QWC's niche

QWC’s niche

Quantum Wave Cosmology is a niche in cosmology that consists of a group of “not easily refuted” ideas about a universe composed of nothing but energy.

A few QWC ideas include:

The universe is composed of one commodity, energy.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed and so the universe has potentially always existed.

All space contains energy density to some degree; there are no voids in space.

If there are no voids then each point in space has some level of energy density.

The energy density at any given point in space is always fluctuating within a range of energy density.

There is a natural way for energy to become organized into particles that contain fluctuations in an orderly fashion.

Quantization of energy in nature is how energy can become organized into particles.

Quantization would have to enable mass to form, endure, and to interact with other mass.

Quantization would have to enable gravity to function in the presence of mass and so gravity must be consistent and compatible with what causes mass.

An organized orderly change in the energy density of a given space associated with the presence of mass implies that there is a force associated with mass at the level of formation, endurance, and interaction, i.e. quantization of energy requires a force that can operate in a quantized energy environment.

In QWC, the energy quantum is the building block of mass and quantum action is the force associated with a quantum of energy.


QWC presents these ideas as protoscience that people who know what they are talking about can’t refute but that cannot currently be tested. Are any of them inconsistent or incompatible with science?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, yes, because in the end all matter are forms of trapped light. Somehow photon energy very early on in the universes history underwent a change and fluxed into solid matter. This is why it is known (being fundamental in the sense of primordial), that everything is simply a form of energy. This is even backed up with the mathemematical description of \(E=Mc^2\). In a small bit of matter, there is tons of energy. There is enough energy in your body to power a city for a week!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You say yes, meaning that you feel my list is inconsistent or incompatible with science so would you be able to say where my list goes astray when compared with your statement. What items on my list don’t apply to the formation of mass from photons as you see it?

QWC does have a description of quantum action and quantum waves in some detail and your statement only suggests, “somehow photon energy” …was … “fluxed into solid matter”. If pressed for details I could answer frequently asked questions about the details of mass and gravity in QWC. Can you put any detail into the mechanism of how photon energy is fluxed into matter or how gravity works?

As far as E = mc^2, the equivalence principle seems to work well when a quantum relationship between mass and energy is described, like offered by QWC.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So we seem to agree on most of the points in the OP. I interpret your paragraph to mean that you see photon energy as the mode of transition from some primordial condition to our current expanding universe.

What is the unit of energy in your scenario; is it quantum? Where does the mass come from or are you predicting that photons have some tiny mass? What is the force; or is the momentum of the photon the source of the force in the inertia of mass that forms from them?

What I’m saying is that mass has inertia. The energy of mass goes up when a force is applied to it that causes it to move. Initial movement requires an initial force. In QWC each arena like our expanding universe is expanding out of a big crunch. The greater universe consists of a potentially infinite number of similar arenas, some are expanding out of their big crunch and some are contracting to form their big crunch. The initial source of energy in each arena is the energy commodity that emerges from a big crunch and the initial momentum is expansion momentum that is transferred from the expanding energy and imparted to mass as mass forms during the expansion, so as mass forms it has momentum.

If the expanding energy becomes mass and is quantized when mass forms then the initial inertia of particles comes from the expansion within which they formed. The force that sustains the mass and causes gravity is quantum action. So mass is composed of quantum energy and the force of quantum action. Mass has initial momentum imparted to it when it forms within an expanding arena. Any problem with that?

 

I meant you where fundamentally correct.

 

I could try some mathematical descriptions.

 

So you did, thank you.

Let's not go there in this thread, but if you direct me to a thread where you do that I will particpate.

QWCs niche should remain the topice of this thread and I will offer some detail of quantum action, mass and gravity that has the beginnings of mathematical descriptions of QWC.

 

I'll post it then in a PM.

 

The protoscience view I want to convey in this case would be that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. The math would be based on the quantum of energy. What is a quantum of energy? A quantum is the tiniest natural increment of energy (e) that can have a meaningful impact, i.e. a quantum of energy is necessary to affect mass. Anything less than a quantum of energy will have no effect on mass.

The mass of a particle is maintained by a force. That force corresponds with the quantum of energy. The force would be quantum action, i.e. the process of establishing the presence of a quantum of energy in mass. In order for mass to continue to exist, quantum action must be continuous within mass.

