# Thread: Mass *has* gravity

1. Guest254, I'm not writing this thread for your benefit. A simple solution to your having to read it is ... don't read it.

2. Well that's not very nice! I'm only showing an interest in your work.

3. Originally Posted by Guest254
Well that's not very nice! I'm only showing an interest in your work.
Oh geesz, OK. You make me feel bad now. The 10^-50, like I said was intended to show that quantum action required metrics below those that deal with fundamental particles. Quantum action was supposed to occur at that 10^-50 rate just for talking purposes. I mentioned I used Planck time and sped it up quite a bit.

The energy of a particle in QWC is determined by the energy quanta density of the particle. The number of energy quanta in the particle are the count of quantum actions that take place within the particle within the speculated refresh rate of quantum action which is the number I mentioned that was strictly for perspective and for talking purposes of 10^-50 seconds.

The energy of a photon lets say is Planck's constant times the speed of light/wavelength of the photon in meters.

I think that photon frequencies range for 10^3 to say 10^25 cycles per second or so which converts to wavelength, so by taking the wavelength in meters of a given photon frequency you can calculate the energy of the photon.

The quantum world is completely different than the electromagnetic world because a quantum has no charge, and is a spherical wave. But if you use the formula for the energy of a photon, and play with the frequencies/wavelengths needed to get an energy in the 10^-50 range, you will have the frequency/wavelength of the quantum action in completely meaningless units .

So Guest254, I am writing this to you exclusively; do me a favor and work on this and don't reply until you have the math.

4. Originally Posted by quantum_wave
The 10^-50, like I said was intended to show that quantum action required metrics below those that deal with fundamental particles.
Sorry dude, but with every reply you give I get less and less confident that you have any sort of reason for the number 10^{-50} other than it happens to be smaller than the Planck time! Perhaps if you explain what you mean by "quantum action required metrics"? Alternatively just explain why it's 10^{-50} - but that doesn't seem to want to happen.

5. Well you got me there dude. When I figure it out you'll be the first to know .

I hope you're not mad like JJ Cannon who left and never returned .

6. Hey, no hard feelings! Just wish you'd told me you didn't have a reason for 10^{-50} earlier!!!

Good luck with your work.

7. Originally Posted by Guest254
Hey, no hard feelings! Just wish you'd told me you didn't have a reason for 10^{-50} earlier!!!

Good luck with your work.
No hard feelings. I thought I answered your question honestly and courteously, and went over and over it and you couldn't help but point out that I didn't have a reason for 10^-50. I guess I should have admitted that sooner.

In my defense I just wanted to try to put the world of QWC into perspective in case anyone was interested. My mistake as you point out so passively was in trying to do that in the first place. I guess everyone knows that if there is a level of order where a fundamental unifying force operates, it would employ much smaller metrics than the world of interactions between fundamental particles of the Standard Particle Model.

Thanks for getting me off that kick and back to reality.

8. Originally Posted by quantum_wave
it would employ much smaller metrics
You've lost me again! Sorry!

9. Originally Posted by Guest254
You've lost me again! Sorry!
I use the term metrics to mean measurements. It is a usage familiar to my profession, management accounting, and maybe unfamiliar to you.

10. Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I use the term metrics to mean measurements. It is a usage familiar to my profession, management accounting, and maybe unfamiliar to you.
Ah, ok. Metric has a very different meaning in physics. This might have been unfamiliar to you!

11. So are you saying that your profession is physics? I don't doubt that but why the interest in pushing the issue about the 10^-50. As a physicist, doesn't that seem like something a former accountant would say, lol?

12. Originally Posted by quantum_wave
So are you saying that your profession is physics?
Good God no!
Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I don't doubt that but why the interest in pushing the issue about the 10^-50.
My issue was, and still is, genuine confusion with regards the number 10^{-50}! I don't see how you arrived at this result. However, this is your thread so if you don't want to talk about it that's fine!

13. Originally Posted by Guest254
Good God no!

My issue was, and still is, genuine confusion with regards the number 10^{-50}! I don't see how you arrived at this result. However, this is your thread so if you don't want to talk about it that's fine!
You're not "genuinely confused", but you are being passive aggressive about something. It could be that I offended you in some of my statements here or elsewhere and you find that a little pay back on my thread is fair.

You've already worn out the passive aggressive thing so be an adult about it and confront me on the real issue.

14. Why are you so defensive? I really don't have any sort of ulterior motives: I happened to read your post, thought "ooh, I wonder how that works" and I've asked a question. Surely you want people to take interest in your work?

15. This is for Honcho in particular and any other visitors in general:

Originally Posted by Mike Honcho
I probably need more prerequisite knowledge of "energy density equalization" to thoroughly understand that post.
I assume what you are getting at would be similar to particulates condensing from a super saturated liquid or maybe dew forming when humidity is to high for the given ambient temperature.
Those are not bad analogies.

