What is Quantum Wave Cosmology discussion thread

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by quantum_wave, Jul 13, 2009.

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Of course the rules of the Pseudoscience forum and the overall rules of SciForums apply to this thread. I have an additional rule as part of the OP. The thread is solely about this Google document, "What is Quantum Wave Cosmology", that I have published using the “publish” feature available in the Google docs. Some of you are familiar with Google docs and those who are not can easily familiarize your selves here.

    My rule is that any comments that don’t reference statements by me in the Google doc will be considered off topic and at my discretion will either be ignored or responded to with a comment and a reminder of my rule and a link to the Google doc so you can go to it easily.

    The meaning of this rule will become clear as the thread progresses (if it progresses at all) because the Google doc is constructed to cover many eventualities.

    I don’t expect very many people to participate, maybe no one will, but to comply with my rule you have to actually quote the Google doc. If you participate in this thread and don’t reference the Google doc you are demonstrating bad behavior (you’re shuddering at the thought, aren’t you). Keep in mind what the Google doc says because that is the only information you will get about how I manage the document itself. The document will change from time to time at my discretion but I have standards that I follow in making changes and those standards are stated in the document.

    Some of you will be very creative in getting around my rule but one of the things I will try to be good at is pointing out when you have failed to comply. There is no penalty for non-compliance except that I get the pleasure of pointing out various characteristics that you demonstrate in your off topic posts and you will have the fun of feeling like you are ripping me apart without actually referring to what the document says. That means that you will be able to create straw man arguments and attack those straw men without actually doing or saying anything on topic. I will respond to off topic posts at my pleasure.

    Of course out of boredom someone may actually follow this additional rule and then I don’t know how it will come out. If your read the Google doc there are some hints but then part of what the Google doc is intended to do is to inform you about Quantum Wave Cosmology, what it is, what my motivation is, what my methodology is, what I have learned about forum behavior over the years that I have been updating QWC in various forums and in many threads under several IDs. It even includes my speculative ideas that are up for discussion, though that is the last thing that most of you will be participating in if my experience with some of you is any indication.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    Reposted from the open govt forum:

    I really must at this point refer you to the "idea" espoused by guest, since it is basically the same level as yours, only yours uses scientific jargon whereas guest's uses other language. You honestly cannot see that what you have done is made something up off the top of your head that has no basis or justification in any physical sense whatever can you? And you accuse me of living in a fantasy?

    Perhaps we should take this back to the thread in pseudoscience since it's not really about the governance of sciforums any more, but I point out that in your Google documents, what you refer to as axioms are not axioms. I would characterise them as attempts at physical postulates, but not very good ones.

    Postulates should not contain the word if and should be directly applicable to our universe. Since the stated postulate implies the non existence of the universe it is irrelevant to the universe as it is.

    This is demonstrably false - see the FRW solution of the Einstein field equations.

    This is vacuous and vague.

    Why? Postulates should be self evident. What causes the energy density.

    Again, why?

    The next step would be to take your postulates and use them to rigorously derive the consequences of them which you don't do. With all your waffle and gibberish you done nothing and so you can't point to what exactly the predictions of your idea are. My point is that we don't need to compare predictions with observation because there aren't any predictions - it's simply made up and you presumably have the nous not to make stuff up calling it physics that contradicts what we already know to be true.

    I keep chuckling at your fantasy accusation. I remind you that I actually am a physicist doing physics, and you are not a physicist failing to do physics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    For the uninitiated, this is not a scientific publication and there is not even the screening of something like the arxiv. As you might expect, peer review is a long way away.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I refer you to the document at http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9, part 7, “7.0 And finally, if you believe in God, you must accept the idea that science does not invoke the supernatural, and so God or no God, QWC remains my personal view of the cosmology of the universe. I do not invoke the supernatural or fanciful figures in QWC, and if you characterize QWC as invoking the supernatural or fantasy such claims should be supported with the exact statement that I have made that you consider to fall in either of those categories, using the quote function.”

    End of quote

    As long as you equate the entire document to invoking fantasy creatures we will not be in agreement. I can’t very well get into the meaningful part of your post while this huge departure from reality remains on the table.

    If you cannot distinguish between a series of speculations that start with the question, “what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe”, and the invoking of fantasy creatures, we have nothing to discuss.