Quantum action in mass produces quantum waves. Any given quantum action and its resulting quantum wave has a net zero energy if you look at the combined actions involved. The combined action includes the formation of a high density spot in space that contains a quantum of energy, and the burst of that high density spot into a spherically expanding sphere of energy. The amount of energy in the expanding sphere is one quantum of energy. The reason that the combined actions have a net zero energy is because it takes a quantum of energy to form a high density spot, and the burst of the spot produces a quantum wave that contains a quantum of energy. No energy is produced or lost as a result of quantum action, but the energy and the force together produce quantum action. Mass which consists of energy quanta will be maintained as long as quantum action is continuous within the mass.

Quantum waves produced by quantum action in mass have a trough and a peak. The trough forms when the high density spot forms because the spot represents the repositioning of energy from the surrounding environment into a concentrated sphere of high density energy call a high density spot at the center of that tiny spherical energy environment. The trough is negative energy because energy is used to form the spot. The spot itself represents one quantum of positive energy contained within a spherical high density spot in space. When the spot bursts into expansion, the resulting spherically expanding wave contains one quantum of positive energy. Thus the net energy of one complete quantum action is zero but that energy is separated into a trough and a peak. It is the ability of quantum action to separate energy into a spherical trough and a spherical peak that enables mass and gravity.

All of the negative energy occurs externally to the wave that will be produced and so the leading edge of the quantum wave structure is a trough of negative energy that passes out of mass as gravity. As the peak of the wave, the positive energy, passes through mass, some of the positive energy of the wave is used to maintain the mass. The greater the mass of the object, the more of the positive energy is contained to maintain mass and the greater the differential between the emitted negative energy and the emitted positive energy of the quantum waves.


The differential between the trough energy and the peak energy emitted from mass changes as the mass increases. The greater the mass becomes, the greater the differential. The greater the differential, the greater the gravitation force emitted.

How can the trough of the quantum wave structure cause gravity? The answer is in the mechanics of quantum action.


The premise is that quantum waves are pervasive in space, all space including space occupied by mass and space between mass. Quantum waves are spherically expanding energy waves each containing a quantum of energy. They emanate from a high density spot that forms at the convergence of intersecting quantum waves. The energy contained in the convergence increases as the intersection of quantum waves proceeds which they do as they expand spherically.


As soon as there is a quantum of energy in the convergence we have a "high density spot" formed at that instant in the space where the convergence exists.


At that very instant, the energy density of the spot is much higher than the energy density surrounding the spot. This low energy density is the reason that the quantum wave emanated by quantum action is negative energy. Here is how. The wave begins with the rush of energy surrounding the spot. The energy surrounding the spot rushes into the low energy density surrounding the spot creating a pull of the surrounding universe toward the spot. This pull is the trough of the quantum wave generated by the formation of the high density spot within mass.


The high density spot cannot exist for more than that instant because the quantum waves that intersected (overlapped) to force the convergence continue to expand and the spot of high energy density disburses itself in the form of positive energy which forms the peak of the quantum wave.


Within mass there is continual quantum action and high density spots are forming and bursting at all times to maintain the mass. Though the trough of the waves pass out of mass as energy shifts toward the high density spots as they form, the push of the peak of the quantum wave doesn't immediately follow the pull trough. Only the uncontained portion of the peak of the wave immediately follows the trough. As the peak passes through the mass some of its energy is contained in subsequent high density spots and is delayed relative to the trough. Therefore the structure of that particular wave as it emerges from the mass has a trough and a peak, but the energy in the peak is slightly delayed and so the wave structure has slightly less positive energy. The result is that the trough that is generated by the formation of the high density spot has a full quantum of negative energy while the peak contains less than a full quantum from that particular burst. Ultimately the delayed peak energy passes out of the mass but the delay has had an effect called gravity.

The net energy of a quantum wave emanating from mass is the trough energy minus the peak energy.


If there was no containment of the positive energy, the net energy of the wave would be zero since the trough and the peak both are associated with the same quantum of energy, i.e. \(-e +e = 0\), the pull trough is \(–{e}\) and the push peak is \(+e\).

But since some the peak of the wave is delayed by containment, the net energy emanating from mass becomes negative, i.e. \(–e +(+e * 1/c) = f\) where e is a quantum of energy minus and plus, c is the percent of containment, 1/c is the containment ratio, and f is the gravitational force emanated in the form of negative energy. The mass is equal to the number of quanta making up the mass, i.e. \(m = e * q\), where \(m\) is mass, \(e\) is energy per quanta, and \(q\) is the number of quanta in the mass. Quantum waves expand at the speed of light.

The percentage of the peak energy of the quantum wave that is contained is directly related to the gravitation force emanating from the mass. The higher the mass, the higher the containment ratio and the greater the delay of the push portion of the wave. The higher the containment ratio, the greater the net pull force of the wave emanation. The greater the net pull force, the greater gravitational impact of the shift of the universe toward the mass.

