QWC revisited 2011

I am posting this here at SciForums because a year or so ago I was working on developing and evolving my personal view of cosmology and philosophy here. I do think I’m better able to state the axioms now than I have been before because I know better as I learn what the limits of science are. To me axioms that accompany a view of cosmology are meant to address those issues that science cannot yet address, the imponderables as I call them about the nature of the infinities that deal with the beginning, the boundaries, the limits, thresholds and processes of nature. This is an updated statement of the Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) axioms that to me personally serve as the self-evident and necessary truths from which QWC speculation is derived.

The limits of science are physical. We can observe the micro universe down to the internal components of the atom and we can manipulate the subatomic particles and gather data about their internal composition. We can observe the macro universe out to the reach of our best instruments like the space telescopes, radio observatories, and ever improving space based instruments.

Those are the frontiers of the science of cosmology.

Within the scientific community there is a function that is responsible for presenting science in an orderly fashion to the layman community and I call that function the “peer reviewed consensus” of what we tentatively know for sure. It is the role of this consensus function to take responsibility for the material that is fed to the popular media so that the layman community will respect the scientific method and will not find frequent instances of backtracking in statements issued.

In my limited view and level of understanding of that peer reviewed consensus, we don’t know what causes mass and gravity, we don’t know what caused the Big Bang, we don’t know the age or extent of the universe and we don’t know how to unify the forces of nature.

In QWC I deal with that lack of science by axioms and derived “truths” which all fall into the category of reasonable and responsible speculation. The axioms deal with what we cannot yet know due to the limits of our tools and ability to observe, and the derived truths are nothing more than speculations that I as a layman can go with. The scientific community is stymied because they are limited to the scientific method which shuns unsupported speculation. I find the ability to speculate is the tool that makes QWC better able to run with scenarios and “what ifs” than the legitimate scientific community can.

It is axiomatic in QWC that the universe has always existed; there was no beginning. It didn’t come from nothing, and if God did it we can’t prove it.

It is axiomatic that the universe is boundless. The matter and the energy of the universe are potentially infinite in extent and no matter where you are in the universe it appears homogeneous and isotropic and has appeared essentially the same for eternity on a grand scale. That is referred to as the Perfect Cosmological Principle in the scientific community. In QWC the grand scale is referred to as the arena landscape of the greater universe with the existence of arenas considered a necessary derived truth (speculation).

It is axiomatic that time simply passes. It is a derived truth that the observed fact that clocks run at different speeds during relative motion is a function of the relative energy density of the environments. The observed fact is that clocks run slower as they are accelerated and it is a derived truth in QWC that acceleration increases the energy density of the environment and that makes it appear that the rate at which time passes can fluctuate.

The actual rate of time passing does not fluctuate in QWC; time passes at the same rate at all points in space. That gives rise to the derived truth that there is a time continuum and any point in time which is called a “now” could be described as a “freeze frame” across the entire universe. Any motion that occurs between nows, regardless of the length of the time interval between nows, will represent the same duration at all points in the universe. That means that from one now to the next, the time interval is the same at all points in space regardless of relative motion. Therefore it is a derived truth that time dilation is a result of fluctuating energy density caused by acceleration and not due to the geometry of spacetime. In QWC space and time are components of all motion and time dilation is due to relative energy density of the environments where time is being measured to pass at different rates.

It is axiomatic in QWC that the time continuum passes smoothly at the level of reality meaning that the time intervals between nows don’t actually represent iterations of universal motion. The concept of iterations is derived from our inability to measure the time continuum at the level of reality because we are limited to clocks that operate in iterations.

It is axiomatic that energy is all there is. All space contains energy and energy exists as waves traversing space that is filled with the energy commodity. It is a derived truth that the presence of matter is composed of standing waves of energy with inflowing and out flowing components.

From the standing wave concept it is a derived truth that particles transform unsynchronized energy waves coming from surrounding space into synchronized waves exiting the particle equally in all directions. These equalized energy emissions from particles and objects traverse the space between objects and become the unsynchronized inflowing waves of other objects.

It is a derived truth in QWC that motion of objects in gravitational fields is caused by the process of energy density equalization that takes place within particles. The unsynchronized inflowing waves are transformed to synchronized out flowing waves by the process called quantum action that coincides with the establishment and maintenance of mass. The motion is a result of the shift of the presence of the particle toward the strongest net inflowing wave density as the converging unsynchronized inflowing waves are equalized into synchronized out flowing waves.

