QWC document comments and criticisms

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by quantum_wave, Dec 2, 2009.

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

    Messages:
    6,677
    Quantum Wave Cosmology is my personal view of cosmology. I am passing it off as opinion and speculation about things that science has not yet agreed upon. I have originated threads that address various aspects of QWC and have tried to incorporate the ideas in a Google document that is updated periodically to reflect changes.

    I often change the document in response to comments and criticism that are brought up in the threads.

    Here is the latest version of the Google.doc.

    You can use this thread to make a comment or state a criticism of QWC that you feel I have not yet addressed and I will respond. If I have already addressed it in the Google.doc then I will quote from the document. I may change the document to mitigate the criticism and will post any change made and link you to the updated document.

    I may also use this thread to post my own updates to the document and to review certain aspects of QWC in an effort to get your input.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,045
    Do we really need another thread for this?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    6,677
    Yes.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,045
    Why? What is it exactly about the other thread on the first page of this forum and the many other threads in pseudo that are lacking enough to need yet another thread on "quantum wave cosmology?"
     
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    It's the only way he can talk about his crap without it being blindingly obvious that he's already ignoring comments and criticisms. Plus the fact his current thread has descended into accusing me of wishing him dead means that over and above ignoring criticisms and making up lies about his work he's moved into the realm of just plain crazy.

    That's the only reason he wants another thread, to ignore all the problems pointed out. It's obviously not for discussion, since you and I are the only people who've responded to him in months. Clearly no one gives a crap about his crap but that's just something he can't accept. Even a snake oil salesman knows to change the product he's peddling when no one is buying. q_w hasn't quite grasped that yet.
     
  9. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Thank you for asking. The OP on a thread is meant to set the topic.
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    You aren't addressing me with your post but if you have a comment or criticism about QWC that I haven't addressed you can post it here and I will respond as described in the OP.
     
  11. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    This is a duplicate thread and as such is against the guidelines you agreed with when you signed up to this forum.
     
  12. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    I'm having trouble getting to grips with this, I'm afraid. There are six immediate questions in the first two paragraphs alone, and possibly a fatal flaw.

    It seems that initially you propose to setup this theory in something you call space. This seems to be an axiom, so let us state it clearly:
    • Axiom 1: Space is a set \(X\).
    So now I can start with my questions:

    (1) Why can this commodity not be completely removed? Why is it there in the first place? Is this an axiom? If so, let's state it:
    • Axiom 2: For each \(U \subset X\) there is a function \(E:X\rightarrow ?\) such that \( || E(U) || >0\) for each non-empty \(U\subset X\), where \( || \cdot ||\) is a norm on ?

    (2) What is "energy", i.e. what is the "?" appearing in Axiom 2. You need to tell us - for the time being we'll just say that the "energy" lives in some normed space \((Y, ||\cdot||)\).
    • Axiom 2 (again): For each \(U \subset X\) there is a function \(E:X\rightarrow (Y, ||\cdot ||)\) such that \( || E(U) || >0\) for each non-empty \(U\subset X\).

    (3) So this commodity that occupies our space is time dependent? Well again we need to modify our Axiom 2. I assume by "time" you mean some parameter that lives in \( \mathbf{R}^+\).
    • Axiom 2 (again, again): For each \(U \subset X\) there is a function \(E:X\times \mathbf{R}^+ \rightarrow (Y, ||\cdot ||)\) such that \( || E(U,t) || >0\) for each non-empty \(U\subset X\) and \( t\in \mathbf{R}^+\).

    (4) What does the word "quantum" mean in this context? Does this theory incorporate quantum mechanics? In that case, we've already fallen over, because our definition of the term "energy" contradicts that used in quantum mechanics. In QM, we construct a Hilbert space (or more correctly, a rigged Hlibert space) \( \mathcal{H}\) over some three dimensional space (which would need to coincide with your \(X\)). But then energy in this context is described in terms of the expectation of the elements of an algebra of Hermitian operators acting on \(\mathcal{H}\), not of some function from \(X\) itself.