Is this clean or do you see a problem with it?

 

It is clean protoscience IMHO.

Add this idea to the list of QWC ideas in the OP:

Matter consists of matter waves.

In QWC, the energy quantum is the building block of mass and quantum action is the force associated with a quantum of energy. Matter waves are the net wave presence of matter composed of energy in quantum increments.

Is this new statement consistent and compatible with science? I want to keep QWC in the realm of protoscience so if you don't agree let me know.

 

Matter, i would like to add, may choose a more fundamental component that agrees with quantum wave.

So far, physicists cannot determine whether a particle or a wave, but what we can determine is that if there was a little degree of freedom, as everything rushed out of the gravitational singularity, then that particles primordial existence would have acted as a wave, PROVIDED there was no Alpha Observer, otherwise a God... another unless, is whether everything was guided by Pilot Wave, in which case again, began as a wave of probabilities that where actual with one direction.

 

Thank you Saxion. The Pilot Wave approach to quantum theory is covered nicely in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in an article about Bohmian Mechanics, here.

In Quantum Wave Cosmology I have not taken a position on the philosophical issues that Pilot Wave brings up about the infinitesimal quantum realm, but I have never viewed it as determinism.

QWC does encompass consciousness where the premise is that determinism is defeated by the ability to decide and choose consciously and that free choice then determines the quantum impressions on our brain. I think this is opposed to the deterministic view that instead of uncertainty, every particle has locality and momentum and as a consequence our thoughts and actions are determined for us; at least that is what I think it says.

But that is a topic for a different thread. My question in the OP centered around protoscience and pseudoscience.

Proto-science: Protoscience encompasses subjects that are out of the reach of scientific testing at the present time. It talks about things that are too big to view in their entirety or too small to observe with current technology. But to be protoscience, these ideas must pass the tests of consistency and compatibility without invoking the improbable or the supernatural. Protoscience is differentiated from pseudoscience; pseudoscience is non-science while proto-science is within the broad definition of the scientific method and is expected to lead to falsifiable theory.

To pass the test of consistency, the ideas must all work together to describe a framework where no internal conflicts exist.

To pass the test of compatibility, the ideas must work with all known science fact and repeatable observation.

To avoid improbability, the ideas must be traceable to probable possibilities as opposed to idle or wild speculation.

To avoid invoking the supernatural, the probable possibilities must be expected to stem from natural causes.

In Quantum Wave Cosmology the listed ideas are considered protoscience and are intended to support reasonable and responsible ideas about the quantization of energy, the cause of mass and gravity, the cause of the initial expansion of our observable arena, and the landscape of the greater universe. Generally speaking it address the infinite and the infinitesimal where we cannot make actual observations but where mechanics and events must be taking place to produce what we can observe.

The problem with pursuing protoscience is that if it doesn't comply with the above requirements, it becomes pseudoscience. This thread hopes to present the basic QWC ideas so that if there is a violation of the rules of protoscience someone can point it out.

 

This equation \(–e +(+e * 1/c) = f\) has an error and should have been \(–e +(+e * (1-c)) = f\). For the record the that whole section should read:

The net energy of a quantum wave emanating from mass is the combined negative trough energy and the positive uncontained peak energy.


If there was no containment of the positive energy, the net energy of the wave would be zero since the trough and the peak both are associated with the same quantum of energy, i.e. \(-e +e = 0\), the pull trough is \(–{e}\) and the push peak is \(+e\).

But since some the peak of the wave is delayed by containment, the net energy emanating from mass becomes negative, i.e. \(–e +(+e * (1-c)) = f\) where e is a quantum of energy minus and plus, c is the percent of containment, i.e. the containment ratio, and f is the gravitational force emanated in the form of negative energy. The mass is equal to the number of quanta making up the mass, i.e. \(m = e * q\), where \(m\) is mass, \(e\) is energy per quanta, and \(q\) is the number of quanta in the mass. Quantum waves expand at the speed of light.

The percentage of the peak energy of the quantum wave that is contained is directly related to the gravitation force emanating from the mass. The higher the mass, the higher the containment ratio and the greater the delay of the push portion of the wave. The higher the containment ratio, the greater the net pull force of the wave emanation. The greater the net pull force, the greater gravitational impact of the shift of the universe toward the mass.

 

Except you have nothing quantitative, just desperate arm waving. You can't say it's 'protoscience', it's basically just a few concepts you've thought up. No derivation, no axiomatic beginning, nothing of that kind at all. So it's worthless.