It is the scientific consensus that electromagnetic radiation consisting of waves across the entire electromagnetic spectrum is produced by oscillating dipoles consisting of charged atomic particles. It is derived truth that since particles themselves are speculated to be composed of waves of energy then there are two levels of order involved in electromagnetic radiation. One is the spectrum of wave energy that produces the presence of matter consisting of particles, and the other is the electromagnetic spectrum of wave energy produced by the oscillation of charged particles within atoms and molecules. Since both forms of wave energy traverse the energy commodity that fills all space, the frequency of those waves is the key to their perpetuation. Standing waves that produce matter are higher frequency than electromagnetic waves that are produced by matter.

In QWC tentativeness is an axiom. For example the observed and calculated expansion of the known universe is the consensus and is considered to be fact, but the scientific meaning of tentativeness is invoked and respected. If it were to be determined that the apparent expansion is actually an illusion, i.e. if new science could explain away the observed expansion then QWC would not need to derive the arena landscape concept and would revert to a steady state concept of the universe. I should point out that the arena landscape of the greater universe is itself a steady state concept on a grand scale that accommodates galactic separation within arenas and derives the concept of arena overlaps that cause galaxies to collapse into big crunches which generate new arenas from the debris of the overlapping parent arenas.

Those axioms and speculations derived from them constitute the primary QWC platform. Any observation of nature must be able to be explained by deriving explanations that are consistent with that platform or else the platform must be revised. I have the fun of maintaining the platform and the distinction of being the only person being deluded in quite this way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that is a mouth full. Reminds Me of the Madonna song Vogue

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I had to Google the lyrics but I don't disagree. There is a vague vogue connection.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You use 'derived' a lot but I don't see any derivations, just wordy claims.

 

When you say wordy claims are you referring to speculations as wordy claims?

 

I’m a layman, I’m not doing science, and I’m not making any claims. I know it must rub some of you the wrong way when I put a name like Quantum Wave Cosmology to my personal views on cosmology and I call myself Quantum Wave, because you have put in the rigor to become educated and proficient at what you do and you know that laymen like me haven't. I’m asking about your views because it seems to me that the scientific community has given much thought to the imponderables.

Granted, people actively engaged in their particular areas of science have too little professional time. Forum posting is limited free time which many would consider wasted by discussing these airy issues that are beyond science and the outlook for answers is bleak. I guess that puts my topic into the philosophical pseudoscience category, lol.

But it would seem to me that in the Pseudoscience forum at a reputable science forum site frequented by professionals there would be people who could find time to converse with a layman about these topics.

Anyone interested in a philosophical pseudoscience discussion about any parts of my opening post?

 

Sounds like a plan, but we still need to know the "why" so we can better comprehend the universe.

The cosmos or the All, which could be more that just the universe, would have no beginning, and so there could have been no instantaneous transition from nothing to something with no cause, but of what would the elemental stuff be comprised. Seems as if there could be no source for this basic material, but I don't want to get too far off track here. Of course, that is always the prime paradox, and for me it seems that the only answer is for existence to be of a partial nonexistence, a balance that must ever sum to nonexistence in the overview. I like asking of what the basic stuff could be made of, whether there forever or manufactured.

 

Thanks for the response. I don't shy away from the philosophical as I said. The "Why" of the universe has to be the quintessential question. I will tell you my speculation on that topic if you will tell me yours, lol.

The "balance" that must net out to non-existence is one reasonable speculation and I will acknowledge that it could be the reason that you see no eternal source for the material of the universe.

I would say that the elemental stuff is composed of energy and all energy has always existed. This speculation would mean that the universe will not net out to zero or non-existence but if that was the biggest point of difference between us I would say we are on the same page

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

I believe our visible universe is but a small part of a very much larger structure. The BB and expansion of our visible universe is nothing more than a natural event that happens within this larger structure. So I consider the concept that spacetime didn't exist before the BB as complete nonsense. If you believe that our visible universe is a part of nature (and I do) then you have to believe everything that exist in our visible universe has a life cycle (A beginning an ending and a life in between). Having said that, please consider the life cycle of a black hole. After you think about that for a while, please feel free to ask questions. I've been thinking about it for several years now.

 

I thought about a black hole, but it was very dark, so into it I placed the events I'd rather forget about. Now I am back to thinking of bright and colorful good events.

Our own patch of the cosmos may grow thin and die when the gruel can no longer serve the party due to the great expansion. Darn, another bad event.

 

The trick is to live in between bad events.

 

That's brilliant. How do you learn to do that?

 

Hi KilljoyKlown. I think you and I have some similar speculations. If I may refer to my OP, the second axiom says, “It is axiomatic that the universe is boundless. The matter and the energy of the universe are potentially infinite in extent and no matter where you are in the universe it appears homogeneous and isotropic and has appeared essentially the same for eternity on a grand scale.” That is referred to as the The Perfect Cosmological Principle, and from that link, “A cosmological hypothesis which states that the universe is on average homogeneous and isotropic, as well as constant in time.”

