07-30-12, 05:37 PM #41
07-30-12, 05:38 PM #42
07-31-12, 11:30 AM #43
07-31-12, 11:31 AM #44
07-31-12, 11:33 AM #45
Determination of the Value of N0
In the original U(t), N0 is the number of protons and electrons (as combined into neutrons) in the original ‘Cosmic Egg’ and that N0, as the exponent of the envelope frequency cosine function, is the effective number of envelopes. The magnitude of that quantity, N0, can be approximately determined. The procedure is to calculate the mass of the universe and divide it by the mass of an individual proton, which is
(28) mp = 1.67...·10^-27 kilograms.
Hydrogen atoms or their equivalent, that is protons and their associated electrons, are the vast majority, more than 99% of the matter of the universe. The electron is of negligible mass compared to the proton within the limited accuracy of the present calculation, so it is reasonable here to deem the mass of the universe as being all protons.
Determining the mass of the universe, mU, proceeds by estimating the average mass density, ρ, and the applicable universe volume. Those estimates are rather lengthy and involved. The universe mass is the product of the two and its determination by that procedure is developed fully, with the following result for ρ.
(29) ρU ≈ 5·10^-27 kg/meter3
Next the volume of the universe is needed so as to obtain the universe’s mass as the product of the mass density and the volume. The volume of the universe develops as follows. The universe's radius applicable to the just obtained universe mass density should be based on an earlier time than the present because the investigations into estimating that density had to treat astral objects which we observe as they were some time in the past — their distance from us divided by the speed of their light.
Those earlier times were in the range of 0 to 7 or 8 Gyrs into the past. As we look into the past at an increasing radial distance from us the observed volumes increase as that radius cubed. For that reason the applicable universe radius to use with the universe mass density just determined is that which existed at the time into the past t ≈ 6.5 Gyrs ago. The development indicates that the estimated radius of the universe for the present calculation is:
(30) RU = 14 G-Lt-Yrs = 11·10^24 meters.
Therefore the mass of the universe, as the product of its volume based on that radius and its equation (30) density, is:
(31) mU = ρU · [4/3·π·RU^3] = 3·10^49 kg.
and the value of N0 from those data is
(32) N0 = mU/mp = 3·10^49 / 1.67·10^-27 ≈ 2·10^76
However, analyses in recent years of the hypothesized or speculated likely scenario of the early universe, the ‘big bang’, result in the rough estimate that there were then about 10^9, one billion, mutual annihilations for every proton present today. (This is based upon the observation that in the present day universe there are about 10^9 photons per proton. That estimate is a not unreasonable measure of the original number of annihilations. The mutual annihilations each produced two photons. Photons from other later causes, primarily black body radiation and electron orbital changes should be in an amount on the order of one photon per proton, far from 10^9, and leaving the original mutual annihilations as the dominant source).
In that case the 2·10^76 estimate for the present number of particles would give an original N0 value, at the initial instant before any mutual annihilations, of about 2·10^85. While all of this estimating is quite approximate it would nevertheless be reasonable to take that N0 was on the order of 10^85.
That is an immense number. And, in this case it is the effective exponent of the envelope cosine in U(t); it is the effective number of original envelopes to the ‘Cosmic Egg’. It is the bandwidth limit imposed by the very nature of the original (and on-going) medium’s wave oscillation and propagation.
1. The universe came into existence from a prior ‘something’ of absolute nothing. Yes, nothing!
a. The implied infinite rate of change was avoided by the transition from nothing to something being oscillations in a [1 – cosine]
b. The implied violation of conservation was avoided by two such oscillations simultaneously beginning, the two identical except of opposite amplitude [+/-].
2. The complexity of problem 1a, above, led to an apparent infinite set of frequencies in the original oscillation; however, characteristics of the situation limited that set to the finite number N0 = 10^85 .
a. One of the limiting factors was a bandwidth limitation.
b. The other limiting factor was in the nature of the coefficients of successive terms in the expansion of exponentiated cosines.
3. The expectation that the conservation-maintaining solution should have led to a complete mutual annihilation and no further universe was not fulfilled because of the nature of the complex waveforms.
a. They represented an immense, complex pair of particles, so unstable that they exploded in an immense radioactive decay into myriad particles, the particles of our universe today. They so exploded before they could completely mutually annihilate.
b. Our universe, as the evolved successor to that great event, is based on centers-of-oscillation of [1 – cosine] form, the protons, electrons and their anti-particles of our universe.