    Please resolve this conflict, or clarify in detail why there is no conflict.

    (5) What does "wave" mean here. Is there some additional field defined upon \(X\) that has wave like properties? What are these fields? How are they defined?

    (6) By your use of the term "traverse", I must infer that whatever these "waves" are, they are time dependent. In that case, what describes their evolution? We can't turn to QM and the Schrödinger equation, because we've already established a major conflict.

    If we could iron over these major problems, then perhaps we can start on the third paragraph.
     
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Not true.
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    OK, let's start with space is a set and you call it \(X\). And you call that set an axiom. QWC is not a theory and though axioms were discussed previously in the QWC document, I have removed the references to theory and axioms. QWC is my personal view of cosmology. In the document there are some pertinent statements:

    From the Google.doc, section titled "Introduction to Quantum Wave Cosmology", at the end of subsection #1:

    Since this is my personal cosmology, I begin with concepts that are incorporated into my cosmology from the start:

    I consider the following to be falsifiable but to my knowledge none of them have been falsified. To me personally they are basic logic and they form the basis of QWC:

    1.1 Nothing yields nothing
    1.2 Everything is composed of energy
    1.3 Energy cannot be created or destroyed
    1.4 The universe is composed of energy
    1.4 The universe was not created
    1.6 There was no beginning
    1.7 The universe has always existed

    Then from the same section, subsection 4.2:

    4.2 I start with no one’s theory, i.e. this is a bottom up approach that starts with speculation about the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe. This is an important point because to grasp QWC you have to leave existing and alternative theory behind.

    QWC is not a theory. I start from what I personally consider to be the departure points where science leaves off on the Cosmology of the universe, i.e. Big Bang Theory with Inflation, General Relativity, the Cosmological Principle, all of which I refer to as the Standard Cosmology, and in particle physics the Standard Particle Model of Particle Physics. They leave off by falling short in three respects when compared to the basis of QWC. ...

    And about the lexicon of QWC:
    4.4 All of the words I use are part of the lexicon of QWC. They mean what I say they mean and not what any other usage of them says they mean. If there are any questions about the usage of words in QWC those questions should be brought to my attention and my decision as to the meaning of words is final as far as their usage goes in QWC. The fact that the same words are used to explain existing theory is not intended to imply that all of the science associated with those words in existing theory applies to QWC. It is your responsibility to understand my usage of those terms if you are going to understand QWC, and it is not my intention to understand the theories where terms that I use appear.

    And from that section:
    6.6 When I refer to the infinites of QWC I am talking about space, time, and energy.

    Based on the document, QWC is not what you claim it is and your approach to questioning is out of context. I mentioned that when you brought it up before and you backed down saying I was the one who didn't get it. You are the one that doesn't get it as you can see.

    Do you have any questions that are in context? Read the document fully because all of your concerns about the description that I give of energy are addressed throughout the document.

    http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspo...d-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

    To address your concerns about the use of the word "space", in QWC space is infinite and has always existed. Any discussion about sets that include an axiom about what space is are yours and not mine. They are fine as long as the definition that I give for space in QWC is understood and properly conveyed.

    Getting back to your questions, given the QWC definition of space, you can call it an axiom but I don't. Go ahead from there with your questions.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2009
  15. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    So, we've established that space is a set, which we'll call X (you lose no freedom here, a set is a very general object). If you could continue to answer the questions, that would be super.
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Next you asked:

    Actually these questions are in context and I anticipated a question about why can't all of the energy be removed from a given space. Space and energy are both infinite in QWC as I mentioned in the last post. I call those characteristics of the universe but personally I have not identified any axioms and don't claim that my personal cosmology is theory, just ideas for discussion.

    So we have space as a set if you say so. Space can be empty if there was no energy in it, but in QWC all space contains some level of energy density. If you could, and you can't by the way, remove all energy from a given space, the surrounding energy in the surrounding space would fill that potential void. The process of filling the potential void is called energy density equalization. In QWC, energy "wants" to equalize its energy density across all space. The word "wants" is not meant to personify energy, but it is meant to express the nature of energy to fill all space by the process of energy density equalization.

