Thanks to a sugggestion by Quantum_Wave, I am starting this thread regarding the EEMU Hypothesis (Equilibrium Evaporative Model for the Universe. This hypothesis is open for your constructive input, discussions, or brow-beating, as the case may be. Rather than post the entire hypothesis here (~ 10.5 MB), I offer the following link for those who are interested. The hypothesis offers an alternative to the Standard Cosmological Model. https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/ Figures appeared 'fuzzy' to me on the webpage, but click on figures for greater detail. Thanks for participating! wlminex
Looks interesting, wlminex. I'll take a look at it tomorrow from the Maple pavilion, my main place for contemplation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
This is the first indication that there could be serious problems with your idea.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
QW Comments I did take a first look through Chapter 1. First let me ask what you think about the standard cosmology of Big Bang Theory, i.e. what is wrong with it that inspires EEMU? You say that EEMU permits but does not require a BB singularity so is spacetime part of EEMU and how can it be, given the nature of the SQR to MR process? Explain. So when (and if) VPs “derive” out of the high energy SQR they may become contained in stable particles which would have mass. When that occurs, does the energy level of the remaining SQR drop correspondingly (by the amount of energy contained in the MR), i.e. energy conservation. That leaves a background SQR at the CMB energy level, maybe in a step down process. Is the process continuous meaning will the CMB ~3 K continue to drop? You call the process of quark containment a quantum evaporative process. I take it to mean that the process trends toward equilibrium between the SQR with the MR, right? What determines the limits or the extent that equilibrium takes place? Is there some average universal ratio between SQR and MR that once achieved will remain steady until interrupted by some event like the formation of a black hole? Is a black hole composed of MR or SQR or what? How does a black hole form? What if anything emerges from a black hole and how? What causes the fluctuation in the SQR that initiates the process of MR formation? Clear this up for me. You mention the irreversibility of MR except upon the addition of sufficient energy to re-establish initial conditions, e.g., black holes or gravitational singularities. Do you distinguish between black holes and gravitational singularities or are they one in the same? I see the VPs can annihilate each other or they can go on to result in MR. When they annihilate each other is there an energy remnant that changes the nature of the SQR when that process actively takes place? What determines if an environment will produce MR or just produce VPs that goes back into the SQR? The CMB produced by SQR to MR action has wave energy characteristics that mimic the thermalization of electromagnetic radiation (apparently the source of CMB). Why change the source of the CMBR? Doesn’t the environment “light up” with EM early on and why wouldn’t the early EM thermalize into the CMBR? Cosmic rays from SQR, is that on ongoing random occurrence or did it happen at a time long ago when the SQR to MR took place? How long ago? SQR doesn’t normally interact with MR so what is the difference between the photon energy that is readily absorbed by MR and the SQR which isn’t absorbed by MR? In the analogy at the end of chapter 1, you mention a balloon in a box analogy. What constitutes the “box” in a real environment, i.e. what kind of constraints on an environment would exist to allow the processes described in the analogy to take place? Had anyone else submitted comments and will you share them and your responses? I do like many aspects of your model and will complete an analysis in due course.
QW: Thanks for your interest/input/comments. Busy at the moment (making a living!), but will address your questions (as best I can) later today, or over the week-end. Regards, wlminex
. . . I've added my diatribe re: A New "Twist" on Strings and Superstirngs to the EEMU webpage at: https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/
Answers to QW queries wlminex attempts to answer Quantum_Wave’s questions on this thread: Moderator: Pls excuse this voluminous post - won't happen often!. . .thanks QW: I did take a first look through Chapter 1. First let me ask what you think about the standard cosmology of Big Bang Theory, i.e. what is wrong with it that inspires EEMU? ANS: The BBT is a ‘best guess’ hypothesis and most physicists are ‘on the bandwagon’. The BBT interpretations based on observations are just that – interpretations. Representing CMBR as a dying whimper of BB is also just an interpretation. I prefer to examine cosmological processes as equilibrium events that are continuous. The EEMU hypothesis is presented in that (latter) context: the SQR MR + CMBR is envisioned as nothing more than a simple, continuous, equilibrium, reaction process, and common free-energy relationships can be applied. These relationships should be quantifiable (by others – not me!). I used to do free-energy calculations for common chemical and petrologic reactions – example: reaction of oxygen +2 hydrogen H2O . . .an exothermic reaction that releases ~ 160 (?) Kcal of thermal energy. A similar reaction (above) in EEMU occurs that releases left-over energy as CMBR. QW: You say that EEMU permits but does not require a BB singularity so is spacetime part of EEMU and how can it be, given the nature of the SQR to MR process? Explain. ANS: Local perturbations in the SQR ‘matrix’ may generate BB’s, depending upon the level of perturbation (caused by what?). But BB’s are not required, since the EEMU process allows