To almost quote a well known phrase, that would be like "The blind, deaf and dumb leading the blind".

You do realise there's more to quantum mechanics than photons and things photons make?

Of course you don't. How silly of me....

 

And no questions from AN, no challenges to the ideas, no request for explanation or supporting ideas ... what was the point of this antagonistic post? Do you understand what protoscience is?

 

No one has anything quantitative in regard to the two levels of order that QWC address. I’m talking about ideas that address things like what causes mass, what causes gravity and what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. So stating that there is nothing quantitative is correct, but that is the nature of protoscience. That is why I asked you if you know what protoscience is. Don't use my thread to go into some self serving rants just because I asked you that. It is a serious question.


You used the phrase, "Desperate arm waving". That is just antagonism on your part. Why say it?

These concepts that I “just thought up” are the very concepts that the great minds in physics “thought up”. Planck, Bohr, Born, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Neumann who united the work of Schrödinger and Heisenberg, Einstein, (edit: and let's not forget Gamow) many very great names fall into the category of people who came up with these ideas.

You have to take into consideration your audience when you post about the fundamentals of the universe beyond where standard theory goes. Most people have budding thoughts about the universe, infinity, life, God, etc. Some have thoughts about alternative ideas. If they frequent a science forum they might have some interest the things I’m interested in but probably only a few have put in a lot of rigor on cosmology. If I filled my posts with cut and paste from Wiki it would be a real turn off. The way I present them are "ideas" for discussion. Still the audience is tiny. You don't need to talk as if you have some God given insight that qualifies you to wave this all off as meaningless.

I think things through before I post. I know physics, I know logic and I know that what I post makes sense, is consistent, and is compatible with accepted science. I also know that my audience wants the logic to resonate with where they are in their personal search of the nature of things. Spewing out someone else’s math or ideas wouldn't be of any help to anyone and I wouldn’t have any reason to do it.

What caused the expansion that we observe in the universe around us? Science doesn’t have the answer. I have ideas and they aren’t idle speculation. It isn’t very original to come up with the idea that there was a big crunch before the big bang is it? A big crunch is part of QWC. No one has quantified that. This is protoscience because we, science, cannot observe or test things at that level, but the ideas are still consistent and compatible with established science.

It isn’t very original to come up with the idea that our expanding universe emerged from a big crunch is it? The ball of dense energy emerging from a big crunch is part of QWC.

The formation of matter as we know it after the initial expansion of our universe began isn’t very original is it? QWC is based on matter forming from dense energy. That is not original but it does begin to fall into the category that you would call “made up” ideas. But QWC addresses the quantum structure of matter from energy in a logical way so that readers can see how I suggest it happens. They don't have to agree and only a few read deep enough to understand what I actually am saying.

The fact that in QWC matter is composed of quantum increments is not original thought. The standard particle model has various fundamental particles; My ideas aren't original, but what is original is that QWC simply goes to the next step and says that a particle with mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. QWC has the idea that the particles of the standard particle model that have mass are also composed of these quantum increments. This is protoscience because we, science, cannot observe things at that level yet, but the ideas are still consistent and compatible.

 

They actually produced results, developed things from underlying concepts, things which could be tested, quantitative results. You have none of those.

You cannot say things like "The ball of dense energy emerging from a big crunch is part of QWC." unless you have a derived quantative framework within which you have a description of space and time on some level as well as a description of energy and matter within that theatre. Otherwise you are simply saying "Sounds like a nice concept, I'll tell people that's included in my work".

See how it works? You lay down your initial assumptions and then develop them in logical steps, until you develop some kind of framework whose physical interpretation is coherent and solid. Why do string theorists know string theory includes gravity? Because from its axioms you rapidly find within the framework a spin 2 massless particle. Everywhere else in mainstream physics this is the graviton. It then turns out it behaves in a way which gives you an expression which is the Einstein Field Equations in tensor form. So there's justification the axioms of string theory lead to gravity. Then string theorists can legitimately talk about how string theory includes gravity. Can you provide any similar justification for your babbling about big crunches in QWC? I doubt it.

