ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology) Update 2016

I am reading your posts but dont have anything to say and I will not critisize minor points but rather let you roll out your ideas free of clutter. I like to approach by looking for what may be right rather than what can I fault.
Just letting you know I am here.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is good knowing you are keeping an eye no me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. It would be in line with my methodology if you felt comfortable bring up the small points, because besides using my own study and contemplation, member comments are how I evolve the model. This isn't all my work by a long shot; it is a joint effort. That is part of how I share the blame, lol.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some discussion about waves and spots inside and outside of crunches

Man on the Street (MOS): So you are saying that the speed of light is variable, and so the waves that are inflowing and out flowing from particle standing wave patterns go faster or slower depending on the wave energy density of the environment, and implying that in a Big Crunch, the waves don't actually come to a halt; the speed of light doesn't fall to zero relative to the speed of light in my back yard?

QW: Well thanks for dropping in

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. For those unfamiliar, in some threads I have a dialog with the "Man on the Street". He or she is different people whom I am talking with or have discussed the ISU with in the past, and their statements are sometimes paraphrased from those discussions.

Yes, you have basically got the variable speed of light concept. When speaking specifically about the crunch as it bangs, there are no longer individual particles, so the internal wave action continues but it is as if the hot dense ball of wave energy was all one great big dense wave pattern, a single arena particle, that will decay into the particles that will build the structure of the new arena as it expands, cools, and matures; that arena particle exists in that state only for an instant before it bounces into rapid expansion.

It is also mentionable that even in the crunch, the compressed wave action is producing just as many high energy density spots within it as were produced within all of the the wave-particles before the collapse/bang, just at nature's slowest slow motion/highest density (never infinitely dense though). That is said on the basis that the presence of mass is generally proportional to the number of high wave energy density spots within the standing wave patterns. The take away is that the wave energy of which mass is composed is conserved, but can occupy a much smaller space under extreme gravity.

As a corollary, since high density spots represent mass, and since all space contains wave energy, the space between particles also has a tiny mass, very tiny relative to particles, because the gravitational waves intersect in space too, and there are momentary high energy density spots at those convergences as well. Later I will describe the mechanics of wave advance which will show the role of wave intersections in the advance of light and gravity waves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time, the rate that time passes is relative to the wave energy density of the clock locations

Earlier, the issue of time came up and the discussion was put off. Special Relativity (SR), which I think can be called the flat spacetime of GR, equates time dilation to time measured on a clock at rest vs time measured on a moving clock. If you multiply the time that passes on a rest clock, times a dilation factor, you get the value of the dilated time. The time that passes on a rest clock (t), is always greater than the time that passes on the moving clock (t'); the principle is that a moving clock runs slower than a clock at rest.

Given the relative velocity between the two clocks (v), and given the invariant speed of light (c), assumed at both clock locations, then t' = t * SqRoot of (1 - (v squared / c squared)). If someone wants to post that in Tex, go ahead.

In SR, the speed of light is measured at c in a vacuum. In the ISU, all vacuums have some level of wave energy density because there is no container that can prevent gravity waves from passing through, and as stated in the last post, even empty space has wave energy density, and therefore wave intersections that produce high density spots, and the presence of those spots equates to a tiny amount of mass, hence no perfect vacuum.

So c is a concept, but in reality, there is no container that can have a perfect vacuum devoid of gravity waves, and therefore a vacuum cannot be devoid of mass. So when using c in the dilation equation, you never get the true t', but don't worry, it is an insignificant difference unless you are in or around some of nature's highest energy density environments.

That is almost a meaningless distinction in practice, but it is a distinction between GR and the ISU, and much of the conversation is about high energy density environments. The calculation of time dilation would be more accurate if there were factors for relative wave energy density at the locations of the two clocks.

Take that for what it is worth, but in any case where relative motion is required to be calculated precisely, the wave energy density at the location of each moving object must be included. In the ISU, the local density affects relative velocity and it affects the calculation of the force of quantum gravity.

 

Man on the Street (MOS): Your choice from the Triangle of Cosmological Explanations is, "Always existed", and that can be supported with good logic when compared to the "Something from nothing" choice. Why doesn't the community come forward in agreement with you on that?

QW: My view is that science forum members across the globe resist any logic that can be used against the "Something from nothing" explanation for the existence of the universe because that is the implied explanation of the consensus cosmology; it is what they "know", and if you don't support it, you are at best, ignored.

MOS: Maybe, but there is so much wrong with the Singularity. Almost any theoretical physics that has a basis in the singularity quickly becomes filled with seeming impossibilities, like an infinitely dense point space; really? Or like space stretching or bending, or being added as the galaxies separate, or that the background radiation is a relic of the singularity and yet comes from all directions no matter where you are in the known universe.