    However, I will work on the axioms without waiting for you respond. I created the Google doc by cut and paste from various previous posts. I had intended to use the axioms that AlphaNumeric helped me with back in 2006 (I used the ID, "Bogie"). http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2280941&postcount=242

    They were:
    1) If ever there was nothing, nothing could ever exist.

    2) Whenever something exists, something will always exist.

    3) The universe is energy that has always existed and will always exist.

    These are still open for discussion but at least now they reflect the help that AN provided back in 2006. If Oli ever returns to trash me he may repost his link that he says falsified the first Axiom.

    If you ever are able to distinguish between my ideas and Guest’s invocation of fantasy let me know so we can get into you comments about the axioms.
     
  8. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    As I have previously pointed out, "axiom" No.1 isn't actually axiomatic.
    Therefore anything following that premise cannot be considered valid.
    Nos. 2 & 3 are suppositions, not axioms.
     
  9. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    OK, as my document says, I am not a scientist so I can use some help getting the axioms straight. You mentioned a link but there was no link in the post. Do you want to post the link?

    What I consider self evident is that noting can come from nothing. That is what I want an axiom to convey.
     
  10. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    The post didn't contain the link initially, I screwed up.
    And you mentioned it.
    So I edited the post to add the link and guess what?
    Fifteen minutes after I did that I looked at "Who's online" and YOU were listed as reading that linked thread.
    How strange that you claim you haven't seen it...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It's the thread entitled "Nothingness and the rise of something" and (one more time) it's here.
    The links to the relevant documents are in the first post.

    Then you're in trouble.
    1) Simply because you "consider" it to be self-evident doesn't mean that it is actually so (and the links given in the thread named above show that it may actually NOT be so).
    Axioms are axioms BECAUSE they are self-evident it's what axiom means.
    If you're having trouble wording your "axiom" it could be because it's not really an axiom. And it doesn't matter how you phrase, reword or otherwise tart up a non-axiom the "best" you'll do is fool some people for a while: it still won't BE an axiom.
     
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    With reference to your entire google.doc, where is the executive summary, or abstract? I am attacking your speculations at this point on the basis of sub-standard presentation. Until the presentation is improved I have no idea whether or not I find the speculations plausible. Do you intend to correct this?
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Please use the quote feature to show where I said I haven't seen it :bugeye:. I wanted you to post the link to this thread because I figured there would be some discussion.
    Maybe so. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is something to be considered. I even started a thread on the subject of symmetry breaking a year ago that didn't resolve the question. I know you saw that thread. I did my own research on the subject at the time. Take a look that the rest of the thread that you linked me to and see the outcome; hardly conclusive.

    My thought back a year ago after getting no answer to my questions and doing my own research was that if the symmetry breaking divided nothing into matter and anti-matter, where did the anti-matter go. I personally reject the theory of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.
     
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Yes. I have never been happy with that part of my presentation because QWC is completely alien to what people consider standard theory and I find it difficult to summarize it. Are you saying that paragraph 1 cannot serve as an introduction in place of an abstract, or maybe as the abstract?

    1. What is Quantum Wave Cosmology?

    Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my personal cosmology of the universe. I found that as my view of cosmology has evolved, all documented on the Internet since around 2003, "quantum wave" was the perfect phrase to describe its major characteristics. Links to past threads in various forums where I posted using various IDs are available and if someone wanted to follow them diligently they would be able to see the evolution of QWC. But how it evolved and what it has evolved into are two different things. At present I am creating a set of Google Docs that tell of the current state of QWC. Once those documents are produced I can simply keep them updated as QWC continues to evolve.

    In a nutshell QWC is energy quantization at two levels. Quantization takes place through a similar process at each level. "Quantum action" causes mass and gravity at the quantum level and "arena action" causes expanding and collapsing arenas at the level of the greater universe. Quantum action and arena action are the terms used for the quantization process at their respective levels.

    In QWC the two levels of order are the higher level of order referred to as the greater universe, and the lower level of order referred to as the quantum level. The higher level of order consists of the large scale, the big picture, etc., where our expanding observable "universe" is demoted to the status of just one of a potentially infinite number of temporary arenas, some expanding and some collapsing across the landscape of the greater universe (read the QWC Step One and Two document to see how arenas form). The lower level of order is the quantum realm where matter is composed of energy in quantum increments that would themselves be too small to detect but of which all detectable particles are composed.