 

AN, in hopes of keeping my thread going as a discussion, which I have worked hard to achieve, I will give you a couple of links to a definition of protoscience which I think you are unaware of. You mentioned in both of your posts here that I haven't been quantitative. I said that is the reason this is protoscience and not theory. It occurs to me that you are not trying to discuss it in that context but seem to want to belittle me because I don't have any quantificaion. If these links widen your perspective, by all means participate, but if you don't care about the links or what I say, why come here?

http://www.123exp-science.com/t/01554063951/

Protoscience
In the philosophy of science, a protoscience is an "area of science" which is in its formulative or speculative stages, and may in the future become established as a science, or be discarded as a falsified claim or unfruitful approach.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.html#anchor176433

WHAT IS "EMERGING SCIENCE"?
Emerging Science Defined: Emerging science (or "protoscience") may be defined as a "near science". A protoscience tends to conform to most of the CONPTT criteria but typically falls short in one or more of the criteria. A protoscience differs from a science in that consistent observations and predictions may be limited by knowledge and/or technology.
For example, let's look at parapsychology. This includes such phenomena as clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis. Scientists generally consider parapsychology a pseudoscience because its phenomena conflict with known physical laws. However, at least one member of the parapsychology family, mental telepathy (thought transmission directly from one brain to another), might be worthy of scientific consideration. Mental telepathy, then, could be considered as a "protoscience".
NOTE: See Arthur Strahler, Science and Earth History (1987), page 55 regarding mental telepathy as a protoscience; pages 46-47 for more information about extraterrestrial visitors; and pages 47-49 for more information about UFOs and UFOlogy.
WHAT IS "NON-SCIENCE"?
Non-Science Defined: Non-science may be defined as an area of knowledge which does not meet the criteria of science (CONPTT). Non-science topic areas may be very logical and based on good reasoning, but simply do not fall within the realm of science. They would include any belief system, e.g., religious beliefs, philosophy, personal opinions or attitudes, a sense of esthetics, or ethics.
WHAT IS "FALSE SCIENCE"?
False Science Defined: False science ("pseudoscience") may be defined as a non-science which is portrayed and advertised as a legitimate science by its followers and supporters. Good examples of a pseudoscience would include "astrology" (as presented by some of its supporters), and "creation science". (See Strahler, page 525).
SUMMARY
Science is a limited discipline that studies only naturally occurring events, while offering natural explanations for the phenomenon under study. The data must be consistent, observable, predictable, and testable, while any conclusions or theories must be tentative.

 

First off, I'm not a big fan of Quantum theory or anything related, it seems too contrived to me. But I have to say I'm not that knowledgeable in this area. But you asked

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Check.

Check.

No objection.

Check.

Ok.

How would that work ? Wouldn't that take a specific event such as a big bang ?

Explain ?

Explain ?

Explain ?

Ok, the three above are over my head. I need you to explain the three before these first

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And you followed through, thank you for taking a look.

True, there is something that seems contrived about QWC too. But the simple fact is that something works to cause mass and gravity and science doesn’t know what it is. Something caused the Big Bang and science doesn’t know what it was. This protoscience is to encourage an exchange of thoughts. You don’t have to be immersed in science to enter into brainstorming. One rule of brainstorming is that there are no dumb ideas. So I am brainstorming so my ideas are as good as anyone else’s IMHO.

The first five statements are the set of ideas that imply an energy background throughout a universe that is potentially infinite and that has potentially always existed. I have been careful to be sure I refer to QWC as protoscience ideas and that is why I gave AN those links just before you posted. Protoscience is not yet quantified or mathematically defined.

Anyway, the first five statements that you pretty much could go along with are the infinites that we discussed on BetrayerofHope’s thread. BTW I am sure he was OK with our discussion there. Those five statements are "aether talk"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. To summarize:

Aether

There is a comparison of the energy background in QWC to the superseded scientific theory called the aether. Superseded means that as far as science is concerned the theory has been tested and no aether was detected.


In QWC the aether cannot be detected because the background is “dragged” by mass because of the close association between mass, gravity and the aether.


The space surrounding mass is filled with tiny energy density fluctuations (the aether). They are much smaller than any particle and QWC’s idea is that particles as we know them are composed of those fluctuations. Those fluctuations in energy density in turn are an extension of mass because the aether occupies all space including the space within particles. QWC’s idea is that there is aether space within mass and on the other hand mass exists within the aether. Mass stands out from the background because of quantization.

Quantization simply means that there is a point where, when you put enough of those tiny energy density fluctuations into a small enough space something special happens. This is the part that seems contrived but there has to be some contrivance behind the consistency of mass and gravity. QWC says that the consistency is in the level of energy density that, when it exists, quanta form from the energy background. Quanta are necessary for matter to exist. So the existence of mass depends on the energy background.

QWC goes into some detail on the formation of mass and gravity but one post is not the way to pass it along to you. You did what you said and took a look, and I appreciate it.