So when you mentioned thinking about black holes, I thought about how that statement fits with my view of cosmology. I think about arenas (an arena is equivalent to our observable universe) within the greater universe and each arena is based on the concept of a unique type of black hole that forms when two or more parent arenas overlap resulting in the formation of an ultimate black hole that would represent a big crunch. Each crunch would contain the energy equivalent of our entire observable universe that occupies the Hubble expanse of space that we observe to be expanding. Expansion is really observed as galaxy separation where galaxies and galaxy groups are seen to be moving away from each other at an accelerating rate. It is that galaxy separation that would lead to arenas intersecting and overlapping in existing space.

In the arena landscape of the greater universe these arenas would begin with an ultimate black hole formed in the overlap of parent arenas which, by way of some speculated new physics, would burst into expansion in a Big Bang type of event. The arena landscape of the greater universe that I refer to is composed of a potentially infinite number of similar arenas, arena overlaps, and big crunches at any given point in time.

 

Killjoy, I received your interesting PM and find ideas that are well thought out. I think we share interest in many topics. We both might want to talk throug our views where they differ since we have some initial agreements on the big picture.

Do you see what I mean by an arena, and if so would you take a crack at contrasting my arena landscape of the greater universe view with yours in that regard? Everyone knows we are just speculating and where better to do that than here in Pseudoscience?

 

I started with an axiom about the beginning. It is one of the things that the best science under the scientific method cannot tell us and there is no enthusiasm or confidence that science will ever be able to tell us if there was a beginning or not.

It sounds funny to say it that way but just because were are here doesn't mean that there was a beginning. The option that the universe has always existed is there for those of us who don't see merit in the alternatives that something can come from nothing or that a Creator God will be proved to exit by some irrefutable act or evidence.

In the meantime, in the absence of proof to the contrary and to use the terminology of axioms, I personally find it a necessary truth if not self-evident that the universe has always existed. I start from there.

 

Stuff having been forever is not possible since the 'elementals' are limited as well as having very specific particulars. If forever, what would have been responsible for their definition? Or if just reduced to energy, which is still a real substance, then what and why of its amount and location and properties, too?

The basis of the 'elemental' itself would still have to have been forever eternal and so it is almost the same to say that stuff was forever, but perhaps more accurate to say that stuff was always forever becoming.

 

This thread is speculation. The first axiom addresses the universe as an entity that had no beginning. I don’t assume that all the same stuff or even the same particles have been present forever. Nothing but energy has always existed. Particle particulars are that energy is the component of particles, i.e. particles are composed of energy in quantum increments and are maintained by high frequency inflowing and out flowing standing energy waves.

Yes, I am speculating that all is reduced to the energy commodity, the only commodity in the universe.

Energy as a real substance alone is not physical. It is waves of energy traversing the energy commodity that is necessary to establish the presence of particles. Newton's bucket, a thought experiment introduced by Newton and contemplated by Einstein comes to mind. At the time Mach had proposed that gravity was instantaneous and so water in a spinning bucket in deepest space would instantly feel the gravity from distant mass in all directions and the water would creep up the side of the bucket. Einstein proposed that gravity was not instantaneous and the it was the geometry of spacetime that the water would "feel" and that would cause the water to creep.

In QWC, Newton’s spinning bucket would only exist for as long as the inflowing waves were available to sustain the standing wave pattern that makes up the particles from which the bucket and the water are composed. Standing waves have two components, the inflowing waves from all directions and the out flowing waves in all directions. If you did a thought experiment with a bucket of water spinning in otherwise empty space, i.e. you cut off the inflowing energy wave component of the standing waves, you wouldn’t have to worry about if the water would creep up the side of the bucket. The bucket and the water would immediately be disbursed at the speed of light into the surrounding empty space in the form of out flowing energy waves in all directions. More on this later I hope.

Exactly. The stuff was not forever, the energy that makes up the stuff is forever in QWC.

 

I know I am going to go too fast for the forum to deliberate and address my thread as I go, but maybe that is good reason to move quickly, lol.

My reference above to Newton’s bucket thought experiment is useful in explaining how QWC is differentiated from the geometry of spacetime. In QWC the bucket and water burst outward at the speed of light into surrounding space if the inflowing waves are cut off. Also, there is the difference between frame-dragging in General Relativity and the imbalance in the inflowing component of the standing waves in QWC. I think that in GR the water feels the frame dragging caused by the geometry of spacetime and in QWC the water creeps in an attempt to move toward the direction of the net imbalance in the inflowing wave density. As long as the dual wave flow is maintained, there is almost no difference in the effect caused by QWC gravity vs. the geometry of spacetime. When I get through the initial discussion of the axioms I will spend some time explaining the presence of mass and the cause of gravity in QWC to discuss that small difference.