for continuous creation of MR as the dominant and ongoing process. I suppose it is possible that a miniscule BB triggered the EEMU process, that has been ‘cascading’ ever since. I feel that spacetime is a characteristic of the MR part (detectible) of the universe. Spacetime may (or may not) be a contingent of SQR . . not qualified to determine this . . .I prefer (envision) that SQR is NOT consistent with the dimensional aspects of spacetime. QW: So when (and if) VPs “derive” out of the high energy SQR they may become contained in stable particles which would have mass. When that occurs, does the energy level of the remaining SQR drop correspondingly (by the amount of energy contained in the MR), i.e. energy conservation. That leaves a background SQR at the CMB energy level, maybe in a step down process. Is the process continuous meaning will the CMB ~3 K continue to drop? ANS: Last, first – If the EEMU is a continuous ‘process’, and the ‘reaction’ is continuous, I predict that the ~ 3K CMBR is a sustained (at 3K) energy component– not decreasing – the EEMU process continues to “emit” CMBR, at 3K (no more, no less) as a byproduct of the process. Yes, I’d expect the total energy level of SQR (est. ~ 10 ^ 160 erg/cc) to decrease – with the caveat that the total SQR energy level may be sustained by other (SQR source) processes that I cannot currently fathom (visualize) at my level of creativity. Also, one might argue that CMBR is decreasing as spacetime MR expansion occurs. In all, energy conservation IS preserved during the EEMU process. It’s just a matter of being able understand (and quantify) all of the variables involved (e.g., SQR energy, MR energy equivalence, CMBR, dark energy?, reversal of the same components in gravitational singularities and black holes, etc.). Stepdown process? . . .yes, but not to the extent that all SQR ‘evaporates’ to MR, etc. My best analogy would be a ‘waterfall’: . . .there is a continual source of water . . .water goes over the falls . . . (to a lower potential energy state) . . this is a one-way ‘threshold’ (i.e., potential energy decreases as it is converted to kinetic energy). But . . .due to the hydrogeologic cycle (e.g., like blackholes), the kinetic energy is eventually converted back to potential energy ( e.g., for water, via evapotranspiration, rainfall, glacial ice melts, etc.) and the river continues to “run” The ‘threshold’ energy drop in EEMU is the produced by conversion of SQR (or VPs therefrom) to MR and the potential energy “drop” is manifest as kinetic CMBR. QW: You call the process of quark containment a quantum evaporative process. I take it to mean that the process trends toward equilibrium between the SQR with the MR, right? What determines the limits or the extent that equilibrium takes place? Is there some average universal ratio between SQR and MR that once achieved will remain steady until interrupted by some event like the formation of a black hole? Is a black hole composed of MR or SQR or what? How does a black hole form? What if anything emerges from a black hole and how? ANS: SQR is sustained at such a high energy level (see above) that the (comparative) miniscule SQR MR transition is a mere ‘drop-in-the-bucket’ in the cosmological scheme. What limits the extent of the EEMU process? . . the rate (time?) of the EEMU process . . .or, how rapidly can quarks and gluons can combine, and under what energy parameters, to form VPs, and whether the VPs sustain as MR, or are ‘resorbed’ into the SQR matrix. I visualize that SQR permeates ALL of the universe . . . including MR (matter) and BHs. Since BHs also contain SQR, the SQR within may act as a ‘seed’ base (?) for reversal of the EEMU process within the BHs when BH energy conditions approach those of SQR. I think BHs form by simple physical (i.e., gravitational) “laws” constraining the behavior of matter in MR. What emerges from a BH (other than Hawking radiation?) is a continual (perhaps abrupt, as in mini-BB?) dissipation of the BH as the matter (whatever form that is!) in the BH rejoins the SQR matrix. QW: What causes the fluctuation in the SQR that initiates the process of MR formation? ANS: Probably a random quantum energy fluctuation, or a mini-BB, or perhaps proximity of SQR to some hefty MR event (e.g., BH). I don’t think that SQR interacts directly with non-eventful MR ( otherwise we’d likely detect it) Guess I just dunno . . . QW: Clear this up for me. You mention the irreversibility of MR except upon the addition of sufficient energy to re-establish initial conditions, e.g., black holes or gravitational singularities. Do you distinguish between black holes and gravitational singularities or are they one in the same? ANS: My guess is that they are the same, or at least similar, but I’m not familiar enough with their inner-workings to really state an answer to your query. The same basic MR processes probably generate both – differences probably depend upon starting materials and existent conditions. QW: I see the VPs can annihilate each other or they can go on to result in MR. When they annihilate each other is there an energy remnant that changes the nature of the SQR when that process actively takes place? What determines if an environment will produce MR or just produce VPs that goes back into the SQR? ANS: I think that most VPs are resorbed into SQR . . . only a few actually ‘make-it’ to MR permanence. . . but these “few” comprise our detectible MR portion of the universe . . . so, based on our current configuration(s) of the MR, the cosmological EEMU process (and the SQR matrix) is profoundly large-in-extent and total energy. Whether the (VPs) stay in MR (as MPs) or return to SQR (resorb) may be a function of quantum vacuum conditions . . . if VPs are proximal to MPs, they probably stay (guilt by association?), if no MPs are proximal, they (most VPs) probably annillate (self-destruct),and resorb into SQR . . . what’s also happening within the local SQR matrix condition (energy-wise) may also be a factor. QW: The CMB produced by SQR to MR action has wave energy characteristics that mimic the thermalization of electromagnetic radiation (apparently the source of CMB). Why change the source of the CMBR? Doesn’t the environment “light up” with EM early on and why wouldn’t the early EM thermalize into the CMBR? ANS: I dunno . . . I just think that the resultant EM thermalization would (appear to) be the same, regardless of which interpretation (standard Model or EEMU) is selected. The EEMU hypothesis simply presumes that CMBR is ‘created’ by a continuous and still-continuing process via an energetic threshold drop (e.g. waterfall analogy?) – and NOT necessarily as a steadily-decreasing energy reverberation from a BB event. This threshold energetic process ’ is uniform, at a predictable continuous energy level (~ 3K), as the ‘reaction SQR MR proceeds. QW: Cosmic rays from SQR, is that on ongoing random occurrence or did it happen at a time long ago when the SQR to MR took place? How long ago? ANS: SQR ro MR is STILL going on! My suspicion is that CRs are somehow tied-into the EEMU process, but I can’t visualize the mechanism. CRs are also generated in some supernovae events that appear to have some source ‘directionality’. QW: SQR doesn’t normally interact with MR so what is the difference between the photon energy that is readily absorbed by MR and the SQR which isn’t absorbed by MR? ANS: The reason I speculate that SQR does NOT interact with MR is that, if so, we would have detected some interactive perturbations in MR. Since we have not detected (thus far) such (interactions), I suspect that our MR ‘detectors’ (made from mass) are too ‘coarse ‘ to detect’ SQR constituents (e.g., gluons, quarks, strings?) on scale of the Planck-length. Likewise the dimensional aspects (if there are any!) of photons are also too ‘coarse’ to interact detectibly (i.e., are much smaller than MR stuff, but still, much larger than SQR stuff) with gluons and quarks. I do wonder that SQR may be the ‘carrier’ of photons (OMG! . . .that rascally aether, perhaps!) and that the B and E components of photons may perhaps be induced by SQR. QW: In the analogy at the end of chapter 1, you mention a balloon in a box analogy. What constitutes the “box” in a real environment, i.e. what kind of constraints on an environment would exist to allow the processes described in the analogy to take place? ANS: The ‘box” is just a temporal 3-D slice of the universe (no boundaries of universe inferred!) that contains the proposed visualization. This small ‘piece’ of the universe can be extrapolated to the entire universe, but it is necessary to limit the extent of the process so that it can be more easily visualized. The exercise is intended to simulate (albeit, poorly!) the expansion of the universe via the EEMU process. Helium and nitrogen ‘mix’ outside the ‘box’ simulates SQR. The osmotic action of helium, relative to non-osmotic behavior of nitrogen, both relative to the helium-permeable balloon-skin , simulates the universe’s expansion as helium preferentially enters the balloon, to the exclusion of nitrogen. Thereby, the balloon expands as it osmotically ‘fills’ with helium (to the exclusion of nitrogen) to the point where partial pressure of helium inside the balloon equals the partial pressure of helium outside the balloon . . . then expansion of the balloon stops. However, in the actual (hypothesized) EEMU process, this expansion may never stop, because, in the balloon exercise, the helium-nitrogen mixture outside the box is continually renewed. I admit that the balloon analogy is a poor one. . . . that is why I started a Sciforums thread (to which no one expressed interest) re: visualizing the expanding universe. QW: Had anyone else submitted comments and will you share them and your responses? ANS: Few responsive posts . . . .so far . . . I do like many aspects of your model and will complete an analysis in due course. QW: I hope these explanations answer your queries and pique your interest . . . I really appreciate your feedback and hope our discussions continue to be fruitful . . . .wlminex
Good job at responding to my questions. I am going to read through the rest of the paper now that I have the basics and if you don't get banned Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!eekPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I should have another set of questions ahead. Hang in there.
I haven't looked at your idea or anything, your thread just seemed lonely so I thought I would add this. I actually did read a line or 2 and realized that I didn't want to waste anymore time on it - sorry.
Origin . . . thanks for the look . . . yes its lonely out here . . . . . but I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything . . . just planting seeds . . .
Prometheus: . . . if it really matters what my Ph.D. is in . . . . . link to one of my other webpages: https://sites.google.com/site/manskercablejig/ This webpage summarizes my primary career domain. My non-career scientific and philosophical interests and research are more expansive.
I present my diatribes as "HYPOTHESES" . . . not theories . . . not yet very far up-the - SM (scientific method - not Standard Model, for physicists) ladder . . . . I would have thought that a true scientist would have an open mind to new ideas!
Members: I have requested from James R that my subscription to Sciforum be terminated. Hope to hear from you on occasion. :
A true scientist knows the difference between reason and evidence based supposition and just making random ignorant shit up. Guess which your claims fall under? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