    Both levels of order have a dominant force called quantum action and arena action respectively, and the associated particles are called a "high density spot" and a "big crunch" respectively. The quantization process differs at each level primarily in the amount of energy that makes up the quantum at each level, and the duration of the particle at the respective levels. Both particles decay into spherically expanding waves of energy, the quantum waves, and though these waves of energy can potentially expand infinitely, in practice their expansion is interrupted as they intersect and overlap. Those overlaps allow the processes of quantum action and arena action to be perpetual. The perpetual nature of quantum action allows for the presence of mass and gravity at the quantum level, and allows for the defeat of entropy at the arena level.

    Since this is my personal cosmology, I begin with axioms that are self evident to me:

    1.1 If ever there was nothing, nothing could ever exist.

    1.2 Whenever something exists, something will always exist.

    1.3 The universe is energy that has always existed and will always exist.
     
  14. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Post #6.
    You claim there's no link (which there wasn't for, ooh, maybe 20 all of minutes) and NOW (within the hour) you say "there's no link".
    Since it IS there and you believe it isn't is that not saying you haven't seen it?

    But you apparently haven't considered it since you claim that the opposite is axiomatic.

    Conclusive or not it still negates the axiom being axiomatic.

    Ah, you personally rejected it.
    On what grounds?
    Can you refute the mathematics in the linked documents?
    Or is it simply that you don't like the idea because it doesn't fit with QWC?
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    No, it isn't. I explained also that I wanted you to post the link on this thread which you did. Thank you.
    Do you accept the theory of spontaneous symmetry breaking or are you just rapping my chops?
     
  16. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    You stated quite clearly
    Correct. In a later post.

    Whether I accept it or not it negates your axiom.
    How can anyone sensibly say the equivalent of "It is self-evident that all swans are white. But some of them may be other colours, the jury is still out"?

    If there is any conflicting theory/ data/ supposition then the initial premise CANNOT be axiomatic.
     
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Is this a big point that needs to be resolved before we can get to the symmetry breaking? If not, then let's go to that.
    You may be right but that doesn't sound right to me because you could negate every axiom using your reasoning.

    The reason I asked if you accepted it or not was to see if you were well versed enough to answer a few questions. Do you follow the math to the point that nothing is split into something?
     
  18. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Not quite true: you can come up with postulates (or even other conditions) that may negate an axiom (e.g. non-Euclidian geometry).
    But an axiom, by definition, is something that is self-evidently true.
    If it's self-evidently TRUE then there cannot be any contrary option.

    I accept it as a distinct possibility.

    I haven't spotted any obvious flaws in it.
    Have you?
     
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Assessment:
    It fails completely as an abstract. It is obscure, ambiguous, unstructured and too long.

    Solution:
    Here is an example of what you should be doing. I consider your paragraph one.

    The Original
    Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my personal cosmology of the universe.
    I found that as my view of cosmology has evolved, all documented on the Internet since around 2003, "quantum wave" was the perfect phrase to describe its major characteristics. Links to past threads in various forums where I posted using various IDs are available and if someone wanted to follow them diligently they would be able to see the evolution of QWC. But how it evolved and what it has evolved into are two different things. At present I am creating a set of Google Docs that tell of the current state of QWC. Once those documents are produced I can simply keep them updated as QWC continues to evolve.


    The Original Reformatted
    You have six thoughts here, contained in six sentences. Editing will be easier if we split this up thus -

    Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my personal cosmology of the universe.

    I found that as my view of cosmology has evolved, all documented on the Internet since around 2003, "quantum wave" was the perfect phrase to describe its major characteristics.

    Links to past threads in various forums where I posted using various IDs are available and if someone wanted to follow them diligently they would be able to see the evolution of QWC.

    But how it evolved and what it has evolved into are two different things.

    At present I am creating a set of Google Docs that tell of the current state of QWC.

    Once those documents are produced I can simply keep them updated as QWC continues to evolve.


    The Editing
    Now we proceed to eliminate all irrelevant phrases, words and ideas, while simultaneously clarifying, yet ensuring nothing important is missed.

    Sentence One
    Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my personal cosmology of the universe.
    Superficially this looks OK, but if it is your cosmology (indicated by my) why do you need to qualify it as personal.
    Since cosmology is about the origin of the universe the phrase of the universe is redundant.
    The revised sentence is then
    Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my cosmology.

    That is too abrupt and carries some ambiguous implications. This is better:
    Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my take on cosmology.

