Aether, mass and gravity in QWC

Nice try but you fall over too quickly.
Try walking before attempting to run.
Clue:
Agree
Agree
Oops.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your comment is appreciated. Though brief, you point out what I readily admit; my scenario goes beyond the mainstream, I have no proof, and I can’t point to a means of testing my scenario. I make a case for it being protoscience as opposed to pseudoscience on the basis that it is compatible with existing science and that technological advancement will allow for tests to be developed. Whether it is protoscience or not might boil down to each of our personal interpretations of the scientific method.

If you have the stick-to-itiveness to wade through the following you will see how I attempt to defend my position in response to your recent post. I will be happy to address any specifics for your previous response that you don’t feel are addressed below.

Energy defined in Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC):
(Summary level, read the entire thread for more detail ... or I can provide more detail on any point below to explain my ideas but it will still only be ideas and not qualified science so don't expect any proof or proposed means of testing the ideas for awhile.)
My scenario is that in our finite arena that we call our expanding universe there is a finite amount of energy that takes many forms. As the scenario goes, if there was a common unit in which we could describe all energy it would be called the energy quantum, a precise amount of energy that lies at the heart of the idea and concept of quantization that I am using as a means to account for energy in all of it forms and uses in QWC. The term quantum here is not the familiar usage of the term quantum as in the discrete energy packets of electromagnetic radiation or as in describing the quantum nature of the various fundamental particles. I am using the term quantum as a common denominator of all forms of energy, nuclear, thermal, kinetic, any form that energy can take. And I am proposing the idea (it is an idea and not science, maybe better call protoscience) that in our finite arena of space that we call our expanding universe, all of the energy when measured in this as yet un-quantified but consistent increment called the quantum, adds up to a finite but all inclusive amount of energy in our arena.

Note that quantization is a mechanism that allows energy to be “used” and to change form with perfect precision, in other words with perfect accounting for every quantum. It is this basic accounting that QWC sees in nature that supports the theory that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Keep in mind that entropy is our enemy. Quantization may be perfect, but entropy measures the decline in “useful energy”; without reverse entropy the end result is the “heat death” of the universe or the “big rip” as described by current theories. If and I say if even though it is contrary to QWC, if our universe consists of only our finite expanding arena, the there seems to be no turning it around. Expansion is accelerating, the amount of useful energy is finite and declining as entropy increases, and there is no indication of a mechanism of reverse entropy in current theory (though there are various ideas about it that are not embraced by the scientific community). Unless there or other similar arenas throughout the greater universe, our expanding arena will not be able to support life forever.

In my scenario, all space contains energy meaning that there is an additional form of energy, an aether that fills all space leaving no voids, and therefore at every point in space there is some level of energy density. Energy can be in the form of the aether, or it can be quantized as in mass and it can even be in another energy state called “dense state” energy at the core of a big crunch, so dense that mass cannot function at that level of compression. The energy that makes up the mass of the universe is in quantum increments and therefore mass is quantized energy that exists in a sea of aether.

Quantized mass is not static but is characterized by quantum action that is a very rapid and repetitive process of renewal of the presence of the energy quanta that make up all mass. Quantum action is a force that encompasses a quantum of energy and that describes a repetition that takes place each instant. Quantum action involves the accumulation of a quantum of energy, the collapse of that quantum into a high density spot, the burst (bounce off of a limit of maximum energy density) of that energy into a spherically expanding quantum wave, all occurring within a brief instant. The intersecting and overlapping of quantum waves is what allows new quanta to form from the energy contained in spherically expanding quantum waves. They overlap, the energy that converges in the overlap collapses into a high density spot, the spot achieves the maximum possible energy density allowed by nature and “bounces” into a burst of energy that takes the shape of a spherically expanding quantum wave of energy thus perpetuating the process of quantum action.

I know this is vague but the exact amount of energy in a quantum, the exact amount of space occupied by a quantum of energy at its high density point, and the length of time it takes for one quantum action to occur are not known yet. I can only say that the energy increment is the smallest possible energy increment that can have a meaningful impact in the formation of mass, the space occupied by the high density spot phase of quantum action is the smallest possible space that can be described with any hope of quantification, and the length of time it takes for a “quantum action” to occur and re-occur is the shortest amount of time we can hope to ever measure because these quantities are the final limits of what we call “infinitesimal”.

It is from this context that I define the term energy in the cosmology that I am trying to describe. My definition is therefore much broader than the definition of energy that falls within the accepted scientific usage of the term.

This more inclusive definition, i.e. that the universe “is” energy, describes why I am mixing my energy terms and concepts when viewed from a mainstream perspective. To me useful energy and its relationship to entropy deals with the same energy as is contained in mass, as is represented by motion, as is a characteristic of electromagnetic radiation, thermal radiation, as is a characteristic of chemical reactions, as is the medium of space called the aether, and as is the sole component of the universe that can take so many forms. There is perfect conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed, and all of the energy in the universe has always existed and is continually participating in the processes of quantum action and arena action.

