What is Quantum Wave Cosmology discussion thread

You want a cosmology which you find acceptable and simple and your method is to simply look at what other people have done or suggested, take the bits you find you like, put them all under the banner of QWC and then proclaim you've got a model/theory which goes where science doesn't.

This is flawed for a number of reasons. Firstly, just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong. Secondly, just because you like something doesn't make it right. Thirdly, picking bits hap-hazardly from other ideas means all your 'results' as determined as axioms, you derive nothing. Every output is an input. A theory doesn't predict the mass of the electron if you have to go out and measure the electron mass to put into your theory and so you picking and choosing such things as "The universe underwent a big crunch before the BB" doesn't mean you've predicted it from something more basic. Einstein used the Einstein Field Equations to show that the universe cannot be static unless very very precise conditions are met, it'll more likely be getting bigger or smaller. Thus the prediction of a non-static universe is obtained from more fundamental assumptions. And fourthly, even if you have all the right outcomes/predictions if you cannot obtain them all from a shorter list of assumptions then you explain none of them. A theory is useful because you get out more predictions than inputs. If not, you might as well forget having a model and simply tabulate all measurements for phenomena, since it'll be just as good a way of describing nature.

Where have you obtained that from? Have you derived it from something or simply made it up?

And I love how you didn't respond to any of my points where I pointed out your claims about the BB or mainstream physicists were total BS. Aren't you man enough to admit when you're wrong and a hypocrite for telling other people to read up on something you haven't read up on?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good, I'm glad you are beginning to understand what a prime objective is. You aren't quite up to the task of grasping it, but you are trying. Stay with me and perhaps you can get with the program as we go along. Good luck.

Now can you state the methodology? And can you then step back and characterize your comments and how they compare with the prime objective and the methodology. How important are your comments in the light of the prime objective and the methodology? You can answer that but you won't admit to the correct answer.

Just because you read QWC doesn't mean you even come close to grasping it. You have to approach it from the perspective of the prime objective, you have to have a broad understanding of cosmology, and you have to want it to be the best answer for you personally so you use a methodology that leads to continual improvement. I don't care what you think except that having you stay with me encourages me to work on it. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I think it's a stupid one. Working by the rule that if you don't like it then it's wrong isn't how you go about science because you're assuming your preferences are the guiding principles of nature.

A famous example of this is Robert Andrews Millikan, who hated the idea of light being packets of energy, as Planck and Einstein had said, so he set out to prove that Einstein's description of the photoelectric effect was nonsense, experimentally refutable. He spent a lot of time doing careful experiments and confirmed Einstein's predictions so well he got a Nobel Prize for it!

You have no education or familiarity with the world of physics and are, compared to actual physicists, innumerate. You are unaware of the vast majority of experiments relating to cosmology and have no knowledge of the plethora of theories put forth over the years to explain various cosmological phenomena. So what makes you think you're in so good a position that you can determine a valid cosmological model purely by what you like or dislike? One of your axioms seems to be "If I like it, it's in QWC, if not then it's not". This is hardly self evident so you need to explain it. Can you?

Yes, clearly your work is so advanced and complicated that I'm failing to grasp it and I need to have my hand held as you walk me through it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You pick and choose what you want in your work and when you find questions which science can't make a reasonable attempt at you simply invent your version of "God did it" and slap it under the title of 'QWC'.

My questions are fundamental to your work. If you can't give a clear reason for why you proclaim QWC explains things or how you arrive as your explainations then there is zero reason to work on it because you could just as easily have proposed a completely different explaination for a phenomenon and called it QWC.

There's nothing to grasp. It's simply your monologue on what you'd propose might be how things work, but you offer no reason or evidence or derivation for why you say those things.

Einstein said that motion gives time dilation because he could algebraically derive how clocks must behave given the two postulates of special relativity. Every single step, every bit of logic, every derivation is done so that the path from postulates to prediction is clear. You offer none of that, you simply pluck explainations out of the air, you make no attempt to derive things consistently from postulates, you make no attempt to justify anything you say.

But you don't have a broad understanding of cosmology, that much is clear. And the 'best answer' isn't 'the best answer for you personally', it's the answer which most accurately describes Nature. Newtonian gravity is considerably simpler than general relativity and many people, including NASA, prefer to use it to do their calculations but that doesn't make Newtonian gravity 'the best answer'. Loads of people (almost all laypersons) dislike quantum mechanics, some kind of classical picture would be much nicer from a view of asthetics but nature seems to rule that out.

Being a scientist is about having a personal opinion and being able to ignore it or change it in the light of evidence. Planck disliked his prediction of quantised matter. Einstein disliked the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger disliked the notion of quantum superposition. Yet, none the less, all of them are famous for precisely those things. They put personal preference aside because they realised their assumptions were wrong.

Translation : "I'm going to ignore peer review* because I seem to think scientific methodology doesn't apply to me."

*I in no way consider you my peer. In a bad way for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that is not it.

Well, duh :shrug:.

 

These are closer to axioms and corollaries compared to what I had mentioned earlier. As a non professional, if they aren't axioms and corollaries, I consider the following to be self evident to me personally and so they are the basis of QWC:
Nothing yields nothing
Everything is composed of energy
Energy cannot be created or destroyed
The universe is composed of energy
The universe was not created
There was no beginning
The universe has always existed

Any comments before I incorporate them into the document to open the discussion of the speculations of Step II., "The formation and burst of a big crunch into an expanding arena like our own"?