QW: Those aren't looked at by the majority of the science forum communities as absurdities, they are explained by what those people call the best available explanation for what we observe, given a singularity.

MOS: Then maybe the singularity is what is absurd? Your explanation for those observations make a great deal of sense compared to the consensus. Instead of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, zero volume point-space, your model has parent arenas from the landscape of the greater universe merging to produce a hot dense ball of energy emerging from the collapse/bang of a Big Crunch; plausible preconditions to our Big Bang.

QW: I can't argue with you on that.

MOS: And the CMBR as explained by the current cosmology requires faster that light inflation before the point in time where the opacity of the universe is lifted and light from the Big Bang is released. That is the only explanation for how it is coming from everywhere, beyond the farthest reaches of star and Galaxy formation. Your model certainly make more sense, i.e., there is a greater universe out there with a potentially infinite history of Big Bangs, and what we see as the inflowing microwave background is really a background radiation that fills the entire infinite universes, and always has.

QW: I know; it does have some elegance

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

MOS: And space form an infinite point, that stretches and bends, or is continually being added as the universe expands, instead of the logical explanation that space has always existed, everywhere; what could make better sense?

QW: You're preaching to the choir, lol.

MOS: So why has no member come forward after all these years to agree, or to present some argument against those simple logics?

QW: Maybe they are just being nice.

 

It is said we reap what we sow...
I would be disappointed if folk were not nice to you.
Just letting you know that I am here to make sure you get that over time done.
Alex

 

Most members who watch the alternative threads have weighed in, at one time or another, on my layman model. Some members might just have no interest because of its speculative content, but I think any layman with an enthusiasm for cosmology, has to appreciate the ideas and contemplations, even if it is at arms length.

 

Our SciForums Admin sets the record straight on the nature of theories/models of cosmology. http://bit.ly/29RsdV5

Register and join in.

 

MOS: You're not a showboater, are you QW.

QW: Really? I am building and evolving a layman level scenario of a bottom up, reasonable and responsible, step by step, set of speculations and hypotheses, all connected to known science, and while doing so, am filling the gaps between where theoretical physics and the standard cosmology themselves leave off; addressing the unknowns with speculation as no mainstream professional has the liberty to do, due to peer review and expectations from a community that doesn't look kindly on those who get off the accepted path.

MOS: OK, if you put it that way, maybe there is some showboating.

QW: I'm not saying that, I'm saying that it is mostly a solitary existence. I have years of posts and blogs that are part of the full picture, at least to the extent that I have a layman picture in mind, and if I want them included in the update, I either have to rewrite them, adding new ideas and connections, or I have to at least provide links to material that are part of the story but that don't yet really need rewriting.

MOS: This is the best update yet, it reads well, is connected from beginning to end, and explains your points better than last years update. So congrats.

That said, I want you to get into the particle section and the quantum realm a little deeper. Bring in and rewrite the stuff about the wild ass guess on the number of high density spots in a proton and an electron at rest, the wave-particle nature of the photon, the explanation of two slit experiments, and certainly the foundational medium (quantum foam, as some may see it), and its oscillating background wave energy that serves to advance both gravity and light wave fronts.

QW: You're right, and I do still have half a year to get to all of that, lol.

MOS: I do find it interesting how you have taken to Twitter, and how you encourage your followers to visit your SciForums threads, resister, and participle. I see no one has actually taken you up on that suggestion.

QW: I am building a list of Science sources on Twitter. It is a great way to keep up a current review of what is going on in the scientific community:
http://bit.ly/29JOu9m

 

A quantum unit, internal composition of particles, wild ass guess of number of quanta in protons and electrons at rest

It is true Mr MOS, those all deserve an update. Let me go to the internal composition of particles whose presence is established and maintained in the form of a complex standing wave pattern, with internal high density spots at the wave intersections in those patterns, and with spherical waves bursting out of high density spots (HDS), expanding, overlapping, and forming new HDSs within the particle. It is a continual process where the wave energy out flow that escapes the particle 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 and objects. Thus the complex standing wave presence of the proton, for example, is maintained by the inflowing and out flowing components of the standing wave action. In nature, this quantum action accounts for quantum gravity of my model, and predicts the particle will move in the direction of the net highest source of inflowing wave energy.

I call this the freeze frame technique, where we stop the proton, or electron, any particle in place at an instant in time, and go inside to describe that internal composition as the wave action that produces the high energy density spots that give the particle its mass and its location at any instant.