In the mean time, the second axiom of QWC is that the universe is boundless. In my short discussion with KilljoyKlown I described the second axiom:

This is a very useful axiom obviously. A boundless universe is spatially infinite. To use a syllogism, (the first axiom) the universe has always existed, (the second axiom) the universe is boundless (exists everywhere), so we have a universe that is infinite in space and time.

We do not know these two axioms to be true. They are issues that are not determined in modern cosmology and are not established using the scientific method. There is no provable answer to these “imponderables” and the consensus cosmology does not offer suggestions. That is why I deal with them axiomatically as if they were true, either self-evident or necessary truths upon which to build; from which to derive further logical truths.

Some are offended by me using the word “truth”, but truth is part of the terminology of axiomatic statements. That is just part of the language used and I don’t mean to delude anyone into thinking that an axiomatic truth is truth in reality. It is a figure of speech.

Some will be bothered by me using the word “derived” in regard to truths that follow from the axioms. Most understand that when I derive a truth from the axioms it is a logical truth and not a characteristic of reality.

Also there is no intention to delude anyone (you) into thinking that QWC is scientific theory. It is not; not under Popper’s philosophy of science nor any other philosophy, and I don’t propose any tests that would bring it in under the umbrella of scientific theory. It is just my personal set of views about cosmology.

 

Hi, QW

How is your cosmology different from current ones?
Does it predict anything?
How long do stars last in your theory?

 

Thank you for asking, Tashja.

I have covered some of the differences so far and there are more that I will be mentioning if the tread proceeds smoothly. So far I have mentioned some important differences in passing and so let me mention those. One is that it is speculation. Current cosmologies that are under the banner of science, i.e. scientific theory are limited by what can be shown by following the scientific method. I am not in that class; I’m not a science professional and so my cosmology is of little consequence in any circles except my own small one. Scientific cosmologies don't speculate and stay within the guidelines of the scientific method. QWC accepts known science and some theory but uses what I believe are the limits of science as departure points for speculation about the unknown.

Even so, I take it seriously and try to keep from being inconsistent with observations and scientific data and try to fill in the gaps in current cosmologies by the use of axioms and speculations. I trust forum people to help me with that but I know how hard it is for a busy professional to read these pseudoscience threads so I don’t have expectations that there will be a rush to help keep me from some inconsistencies.

In posts 17 and 18 above I discuss Newton’s bucket and what the outcome of the experiment would be in a QWC universe. That is a good place to look for differences.

I have been working through the axioms and it is fair to say that they represent differences to the current cosmologies also. I use the axioms to move forward from what other cosmologies face as “imponderables”. Big Bang Theory for example doesn’t address the question of how the universe began or if it has always existed. QWC invokes an axiom that is supposed to be taken as a truth; the universe did not have a beginning. It has always existed. I also mentioned that the universe exists everywhere; by axiom it is said to be boundless in space and time.

I briefly mentioned that particles are composed of waves of energy, standing waves that have inflowing and out flowing components. In the Newton’s bucket post it was this feature of particles that differentiates the outcome of the thought experiment from what Newton, Mach, and Einstein expressed. Also, though I didn’t yet mention it specifically, particles in QWC have volume. Current theories say that particles can be points with no internal composition and in my version the internal composition is made up the converging inflowing and out flowing waves. I have written about that in more detail elsewhere which I will bring in as the thread unfolds.

How is that for some differences, lol?

They say good theories predict verifiable results. In the last post I pointed out that QWC is just a set of personal ideas about my view of cosmology and it does not fall under the umbrella of a scientific theory, using Popper’s philosophy as a guide.

QWC does describe events; I guess you could say it predicts events that have to do with both the large scale macro view and the small scale micro view of the universe. The nature of particles, the standing wave concept that establishes the presence of mass, the nature and cause of motion, gravity, large arenas like our visible expanding known universe, and a greater universe beyond composed of arenas in various stages of the arena process … those are all differences from modern science and can be thought of as predictions in a layman sort of way.

Everyone has their fifteen minutes of fame.

No wait, stars and galaxies are as we see them. There is nothing in my cosmology that would suggest any different view of our universe as it stands today. Stars last just as long in QWC as in Big Bang Theory. In the future I see things unfolding differently so you could say that I predict a difference from the views of modern science as the arena process unfolds with us in it.

I do have some speculations about star formation, galaxy formation, the source of the separation momentum of galaxies, and the fate of all of the galaxies in our extended Hubble volume of space. Those views differ from the current cosmologies but the time scales for them to play out are quite long.

I hope you read along and that you feel free to comment or suggest ideas that you think might fit in.