07-31-12, 11:35 AM #46
The Infinite is nowhere to be found as an actual, for it defeats it own aim of being so by an extent never being able to amount to it, so, only the finite is possible, and thus the universe is finite, as well as what gave rise to it—the opposing primal waves/envelopes within the same that were of it and are still in it today.
Eternity tried to be, as well, but couldn’t make it, as the state of sameness before the universe, for the universe became, it being all that the pre and potential ‘eternity’ was not.
The third Impossible of Nothing Forever could not stay as such, being perfectly unstable, but it is the basis of All—Nothing, that lack of anything that must ever precede the ‘sum-things’, for there is literally nothing to make anything of, which is undeniable.
The Impossible of Things Forever failed, too, for what is said to not be of anything is thus from Nothing.
Of all the supposed elemental fellows, only Nothing survives, but as unstable, thus producing Everything. when probability caught up to it in a big way.
It blew because infinite density is not possible, as well as by the cosine function reaching the limit of its bandwidth, and so the total annihilation of the opposing primal waves could not complete, the remainder becoming the universe.
THE EVER VICTORIOUS
Over Man came the Triumph of Love
But Chastity gave it quite a shove;
However, Death then all conquered,
But this was not the final word,
For Time happily reigned over all,
Or so it thought—as its thrall,
But, Divinity vanquished its trend;
Yet, still, this was not the end…
For, as ever, the basis was left to sting,
Since Nothing overwhelms everything.
Matter and Energy Particles
Electrons and protons, as centers of oscillation of the waves and their envelopes, are only only two stable matter particles in free space because their are only two ways to make matter, along with their corresponding anti-matter particles from the opposing primal waves. Electrons and protons have opposite charge, making for the dance of the atom. Energy/mass is wave frequency/wavelength, and charge is the wave amplitude.
A photon is the only possible energy particle in free space, necessarily neutral, of its 180 degree out of phase waves allowing positive and negative to live in peace.
So, there is a symmetry here, as ever.
All of nature is waves.
The default conditions forced the universe to be. No option; no choice.
Something had to be because Nothing couldn’t (stay).
Beneath, Below, and Further
In succession due does the large give way and rule to the ever smaller, the tiny, the minuscule, and onto the negligibly insufficient ‘AWOL’ of not really much of anything there at all. Yet, it is at this bottom herefrom that the all of the upward progression begins its call, and so here the answer lies, to the sprawl, at the boundary where nature wrote its scrawl of existence upon the non, and back and forth, a place not necessarily like that we thought it is, a lawless, formless realm that’s ever been the quiz.
Stability, too, does decrease, downward, woefully, melting within our descending journey, and so we must meet the perfect instability of the potentially perfect symmetry that cannot be, for, not only is it that everything must leak but that there can be not even one more antique of a controlling factor lurking about, for of anything else we’ve totally run out.
Here, then, the pulsations and the throbbings that must ever swing between being and not, ever averaging to nothing in their rise and fall, alternating here-there, varying.
Eternity and his elemental fellow rhymes of anything and everything bide their times, of which they have and always had continually all of the time of everlasting perpetuity, and, so, then, if one waits long enough, which is but an instant in forever’s trough, say, for a month of Sundays in donkey’s years, then not only do the rarest of events come to pass, but, eventually, so do all things possible that last.
And then, somewhere, sometime, it does the same all over again.
The TOE in Two Hands to Now in Hand
We always had the TOE in one of two hands, either as From Nothing or Something Forever, which was already a great accomplishment, and now we have the TOE, as From Nothing, and on the other hand we have, well, five fingers, for the other hand is now empty, but it signifies that universes can be ever and ever again.
Let’s hear it for Roger Ellman!
07-31-12, 03:03 PM #47
Today, I read in New Scientist - 30 July 2012 that the wave function looks to be physically real, not just a mathematical probability tool.
By Ioannis in forum Alternative TheoriesLast Post: 06-03-12, 04:01 AMReplies: 13
By thecollage in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 07-10-08, 05:13 AMReplies: 20
By Overdose in forum PoliticsLast Post: 02-03-05, 03:58 PMReplies: 11
By sargentlard in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 01-21-04, 02:43 PMReplies: 9
By Lesion42 in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 05-15-02, 06:54 PMReplies: 6