    Sentences Two and Three
    Sentences two and three contain similar ideas and should be combined. The ideas are a) the name fits the concept b) the idea evolved c) the ideas and their evolution can be found on the internet.

    I found that as my view of cosmology has evolved, all documented on the Internet since around 2003, "quantum wave" was the perfect phrase to describe its major characteristics.

    Links to past threads in various forums where I posted using various IDs are available and if someone wanted to follow them diligently they would be able to see the evolution of QWC.


    This captures those ideas,
    The evolution of the concept since 2003 can be followed on the internet. "Quantum wave" emerged as the perfect phrase to describe this concept.

    But this is probably more elegant.
    "Quantum wave" emerged as the perfect phrase to describe this concept whose evolution can be traced on the internet from 2003 to the present.

    Sentences four, five and six
    The final three sentences also contain linked ideas of evolution and documentation.
    But how it evolved and what it has evolved into are two different things.

    At present I am creating a set of Google Docs that tell of the current state of QWC.

    Once those documents are produced I can simply keep them updated as QWC continues to evolve.


    These can also be simplified. The first of these sentences is nice story telling, but is banal and incidental. You are not telling a story you are presenting a hypothesis. Stick to relevant facts.

    A suite of updatable Google Docs will provide a current version of QWC.

    The Final Edit
    So we now have an introductory paragraph that reads.

    Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is my take on cosmology. "Quantum wave" emerged as the perfect phrase to describe this concept, whose evolution can be traced on the internet from 2003 to the present. A suite of updatable Google Docs will provide a current version of QWC.

    Conclusion
    We have gone from six sentences and one hundred and twenty words to three sentences and forty six words. I do not believe we have lost anything of value and we have certainly gained in clarity.

    It took eight times as long to explain what I was doing as to do it. This is just basic editing that is an essential of any good quality scientific writing. We can get away with slop in posts, but not in the exposition of a hypothesis. If you take so little care explaining your ideas why should we treat them at all seriously?

    Once you have done this for the entire document it might then be possible to see what else is wrong with it.
     
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Did you skip over this question? You replied:

    That is what I am getting at. The flaw is that Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking doesn’t account for where the anti-matter went? “Where is the anti-matter” is still unanswered and falsifies the theory. Maybe the only reason it lingers is that there is no other explanation of how something can come from nothing.

    Why does something have to come from nothing anyway? Isn’t it much more evident that the universe has always existed? Hence, that thought is the stimulus for my attempt at an axiom that conveys that thinking.

    Here are the ideas. If at first there was nothing, nothing could ever be unless there are supernatural forces. QWC does not invoke the supernatural so starting with nothing means there nothing could ever be.

    But observations prove the contrary. There is a whole universe out there and it didn't come from nothing unless you invoke the supernatural.

    The thread you linked to that brought up Symmetry Breaking said that before the universe came from nothing and nothing was referred to as perfect symmetry. Does the math account for the energy to break the perfect symmetry? Why doesn't it account for where the anti-matter went? Isn't energy left over when matter and anti-matter annihilate each other? If so, and if the matter and anti-matter came from nothing and annihilate each other how can there be energy left over?
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    OK, I applied your version of the final edit to the first paragraph of the document: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

    I'll take a crack at applying the same process to the rest of #1. I might not be up to your standards but give me a while and let's see what I come up with.
     
  22. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    You have absolutely no basis for this statement at all - I don't think for a second that you understand spontaneous symmetry breaking.

    Just to humour me, perhaps you could explain how a massive scalar field theory can spontaneously break O(N) to O(N-1) and what is significant about the properties of the fields after the symmetry has been broken. Since you understand SSB well enough to dismiss it as a mechanism for the generation of the excess of matter over antimatter you should find this a cinch.
     
  23. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I missed it.
    But, of course, you've managed to ignore all of my other points.

    You mean the anti-matter from YOUR "theory" of symmetry breaking?
    Ah, I'd have to see your calculations.

    It doesn't have to, any more than it has to have always existed.
    Nope, it's not at all evident.

    That's an unsupported supposition.

    Nope, observation says nothing, and can say nothing, (let alone prove) that there was nothing beforehand.

    The maths shows that perfect symmetry (when it's nothing) could be unstable.

    What anti-matter?

    Haven't you just contradicted yourself with those two sentences?
     

Share This Page