The problem with using analogies is that they all have baggage. By baggage I mean that there are many things about super saturated liquids or about dew forming in high humidity that don't apply, baggage.

Matter is composed of energy quanta in my opinion. In particular, I describe energy quanta and quantum action in my thread. I do use an analogy there where I say that energy quanta and quantum action are akin to rouge ocean waves. If you don't agree that matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, offer an alternative idea about the composition of matter.

If matter is composed of energy in the form of energy quanta, and where energy quanta exist, quantum action exists, then you can begin to understand what I mean by "too much energy density in the universe for matter not to exist". It goes as follows:

The energy equalization threshold is the highest average energy density of the universe that could exist without any matter formation. At that threshold, perfect equilibrium would exist in the universe and entropy would be complete, i.e. there would be no useful energy. There would be no energy quanta or quantum action because energy quanta and quantum action require an average energy density greater than the equalization threshold.

None of the energy in excess of the threshold can be equalized and it therefore starts to cause energy density fluctuations within the otherwise equalized average energy density.

In QWC, at the existing average energy density of the universe, the energy density fluctuations are so prevalent that the energy background has produced huge amounts of matter across the greater universe, in fact just like the energy content of the greater universe is infinite, the matter content is also potentially infinite.

Matter forms from the energy density fluctuations that achieve quantum status which might be a good subject of a post of its own.

16. What I am going to propose next is something that never happened. It never happened because in my view the universe, energy, and matter have always existed. In my last post I described the “equalization threshold” where the average energy density is at the maximum density that can exist without matter, i.e. without energy quanta forming.

Though I don’t think the universe ever has or ever will be at or below the equalization threshold, there are cosmologies that predict otherwise. So I wanted to describe a scenario where the average energy density of the universe is above the equalization threshold by a tiny increment to demonstrate what I think is the way energy density fluctuations would interact. The increment would be a high energy density patch of space within the equalized energy density background. It would be a tiny energy density fluctuation that exists simply because the energy density is slightly above the energy equalization threshold.

That tiny patch of high energy density would expand because one characteristic of high energy density is that it changes energy density by expanding to achieve equalization. But the maximum energy density that can become equalized universally has been exceeded and so equalization of this increment on a universal basis cannot occur.

So what happens to that patch of high energy density? It expands spherically forever across the infinite universe, and its energy density approaches the equalization threshold density but never reaches it because this lone energy density fluctuation represents the first increment of energy density that puts the entire universe above the threshold.

Suppose there where two such patches of high energy density each representing a separate energy density fluctuation. It doesn’t matter how far they are apart because they each would expand spherically until they met and intersected.

As they intersect they would form a shape called a 3-D lens at the intersection and the volume of the lens would increase as the spheres expand. The amount of energy in the lens is doubled where the energy from each expanding sphere of high energy density overlaps.

This link about Sphere-Sphere Intersections at mathworld.wolfram walks through the math of how to calculate the volume of the intersection of two such spheres.

To get the height of the caps you need to calculate $d$ and $d’$, which requires the radius of the circle formed at the intersection of the two spheres.

If you know $R$ and $r$, then using $x^2+y^2+z^2=R^2$ you can calculate $x$. Then using $x$, the radius of the circle at the intersection can be calculated. Using the wolfram example the height of each cap can be calculated once you know the radius of the intersection circle.

From the steps described in the link I have put together a formula to relate the energy density in the overlap in this scenario relative to the energy density of the expanding spheres. It yields a percentage figure that represents the amount of the energy in the two energy fluctuations that have become merged in the overlap. It reflects the characteristic of high energy density to equalize and therefore expects that the energy density in the overlap will be an equalized combination of the overlapped portion of the two fluctuations.

The energy density that is equalized within the overlap is higher than the energy density in either fluctuation. And the reference to equalization within the overlap is entirely different than equalization on a universal scale. The overlap represents a separate energy density environment within the infinite universal environment.

In this simple example we have two high energy density fluctuations expanding across an otherwise equalized space. This formula should then give the percentage of the energy from the two fluctuations that falls within the volume of the caps that make up the 3-D lens shaped space at their intersection.

$\frac{V_{cap1}}{V_1} + \frac{V_{cap2}}{V_2} + \frac{V_{cap1}}{V_2} + \frac{V_{cap2}}{V_1} = \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 R – h)}{4/3 \pi R^3} + \frac{1/3 \pi h’^2 (3 r – h’)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 R – h)}{4/3 \pi r’^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h’^2 (3 r – h’)}{4/3 \pi R^3}$

17. I am going to the next step in something that never happened. It never happened because in my view the universe, energy, and matter have always existed. But these steps demonstrate the nature of the universe as it is envisioned to exist in QWC.

