part :)



This parts a little confusing... are you saying that when the energy inside the convergence space equals a certain amount of energy, called the quantum of energy, then it will begin its own expansion? Like the quantum of energy is a set value?
And once it begins its own expansion, it acts just like any other normal quantum wave, just with a much higher density, right?



Of course, as i said earlier, im only a sophmore in college... i got a long way to go :)... and i will keep you updated if i learn anything, or have my own thoughts, questions, or anything else to do with Quantum Wave Cosmology


Certain waves have differential energies. This is how waves operate, because if they all had the same energies, all the waves in the universe would merge to form only one element. We call these periods the phases of waves, and they converge together to form decoherent states.

[quantum_wave]

Certain waves have differential energies. This is how waves operate, because if they all had the same energies, all the waves in the universe would merge to form only one element. We call these periods the phases of waves, and they converge together to form decoherent states.It is appropriate that you point out particle theory and QWC is consistent. There are various energy levels in photons with electric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field) and magnetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#Electric_and_magnetic_fields_differ ent_aspects_of_the_same_phenomenon) components, transverse waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave). There is a wave structure to the fundamental particles of the standard particle model. There are waves where frequency determines their energy. They are like you describe. But they are not quantum waves in the context of the protoscience of Quantum Wave Cosmology that Goose and I have been talking.

Quantum waves responsible for mass and gravity are as I have described them, i.e. ideas about the cause of mass and gravity and the composition of all mass. In QWC, charged particles evolve out of proto-particles when they develop positive and negative charges. They are still mass composed of energy in quantum increments but they acquire stability, charge, spin, etc. in addition to the simple energy quanta that represent the presence of energy in mass and that emanate from mass as gravity waves in QWC.

For example, in QWC, photons carry energy in quantum increments based on the energy level of the electron that emits them. The photon itself has the electrical and magnetic components imparted to them from their charged source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field). But the source itself must be composed of energy in quantum increments regardless of the type of fundamental particles. The propulsion of the photon at the speed of light is due to quantum action associated with the particles that emit them but at the instant of emission the transverse properties are imparted to them which distinguishes them from gravity waves IMHO.

[Saxion]

Of course.

Indeed the waves of photons are much the same sense as talking about the amplitudes of other waves. What is more interesting, and with a bit of pride, my analogy of the universe in class last week.

If you had a billion billion billion billion monkeys shaking a billion billion billion billion glasses, only an infinite amount of monkeys could produce the wave phases capable of the universe we have today.

And this is the truth.

[quantum_wave]

Of course.

Indeed the waves of photons are much the same sense as talking about the amplitudes of other waves. What is more interesting, and with a bit of pride, my analogy of the universe in class last week.

If you had a billion billion billion billion monkeys shaking a billion billion billion billion glasses, only an infinite amount of monkeys could produce the wave phases capable of the universe we have today.

And this is the truth.And there are an infinite number of monkeys then if that what it takes to the give measure of an infinite universe.

Goose sees a way to tie dark matter to gravity. He has asked some good question about my response to the OP.

I see a way to tie matter and energy and gravity to an infinite and perpetual universe. I am offering to answer all of Goose's questions.

Saxion sees a way to describe the wave phases of the infinite universe.

Who can give us a brief summary of another answer to the fundamental nature of the universe as they see it and why they see it that way?

[quantum_wave]

...Who can give us a brief summary of another answer to the fundamental nature of the universe as they see it and why they see it that way?This is an interesting blog post from CV, a string theory blog (we won't hold that against them :)).

http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/10/29/dark-photons/

Dark electromagnetism and dark photons are clever but not very descriptive because there is no electric field and no magnetic field associated with dark matter. If there was they would be detectable IMHO.

I stick with the QWC ideas that dark energy is "dense state" energy that emerges from a big crunch and expands because of its high energy density. It makes up the aether and provides the energy to form energy quanta of which mass is composed.

Dark matter is pre-particle groupings of quantum energy increments that have not yet taken on charge and have not become stable particles, but that exert and feel gravity, clump, and gather in and around mass that does have those characteristics.

I see no need to describe a "dark photon" but then in QWC there is aether to connect dark matter to visible matter.

[goose]

sorry i havent posted sooner, but ive been really busy with stuff
let me think up some more questions, i have a few but id rather ask many :), and ill get back here and ask...
Saxion... ill also think up some questions for you too, i need to know everything i can about everything, hahaha :D

[goose]

Who can give us a brief summary of another answer to the fundamental nature of the universe as they see it and why they see it that way?

I got another one for you :P... this is another part, dealing with the big-bang, that ive played around with in my mind
again, let me know where its completely wrong and any other info needed to prove or dis-prove what im saying


Lets imagine "time" as an object, lets say like a ball that is just there. It would be meaningless to say that it is traveling at whatever speed because there is no space for it to move through, which implies that there is no time intervals (seeing as how there cant be movement through space without time and/or vica-versa) yet defined.

If this "ball" was infinently small, then we could assume that it has an infinent amount of energy. With this energy, the "ball" can split into two, or three, or as many different amounts as you want at the time of its massive explosion, which is known as the bing bang, and instantly as it explodes a few things happen at once...

1) First of all, the explosion is so great that you actually get Nothing to become two seperate things, each of which contain the ultimate force {forget what they call it, but its where all 4 known forces are one (i.e. gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces)}. The first being something with, lets say a mass of 5, and the other being a mass of -5. (This is somewhat like how there is Matter and Anti-Matter, except this is for Mass and Anti-Mass).

2) Then, All of this mass and anti-mass comes back together to form nothingness, however at the instance of the "ball of time" explosion, many different time dimensions were created. Because this has all happened at once, some of the anti-mass leaks into one of the other dimensions, leaving a dimension (or many dimensions) with mass as we know it today. (keep in mind that when i say mass, i mean some thing with a mass to it.)

3) Finally, since all of this happened at the exact same time, we get basically multiple different dimensions of time, each with its own mass/anti-mass. The reason the dimensions dont over-lap is because, according to each dimension, every other dimension is at a stand-still, (this part is really confusing, took me hours to finally visualize what i wanted... and im probably explaining it horribly). According to us, none of those other dimensions are moving through time, so basically they dont exist, but according to them, none of the other dimensions, including us, are traveling through time either... so to them, we dont exist...


Now, i know there is absolutely no way to prove if there are other dimensions of time as i have discribed them, and im not saying there is..... im just expressing a specific thought of mine :)