 

This goes against quantum mechanics, which has been extensively tested by experiment.

You need a definition of energy here.

If an infinite amount of time has to pass before we get to this time, it's logically absurd to suppose that we'd ever get there.

I have two questions: Why are you doing this? It's obvious you acknowledge your "work" as pointless. Also, you haven't explained why "arena action" isn't a fairy yet.

 

Yikes, and you believe this?

I doesn't have to make sense to you, only to me.

Can you state the prime objective of QWC?

Can you describe the methodology?

They are in the Google.doc: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt

 

Immediately a flawed method. Something obvious to you isn't always obvious to other people. And not all obvious things are self evident.

1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are not self evident. I'd argue if 2 is and if 2 isn't then neither is 4. Further more, they are not all independent. 5, 6 and 7 say the same thing and 2 implies 4.

And I see you completely ignored my repeated pointing out that you were wrong in your claims that saying anything other than "Before the BB was nothing" hinders your career. Aren't you able to say "Yep, turns out I was wrong"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I like them though. I'm using them in the Google.doc:http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt

Well, if you take it literally, but you get the idea. It applies in the BBT circles. I agree that BBT is not the only game in town careerwise. Look at what you are wasting your time on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

I don't want to engage your comments until you give up on the fairy dust but sometimes you say things that just can't ignored; rarely I'll admit.

Time is a measure of the interval between events. Every event that has occurred in the infinite past occurred at a point in time. The interval between any two events is finite. If there was no beginning then the interval between now and the beginning is nonsense because the beginning cannot be marked by a point in time. Your statement is the one that is absurd and I suggest you research the logic.

 

And hell, while I'm at it, your comment is probably made concerning some experiment that took place within an existing universe. Try to pull it off if there is no universe, i.e. if there is nothing. Get with it, you are the self proclaimed expert on what is and is not science.

 

In the quantum world, nothing can quite literally become something via the uncertainty principle.

 

So you are saying that something could come from nothing, literally? Or are you saying that there is a theory that describes the wave function where if you already have a universe, then if you consider the probability that a particle is located somewhere at all times, we just can't know where it is at all times, you consider that equivalent to something coming from nothing. Please confirm you are saying this or say it in your words if you like.

 

I'm saying that if quantum mechanics is correct then something can literally come from nothing.

 

You won't take a position on "if it is correct"? Do you understand the difference between something appearing as though it came from nothing even though it is an event within an existing universe (composed of energy), and something coming from nothing if there is no existing universe? I did post a good definition of "nothing" earlier. You are not quite using "nothing" to get something.

And are you still saying that it is absurd to consider the idea that the universe has always existed because you believe that if time was infinite backward we could never get to now? You might want to comment about this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2318502&postcount=110

And one more time, can't you distinguish between my prime objective with its methodology and Guest's fairy dust. Can you see a difference between invoking Guest's fantasy (not science) and discussing ideas about the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe? Say yes or no.

 

And there's proof you aren't interested in science, logic, methodology or truth.

Irrespective of how nonsense your 'postulates' are you're not going to change them. Since everything is built from those, there's no reason to look at your work.

Check mate.

My work doesn't have anything to do with the BB. If the BB is true or false my work's validity is independent. Also, string theory provides Neil Turok with a way to have something before the BB which then produced our universe. So your statement " It applies in the BBT circles. " is still wrong. You said the BB people cannot have any other answer but "Nothing was before the BB". Wrong. I can think of at least 3 different things which are more than "There was nothing" put forth by people in the last 20 years, one of which makes use of string theory. Time and again you're wrong. Why don't you save us all the hassle and stop just making things up about mainstream physics because you're either too lazy or too stupid to find out the truth?

 

quantum mechanics is obviously correct - that part of the statement was meant to be rhetorical.

You didn't answer the conundrum. If time has always existed there can always be two events that are separated by an infinite amount of time, which seems to be absurd.

I did exactly what you asked - you asked "Let me be clear that I would foist the same challenge anyone who claims it is fairy dust. Point to the step where fairies are invoked." I did exactly that - what you are calling arena action is nothing more than a fairy. You say arena action causes the big bang but you might as well say fairies cause the big bang.

 

:smirk: and :smirk:.

You are both ignorant of basic science, what is and isn't fact and truth, and ignorant of what I am doing.

Why I waste my time with you is clear. You don't see it but maybe it is that you are the peanut gallery?

I'll try to find time to begin getting into step II, The formation and burst of a big crunch into an expanding arena like our own.

Why don't you two go back and read the prime objective and methodology discussed in the Introduction of the Google.doc and try to keep up from now on: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt

Prom, you are just being funny about an infinite amount of time between two events, right. Think about what you are saying man.

AN, you think what you do has anything to do with cosmology? Please.

I am picking up where you leave off and can't go. Read the document, get with the program or quit wasting our time.

 

Can't explain what arena action is then?

 

You are going to get a good dose of that explanation so be sure to pay attention.

But you, ... you have demonstrated a serious flaw in your grasp of reality. You still think that if time is infinite backward we could never get to now? You still think that there can be an infinite amount of time between two events? Seriously, you have a flawed sense of logic. It would be interesting to have others who agree with that thinking chime in to give you support there. The fact that you entertain those fallacious thoughts explains why you can't distinguish between QWC's objective and methodology, and invoking fantasy. That says it all right there.