Here is the point where I acknowledge that the Standard Particle Model says there is no internal composition, so this is strictly ISU speculation and hypothesis. The model maintains that those particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and the quanta are call quantum units because there is energy in the high density spots at the wave intersection, and there is energy in the portion of each set of internal parent waves within the particle space that surround the momentary spots. A quantum unit is a convenience that says for every high density spot in the freeze frames, there is a surrounding portion of wave energy in the complex standing wave pattern, not presently occupying the location of a spot. Each quantum unit is a single quantum, and both the spot and the immediate energy filled space that it will "burst" into make up a quantum of energy. Therefore, in the ISU, the mass of a particle is equal to the number of high density spots in its complex standing wave pattern.

I quote here from post # 67 in the Man on the Street thread:
"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 quantum units within a proton?

In this exercise the units of measure don’t work unless we define the whole exercise in terms of a new unit, i.e. a “quantum energy unit” that occupies an average amount of space per quantum unit in the freeze frame of the standing wave pattern of a proton.

We are not talking about energy in joules, because the units of measure wouldn’t work. We are talking about energy in quantum units.

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 gives 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 quantum units 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, given the assumption above.
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:."

One change is that in the quoted post I had mistakenly referred to the quantum unit as two quanta, but in this update I correct that to one quantum of energy in a quantum unit.

 

I wanted to start this post with a very old post, where BenTheMan, and AlphaNumeric, helped me with getting an ISU equation written in Tex.
August 15, 2008

Then this link goes back to a thread where the equation is explained: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/quantifying-gravitys-mechanism.134207/

April 4, 2013

Click in "quoted text" to see included images.

To put this into the perspective of the model, when the equation is applied at the macro level, when it equals 1, it means that enough energy is in the overlap space to bring a crunch to critical capacity.

When the equation is applied at the micro, or quantum level, it applies to the wave intersections within the particle space. From post # 70 then, if a proton might be hundreds of billions of high density spots, then the equation will apply to the hundreds of billions of individual high density spots as they form within the particle space.

It is an over simplification, especially at the quantum level, because there are numerous intersections between each of the spherically expanding waves that emerge from each spot, but that is what the freeze frame technique is for. The convenience I mentioned is that the total energy in the particle space can be divided by the total number of high density spots to get an average value of the energy in a quantum, relative to the total energy of the particle at the local wave energy density. As the wave energy density of the local environment changes, there is a change in the number of high density spots in the particle and the particle mass changes proportionally.

The whole concept then is useful in discussions where rest particles take on motion as a result of quantum gravity, or as a result of acceleration due to an applied force, such as by an accelerator/collider. The increase in energy of an accelerated proton represents an increase in the mass of that proton in the ISU model. Note that acceleration increases the wave energy density of the particle's environment and causes an increase in the number of high density spots in the particle space.

 

Minimum energy, oscillating background, quantum foam, advance of light & gravity waves in the ISU

Is there a minimum high energy density spot? I know, it sounds like a trick question, but it really arises because, in the ISU, there is a maximum high energy density spot, i.e., the Big Crunch. Based on the striking sameness between the macro and the micro realms discussed so far, is it reasonable to predict that there is a minimum spot of energy allowed by nature?

The answer, in the ISU model, is yes. It is a feature of the cosmology of the universe where the minimum wave/spot/wave action acts like an oscillating background, where the lowest energy waves create the lowest energy spots. This low energy wave/spot/wave action causes a continuous foundational oscillation. There can be no smaller, lower energy action. I am trying to describe the model's equivalent to spacetime form, or the quantum foam of quantum mechanics.

The scale of such action might best be described in comparison to the internal complex standing wave pattern of a particle, where a very tiny particle space can host billions of momentary high energy density spots. The oscillating background would have oscillations between spot and wave, with enough oscillations to effectively advance the waves that are intersecting within the particle space. Clear as mud, right.

Let me continue to explain. A Spherical wave that emerges from a high energy density spot within a particle space must expand spherically out of the tiny overlap space formed when two internal quantum waves intersect. Note the distinction in the description between a spot/wave/spot oscillation at the foundational level, and the momentary formation of a high density spot that contains a quantum of energy within the particle space. The quantum spot will expand within the particle until it intersects with other quantum waves, but it this the foundational oscillation of sub-quantum spot/wave/spot action that allows those quantum waves to physically advance within the particle space.

Therefore, in the ISU, there is a foundational medium consisting of this oscillating background, that is necessary to accommodate the advance of wave energy, both light and gravity waves, within and in between particles.