In addition to our finite arena (which we call our expanding universe), there is a greater universe that encompasses a potentially infinite number of arenas of the same amount of energy, i.e. quantized at the arena level of order. Some are expanding arenas and some are contracting arenas, but all are in a greater universe where entropy is defeated by the arena process that is characterized by energy-to matter- to energy process. This process centers around the formation of high density big crunches, the burst of crunches into expanding balls of dark energy, the formation of mass within the expanding dark energy, and the eventual formation of galaxies that are separating from each other in all directions. This separation of galaxies in a co-moving coordinate system occurs because expansion momentum is imparted to mass as it forms and momentum is conserved as mass clumps into particles, atoms, stars and galaxies. In QWC there will be an eventual overlap of the galactic expansions of two or more arenas (two or more co-moving coordinate systems) to form new arenas which collapse into big crunches. It is a perpetual process called “arena action” of which our expanding arena is a small and passing part.

And to round out the energy picture in my scenario, in what I call Quantum Wave Cosmology, the arena process (“arena action”) that takes place in the landscape of the greater universe is very similar to what I describe as “quantum action” that I described as taking place at the infinitesimal level of order. The major difference is that at the infinitesimal level of order there is insufficient compression surrounding the high density spots and so the high density spots bounce immediately into spherically expanding quantum waves as soon as the maximum energy density is achieved. On the other end of the energy density spectrum, when a big crunch forms, compression is present and builds until the crunch reaches maximum internal energy density and is finally defeated from within leading the the burst and the resulting spherically expanding ball of dense dark energy and is finally defeated from within leading to the burst and the resulting spherically expanding ball of dense dark energy.


So yes, I have a laymen’s understanding of the mainstream view of energy and its various forms, and yes, I understand the mainstream view of entropy, and of electromagnetic radiation, thermal radiation, rest energy, relativistic energy, kinetic energy, energy released in chemical reactions, and even potential energy. I understand that energy and force go together. I understand that no aether has been detected and the concept of aether is called “superseded scientific theory” since it was not discovered as predicted. But to define energy in QWC, all of the above must be taken into account.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it goes against the mainstream.
And offers nothing.

So it's a wild guess?

It's not even a pseudoscience, let alone proto-.
You have no proof, no means of testing..
Any mathematical backup?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not everyone plays by the same rules. I'm just not satisfied with the mainstream explanations of what causes mass, what causes gravity, what caused the initial expansions of our observable universe. Are you?

 

But you have nothing that actually makes predictions or can explain things as well as current theory.
All you do have is wishful thinking and no supporting evidence.

 

What does mainstream have that tells us what causes mass? What is it that causes gravity? What caused the initial expansion of the observable universe? You have nothing to answer these questions. And as for predictions, you couldn't be more wrong. As for wishful thinking, I don't get you? What am I wishing for besides answers to these questions in your opinion?

 

Correct: but they are being worked on.
Scientifically.

Go ahead: present one.
Any one.

Since you have no supporting evidence it's not science it's pure speculation.

 

You couldn't possibly have read this thread without seeing predictions. And I don't disagree that it is all speculation. We differ in our understanding of how science is done. Read this thread and come back and say you see no predictions. Read this thread and tell me that speculation has no role in science.

 

Maybe you misunderstand what "prediction" means.
It means suggesting an observable result occur under set conditions.
And account for that result mathematically.
We certainly do differ in our understanding of how science is done - I know it follows a methodology, you appear not to.
And once again: speculation without data or evidentiary support is not science.
It's mere speculation, like a kid saying "wouldn't it be cool if my G.I. Joe was alive?".

 

You are wrong about speculation, about what science is, and about the role of mathematics in the development of science according to the scientific method. I have been over all of this in this thread or in threads that I link to in the OP already and you don't seem to have read it or you would have quotes from it to support your denial. Though I have plenty of time, you don't seem to have time to make a case by reading the thread, quoting from it where you find it in error, and offering alternative answers to the questions I just asked you.

 

In the other forum I mentioned, there was a response to a similar post which contained my description of energy in QWC.

It said, “The problem is that many experiments with energy show that energy is not quantized in and of itself. Instead, the "quantization" comes from electrons dropping from higher electron orbits to lower ones, discrete chemical bonds formed or broken, and discrete amounts of matter converted to energy in nuclear fission and fusion. IF energy itself were quantized, there would be a common quanta in which each of these would be integers of that quantum. The data I have seen contradicts that. For instance, if an electron drops from a 2p to a 1p electron orbital, you get one quanta of energy. But if it drops from 2s to 1s, you get a different one that is not related by an integer to the first. If your scenario were correct, this should be the case.”

That same poster suggested that I look into the First Law of Thermodynamics because it proved that the universe could not contain an infinite amount of energy. This guy’s response of course was just one of those ways of saying that I was missing something very basic in my understanding.

I replied to the thermodynamics comment by posting the results of a Google search that showed almost of million links mentioning 1LTD and asked him to show me where it described the parameters of the universe and where it said that the universe was not infinite. I haven’t heard back from him on that yet.

My response to the “integer” comment was more detailed. I replied that I see you do understand how I am using the concept of quantization because you do refer to how various discrete packets of energy related to photon emission and the quantum leaps involved with electromagnetic radiation would have to be integer values of the quantum.