In my last post I used the “equalization threshold” as a starting point where the entire universe was at equilibrium. No useful energy existed until I added a couple of increments of energy to raise the average energy density of the universe a tiny bit above the threshold.

Those two increments of energy were referred to as energy density fluctuations. The term “energy density fluctuation” is important in QWC because mass and gravity depend of them.

As you can see from the last post, once an energy density fluctuation exists above the threshold, it always exists. It expands spherically and never becomes fully equalized with the background energy. In QWC this aspect of the fluctuation is referred to as “eternal” or “infinite expansion”.

You can also see from the last post that when two such eternal fluctuations intersect, there is a mathematical definition of the intersection that represents the energy content of the intersection relative to the two intersecting fluctuations. The energy content of the intersection will increase as the two parents continue to expand and contribute energy to the intersection.

That intersection itself has become a third energy density fluctuation and it expands as the two “parent” fluctuations continue to expand. But this third fluctuation, the intersection of the two originals, will expand independently, reshaping itself into a spherical expansion.

It will still be fed energy from the two parents that will always form part of its surrounding energy environment, but it will also bulge out into the space at the intersection as it reshapes itself spherically.

Visually the three fluctuations will appear as three overlapping expanding spheres of energy density within the equalized background of threshold energy.

No energy from the three fluctuations can be added to the background because the background is already full to the threshold level.

No energy can be added to the expanding fluctuations from the background because the background insists on remaining equalized by its very nature. If it were to contribute energy to the expanding fluctuations in one location, it would draw energy from another location to remain fully equalized.

In fact at this point it is worthwhile to take a paragraph to discuss the energy dynamics of an expanding fluctuation in an equalized environment. As expansion takes place the energy density of the fluctuation gets lower and lower. The energy density within the fluctuation is self-equalizing itself within the increasing space that it occupies. But it is not equalizing itself by adding energy to the background, it equalizes by maintaining its original energy content but by spreading that content into a growing space with thinner and thinner density relative to the threshold's equalized energy density, i.e. relative to the background.

However, this is not the case at the overlap, i.e. at the intersection of two fluctuations. When the spherical fluctuations overlap, the intersection draws energy from the two “parent” fluctuations to form a third fluctuation that has twice the average energy density of the parents at the time that the intersection takes place. Even if the energy density of the two parents is different, the energy density of the intersection will combine their energy and equalize itself within its own space at twice the average the average energy density of the parents.

Picture it as energy flowing into the intersection from both parents and producing a third fluctuation. Every fluctuation is its own equalized energy density environment within its own expanding spherical space.

18. QWC general observation 1

You may be able to see that the previous post mentions circumstances that could actually form the basis of other cosmologies.

The amount of energy contained in any given energy density fluctuation could vary greatly from the implied tiny individual fluctuations that I have introduced into the background.

A single huge expanding energy density fluctuation could be mistaken for Big Bang Theory with its co-moving coordinates, its curved space which is a product of its spherical shape, and its internal homogeneity.

M-branes could be mistaken for the intersection of two huge energy density fluctuations.

All of the inflationary models are possible interpretations of QWC’s eternal inflation of energy density fluctuations. That aspect of single energy density fluctuations could be de Sitter space, or multiple areas of inflation all experiencing the same universal expansion but in differing overlaps that intersect and share energy in various places while continuing overall inflation.

All of the alternative cosmologies that I am aware of are compatible with QWC except creation. What sets QWC apart from the others is the concept of energy density equalization within an infinite universe that has always existed, i.e. the equalized energy background within which everything happens. This is often just called space in other cosmologies, but in QWC space is the equalized energy background and energy density fluctuations exist because the average energy density of the universe exceeds the equalization threshold.

The incremental energy density fluctuations described in the previous two posts are tiny fluctuations that don’t yet even equal a single quantum of energy, and in QWC it takes many such fluctuations to exist and interact to produce quantum action. Quantum action is the force that makes these tiny fluctuations useful in producing mass and gravity.

19. Some definitions used in Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC)

A quantum of energy:

In QWC, the amount of energy in a quantum could be any amount. So I am going to define the quantum of energy that will be used in explaining QWC. By definition, in QWC that quantum of energy is the smallest increment of energy that can be incorporated into mass. On that basis, all mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. The formation of mass then becomes the dividing line between the energy background and the formation of mass that stands out from the background.

Defining the energy background:

By defining the quantum, I can now define the background. By definition, in QWC the energy background is the equalized threshold energy plus all of the energy density fluctuations in excess of that threshold that individually are not yet equal to a quantum of energy.

A high density spot:

In QWC, a quantum stands out from the background and is referred to as a high density spot.