When a wave enters the oscillating background from one direction, its energy is distributed spherically at each point of oscillation, i.e, in all directions, and those new spherical waves are again, and again, continually advanced by the oscillations, so the rate of advance of a light/gravity wave is limited by the rate of oscillation of the foundational medium. The light/gravity energy is conserved, and the rate of oscillation is governed by the amount of light and gravity waves advancing through the oscillating medium.

The higher the local wave energy density of the location, the slower the oscillations. Therefore, in the ISU, the speed of light and gravity is variable relative to the energy density of the local oscillating foundational background; there is a time delay that increases as the wave energy density action increases.

 

Friday night fun: Perspective on the scale of the oscillating foundational background of the universe

In post #70, I made a wild ass guess that there are about ~700 billion high energy density spots in a freeze frame of the complex standing wave pattern of a proton particle, at rest. Given the volume of a proton are rest, and the ~700 billion quanta, we can calculate a volume of space within the particle space that would, on average, contain a quantum of energy. It is 1/700,000,000,000th of the volume of a proton, obviously.

Now, a wild "spherical cow" guess as to the number of oscillations occurring within a single quantum space within a proton.

Please notice, nothing in my hands, nothing behind my back, and no mirrors.

For convenience, using the spherical cow metaphor, click the cow for the Wiki

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I invoke the rule that each of those quanta can be considered spherical. Inside the proton they won't be spherical, but like I said ... the "spherical cow" rule is invoked.

If we equate the surface of the spherical quantum to the volume, we need a benchmark like we had when we did the wild guess on the number of quanta in the proton and electron. I propose that the number of oscillating spots in the volume of the quantum, can be equated to the number of galaxies in the known universe. That number can be all over the map, so I'll use the estimate from Wiki,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click the universe for the Wiki.

Now we have 200,000,000 times 700,000,000,000, which again, according to Wiki comes to 1.4e+20, or 140,000,000,000,000,000,000 oscillating spots within the space occupied by a proton.

Hmm, I wonder how many proton volumes would equate to the volume of the known universe? That would give us a Wagner of the number of oscillating spots in the known universe. "Wagne" means wild ass guess not easily refuted, lol.

Remember, is kind of fun is reserved for Friday nights.

 

A couple of points that you need to fix up...It's 1000hrs Saturday morning, [at least where it matters

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] and where I come from an Ass is similar to a Mule.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We spell it arse!
On a more serious note, I don't believe there is any relationship between a proton and volume of the known universe, afterall, as time proceeds on our known universe, [observable universe is changing]

 

Its always Friday night somewhere in the universe, lol.
True, but remember, in the ISU model, the universe is infinite, so though the calculated number using the "circular cow" metaphor, and the Wagner, would be a large finite number, the number in the ISU would be infinite.

Unless we bring in a factor for the arse end of a white hole

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Introducing the concept that time simply passes in the ISU

In the ISU cosmology, time is dealt with as if it simply passes, and the rate that time passes is quantified by a measurement made by a clock. Clocks take many forms, so I'll just say a clock is any method of measuring the passing of time and not try to mention the vast variety of clocks humans use.

When I refer to the wave energy density, I am speaking of the density of gravitational waves traversing the local space in all directions. Unlike in BBT, in the ISU all mass emits spherical gravitational waves continuously in accord with the concept that particles, and mass, are composed of standing waves. Standing waves have two components, the directional inflowing and spherical out flowing gravitational wave energy that maintains the presence of mass, plus mass always has the "contained" energy of the complex standing wave pattern.

The rate that a clock measures time to be passing is dependent on the gravitational wave energy density at the clock's location, and so identical clocks in different wave energy density locations will measure the rate that time passes to be different. For example, the gravitational wave energy density at the top of a mountain is less than at the surface of the earth, and so a clock runs slower at the surface.

If you accelerate a clock from a "rest" position, the gravitational wave energy density of that clock's local environment will increase relative to that rest location, and the clock will measure time to be passing more slowly than at the rest location. This occurs because acceleration causes higher wave energy density in the direction of motion.

By moving into the on coming gravitational wave energy, you encounter more gravitational wave energy from that direction than when at rest, so more high energy density spots form within the particle's space. This causes a case of time dilation mentioned in post #64, where we discuss that the dilation multiplier of a moving clock is always less than 1, relative to the rest location.

That brings me to a concept in the ISU called the average universal gravitational wave energy density. This concept is based on the idea that given the infinity of space, time, and energy, there is a "sameness" principle, meaning that though things are always changing in a local frame, on a grand scale, universal averages remain the same. That average density is "as yet" unknown, but conceptually is invariant.

Using that universal average density as the density of the location of a quintessential "clock at rest", the time passing on that clock is measured to be at the "official" universal rate that time simply passes in the ISU.