What your example did was explain how the various electron drops are not of equal energy and so you conclude that there is no quantum value that would always produce an integer count of quanta.

In QWC though, the electron drops from one orbital to another are multiple quanta events. For example, I brainstormed in another forum about how many quanta there might be in a proton, or an electron (and therefore in various quarks). One possible approach to quantifying the energy in protons and electrons took several speculations together. The idea was related to the measurements that show the energy of an electron is ~1/1836 of a proton.

One speculation that was interesting was that the surface of the proton consisted of the same number of quanta as the entire electron. There were ideas about nucleosynthesis that used this relationship to describe the formation of quarks, protons, and electrons but that deserves another post by itself which I have done elsewhere and would be over kill here at the present.

Equating the surface of a proton to the surface of a sphere I was able to calculate a supposed number of energy quanta in the electron and the proton.

The calculation was based on the relationship between the area of the surface of a sphere, and the volume of a sphere.

Area/Volume = (4 pi r2)/(4/3 pi r3) = 3/r = 1/1836,
therefore r = 3*1836 = 5508

4/3 pi r^3 using a radius of 5508 quanta gives us 699,955,457,517 quanta in a proton, and dividing by 1836 gives us 381,239,356 quanta in an electron (at rest).

Admittedly there are several reasons why these calculations aren't right on, but they do point to the possibility that there is a huge number of energy quanta involved in an electron.

So when I use the phrase that matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, I mean that protons might contain ~700 billion quanta and electrons might contain 381 million quanta. Putting these quantities into the perspective of the movement of an electron from one ring or orbital to the next and you can see that because of the tiny energy involved in a quantum it is entirely feasible that there is an integer value of quanta for the jumps even though the jumps are themselves of differing energy values.

Would you like to comment on this post or about my earlier description of energy in QWC?

 

I'm arriving rather late to this discussion, but I think a relevant reference to add if it hasn't been disussed already is this paper by Carroll et al. They show that theories with an ether are not stable, which is strong evidence (as if any more were needed) that the ether does not exist.

 

You might be intrested to know that scientist have confirmed on Public Television that Gravity is a result of the expanding universe when they determined that Gravity would cease to exist if the universe began to fall in on it's self and at the same time linked it with Time (indirectly)

The concept and acceptance apparently isn't new.
Mass and inertia really is the result of the expansion of the space/time fabric.

 

Interesting.
Do you have a link?
And is this a genuine finding or a typical TV "let's hype it up and misunderstand things completely" type presentation?

 

Sean Carroll is a pretty smart guy. I have followed his string theory site, Cosmic Variance for a couple of years. He is the "Arrow of Time" eternal inflationist too. I don't know from what he said in the abstract if there is an aether or not, and "evidence" that there is no aether seems a stretch. Thanks for the link and read the thread and you will see my references to superseded theory, and a link to a discussion of the search for and failure to find the aether. Still, if quantization of energy and the force of quantum action produce quantum waves, those waves are the aether that I am talking about. If energy is not quantized, and if quantum waves do not exist, then QWC is wrong.

But if you have read my thread with an open mind, you will see that everything I say is based on the fact that we don't know what causes mass (I say it is quantum action), we don't know what causes gravity (I say it is quantum action), and we don't know what caused the Big Bang or big burst as I call it (I say that it is caused by the burst of a big crunch).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZpPekgRQTw

http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/faq.html

 

You and Quantum wave will be jugded accordingy, so far you Oli have demonstrated no ability to add progress to your species, even with your 50 odd years of existence. It is better to try and fail than never to try at all. For I have learned that all lifeforms deserve respect for they are all variables that make reality possible. Maby you Oli lack the ability to think for yourself,you may very well lack the courage neccessary to be humiliated for bieng wrong. You cannot help those like you very much if you can only explain to them things thats your species have already figured out in the past. Resist the temtation of bieng a coward. And maybe you could join the efforts of your species to save itself from total extinction. Take heed for ones such as Einstein and Newton had such courage. For the loser of knowlegde is bestowed on the ''one'' that cannot add it, that ''one'' will never have
two cents.

 

Cor 1:17.
"It matters little to me that I am judged by you or human court".

Wrong.

My species?
Cheese sandwiches?

And far better to try and succeed.
Any more homilies to offer?

And maybe I don't.

By whom?

Incorrect surely.
Some people need to have what's already known so that can go on to learn or discover new things.

There is no temptation to resist.

Unfortunately you're assuming that I've done nothing in that direction.

Could you rephrase that so that it's in English please?

 

Please take your personal discussion out in the hall.

 

To be honest it might be but it wasn't that "Science Now" shows with that black guy. I beleive it was NOVA but I came in on the middle of it.

I wasn't able to get the name...
but I was shocked. I litteraly heard in one sentence the confirmation of my theory not as though it was a theory but as accepted results of a graviational collapse of the universe.

I've been keeping my eyes pealed for when I see it again. I WILL definitely get you a link to the PBS.org site or the You Tube link that shows it. I still would like your imput to see if you hear the same thing I heard.

 

I'm in the UK and haven't owned a TV for two years, so I don't know the shows

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!