Mass:

By definition, in QWC the density of mass is determined by the number of high density spots it takes to cause the mass to exist and therefore it is the number of high density spots contained in the mass divided by the volume of space occupied by the mass.

Containment:

“Containment” in QWC is the characteristic of mass that delays the expansion of spherical energy waves that pass through the mass, including both the waves that arrive at the space occupied by the mass from external sources, and the waves that are generated by quantum action that is taking place within the mass itself. Containment is the cause of mass and gravity. More later on how containment takes place and how it is related to high density spots and quantum waves.

Gravity:

Gravity is the characteristic of mass to move through the background in the path of lowest energy density. More to follow later on gravity and how mass affects the surrounding energy density simply by existing.

20. The lower threshold of matter formation:

With the new definition of the energy background in hand, let’s move the scenario forward to the point where the first energy quantum forms and stands out from the background.

As I have said as I develop this scenario, this is not the way it happened because in QWC, the energy that makes up the universe is constant. No new energy is ever added and no energy is ever taken away. The excess energy in the universe over and above the background energy is responsible for the existence of mass. But the scenario is useful to explain QWC and how energy density fluctuations are able to cause mass and gravity.

The number of tiny energy density fluctuations in the background must reach a certain density in order for that first lonely quantum to form. This may be confusing at first because I am referring to the density of fluctuations in the background. As it turns out, I am referring to both the number of fluctuations per volume of space and the average energy density per fluctuation. Understanding the distinction between the two will help you understand the QWC concept of “the lower threshold of matter formation”.

Energy quanta are the high density spots that occur in the background once a certain background energy density is achieved. If you slowly increment the energy level in my scenario by adding to the background in the tiniest of increments, eventually the very first quantum will form somewhere. It will have location and dimension in 3-D space, and will contain a quantum of energy occupying a high density spot at that location.

It will survive momentarily and then burst and spread out as a spherical quantum wave. The energy of that quantum wave will cause another single quantum to form somewhere else. The “somewhere else” will be nearby. The local environment has already produced a high density spot and is at the “lower threshold of matter formation”. With the burst of the only existing quantum or high density spot, the second quantum to form will use the momentum of the first quantum wave to force another high density spot to form nearby. The first quantum stood out from the background momentarily and then receded back into the background as a quantum wave, and that wave forced a second quantum to stand out from the background nearby.

In the scenario the level of energy in the universe at this point is one quantum of energy above the “lower matter formation threshold”. Therefore, at this level of energy, there will always be one quantum forming and bursting in an endless procession of quantum action, i.e. the appearance and disbursal of a single quantum of energy dancing around as it intermittently stands out from the background in one location and then another as a very temporary high density spot.

No matter can form from one lonely quantum of energy, but once one quantum forms it marks the lower threshold of matter formation potential.

Quantum Action:

In QWC, the definition of quantum action is the process of a quantum of energy forming when the lower matter formation threshold is reached, followed by the “burst” of that quantum of energy into a quantum wave, and the spherical expansion of that quantum wave. Each time a quantum forms and bursts, one quantum action has taken place and one quantum wave is produced.

Burst of a high density spot:

In QWC, the burst of a high density spot is merely the point where the overlapping of the expanding energy density fluctuations finally encompasses a quantum of energy and that space where the overlaps have forced a quantum of energy to congregate becomes a high density spot. The spot lasts only as long as the convergence of the contributing waves last, i.e. a very brief encounter. The burst of the high density spot is the disbursal of the energy in the spot into its own quantum wave. The burst occurs as the wave convergence that formed the spot passes. Every quantum wave must wait for a quantum of energy to converge in a high density spot before the disbursal of that spot can be defined as a quantum wave.

The high density spot is differentiated from all of the other background fluctuations because by definition the fluctuations that remain in the background contain less than a quantum of energy.

There are plenty of tiny waves generated from energy convergences in the background that are less than a quantum, but those are tiny ripples in the background that are not capable of individually becoming an energy increment of matter. The lower matter formation threshold must be reached before quantum action begins, and then the process of matter formation can begin abundantly as the lower threshold is exceeded by more and more incremental energy.

But don’t get married to the concept of the “lower matter formation threshold” because matter formation actually occurs in QWC at a much higher energy density and when the energy density is declining instead of increasing as it is in my current scenario.

Matter cannot exist above a certain energy density. There are circumstances in QWC that occur regularly in the greater universe where the “high matter threshold” is reached and matter ceases to function. I will get into that more when I discuss the formation of the “big crunch” and the physics of “critical capacity”. For now the scenario of increasing energy density in the greater universe is useful in explaining how mass is caused by quantum action and how gravity is caused by the containment of quantum action within mass.

Page 3 of 8 First 12345678 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•