 

Spot notes waiting for inspiration

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The high energy density spot redistributes directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy into spherically out flowing wave energy. And spots are everywhere!

You will recall that the complex standing wave patterns of particles are full of spots.

Mass is the presence of spots.

The interaction between spherically redistributed energy from spots results in the formation of more spots; it's spots and waves from spots making more spots.

Also, remember that space itself is full of wave intersections, and therefore space between particles has spots.

Quantum gravity relies on those spots to guide the motion of particles and objects through space toward the directional preponderance of spots.

The foundational background of the universe itself is full of oscillating spots that serve to advance light and gravity wave energy via that redistribution mechanism of spots.

Spots have potential, i.e., the potential of a spot is the spherical expansion/distribution of the energy contained in the spot.

This list could go on and on, but so far it is spot-on.

 

Light is the gravity waves of photons
To be continued ...

 

The response earlier by Alex about photons not having mass in mainstream physics is understood and expected. But in the ISU, they not only have mass, but they emit gravity waves. Gravity waves and gravitational waves are used interchangeably in my model; in GR they are called gravitational waves, but there is a clear distinction. Gravitational waves in GR only occur at some threshold where the EFEs no longer can account for all of the event energy involved in very massive events, like binary black holes or supernovas; something about the conservation of momentum, but I'm not sure of the details. Maybe someone can help there.

In the ISU, there is no such threshold because all particles have both the inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components all the time, and photons being particles with mass, are no different in that regard.

The spherical out flowing wave energy component of a photon standing wave pattern begins as soon at the photon particle is emitted from its source, generally an electron whose energy state is elevated. The photon particle starts out with mass consisting of a particular number of quanta ejected at the speed of light, and therefore it immediately starts getting all of its inflowing wave energy component only from the direction of motion, since inflow from any other direction is left behind.

That means that the photon will only travel in the initial direction at the speed of light. Any curvature in its path is the result of the changing directional inflowing wave energy being emitted by surrounding objects that are generally in relative motion to each other.

Those quanta are the contained energy of the photon, quantified by the number of the high energy density spots at any given instant in the standing wave pattern; remember the freeze frame technique I used in a thought experiment about the internal complex standing wave pattern and the number of wave intersections that form the high energy density spots.

The nature of electromagnetic radiation in the ISU is characterized by the photon particle, which is emitted at the speed of light from its source, and since it travels at the local speed of light, it gets all of its inflowing gravitational wave energy component from the direction of motion, and its out flowing gravitation all wave energy is designated as light energy because there is a narrow range of frequencies, proportional to the number of quanta, that are visible to the naked eye.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Deriving the philosophy of Eternal Intent from the ISU cosmological model

Earlier in this discussion, the question of how much of my model was philosophy and how much was science came up. I avoided calling any of it science, but made a distinction between my methodology of reasonable and responsible speculation, and the philosophy that I personally derive from the speculative ISU model.

I have derived the philosophy called Eternal Intent, and would like to say that it is based on the premise I have referred to throughout, that being the concept of the "as yet" unknown. There is the known, and the unknown, and we delve into the unknown as we advance our scientific knowledge and theories. It is a slow and deliberate process, governed by the scientific method, and orchestrated by a pretty formal process of written papers, journals, peer review, a weeding out, and some acceptance, and that acceptance grows the body of scientific understanding.

It also chips away at the body of the "as yet" unknown, and my philosophy concerns what is in that unknown part, yet to be discovered, and what might be reasonable to expect, taking the ISU model as personal "reality".

I haven't done a thorough rewrite in this update, but the previous updates and original threads are considered a part of the model, to the extent that they aren't superseded by the various updates. I reserve the right to continue on that course as I see fit in the future. Also, I didn't address much about "life" in this update, though in past threads I make it clear that I consider life to be "generative" and "evolvative", meaning that in any hospitable environment that is able to support life, there is a probablitty that life will be generated and evolved. The better the environment, and the more adaptable the life forms, the longer the process of evolution has to work.

On that basis, our local/observable Big Bang arena would be populated throughout, at least here and there, and though humankind may be the height of evolution on Earth, odds are that there are much more advanced and capable life forms out there. There is no reason to believe that some life forms haven't broken free from their original environment and become self sustaining and advancing across space. Some might have avoided annihilation during the infinite past history of arena action, and could have unimaginable lengthy heritages. At any rate, life has always existed, and will always exist in the ISU.

The key in that premise is that we don't know what heights evolution and ingenuity can rise to, and what limits there might be, if any. It is all contained in the complete set of invariant natural laws, of which I believe we have only scratched the surface.

To be continued ...