    You asked "Why is it there in the first place?" referring to energy. I said that it has always existed. And I have said that if you can't live with the idea that the universe has always existed, then QWC is not for you. You don't have to agree, but if you want to discuss QWC it has to be in the context that space and energy have always existed. I don't call that an axiom but if you want to think of it that way it is your view, not mine.

    Do you want to go on with your questions from there?
     
  17. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    I'm afraid that's very much a non-answer. Either it's an axiom, or this QWC is just a "I'll make it up as I go". So I'd need you to make it an axiom, if we're to continue. And if that's the case, then you need to precisely state this axiom.
     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I understand. Thank you for insisting on axioms but QWC is my personal view of cosmology, not my theory of cosmology. It is for discussion and that is what we have been doing IMHO. If you can't go on without an axiom about why energy cannot be removed to create a void in space then you will have to suggest the wording of the axiom. As for me making it up as I go, this is from the Google.doc, the section called Preface to Quantum Wave Cosmology:

    A personal view of cosmology has evolved over those years and I now spend enjoyable hours discussing it on-line and off-line. It is unimportant in every respect except that it is an evolving document that I use to maintain and update my own personal view of reality. You shouldn't get upset about my speculation and please note that QWC is for discussion purposes only and no one has to believe it. I'll simply state that in my view it is a more complete cosmology than Big Bang theory in that it incorporates all of the same known science fact as BBT, and goes further to speculate about those realms where technology has not yet permitted us to fully investigate, i.e. the quantum level and the arena level of order.

    QWC is for those non-professionals who get excited when they think about what the universe might turn out to be like when the professionals get around to figuring it out. Study and contemplate QWC and you could come to appreciate how in my view of the universe all of the pieces are connected and work together without the incompleteness and incompatibilities that characterize the current consensus on Cosmology

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Think it, feel it, love it.

    ...

    You will note that I refer to QWC as opinion and speculation. You may not want to go on in the context that I present QWC and that is your decision.
     
  19. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    But if this isn't an axiom and it is not implied by other axioms of QWC, then you are literally making it up as you go along.
     
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Certainly you have read the document, http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspo...d-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1.

    Making it up isn't how I characterize it in the document but if you do characterize it that way after reading it, I am not offended. QWC is what it is. Are you saying that I can add axioms without characterizing it as theory, or are you saying that if it is not theory then I am making it up? If it is the latter, then are you saying that you can't discuss it?

    From the document section "Introduction to Quantum Wave Cosmology":
    2. What is a “personal cosmology”?

    I am not going to live forever and science has not yet even come to a consensus on the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe, let alone the essential mechanics of mass and gravity. While I am still alive I want a physical picture of the universe in my mind, i.e. a personal description of the cosmology of the universe that science professionals do not even pretend to have, let alone one that they support or even condone. No one should believe that QWC is fact or science except to the degree ideas can be called emerging science, but if the answers were available through science then QWC would not exist. That is what a personal cosmology is about, one man’s personal ideas, speculations if you will, about the universe beyond the consensus of the professionals but a view that is collaborative, well thought out, and cannot be easily refuted.

    My primary objective is to have an internally consistent set of speculations that go beyond where the consensus of science has taken us so far. If a cosmology doesn't address the issue of its beginning it is not complete. A complete cosmology must be internally consistent in that all of the ideas that make it up work together. Working together means in the physical picture represented by a cosmology there can be no inconsistencies that would cause the math of the various ideas to be incompatible. A complete workable physical picture will contain such a set of ideas. When the physical picture is complete and internally consistent then the math can be developed to describe the physical picture uniting the various pieces represented by the various compatible ideas. QWC as described in the speculative steps in this Google.doc (which is a work in progress), convey the current status of my personal cosmology.

    3. Why post your personal cosmology on the Internet?

    3.1 I come up with ideas through collaboration and through individual research on the Internet, from forums, from discussions on and off line, from threads I read and follow, from thousands of web searches on hundreds of related topics, and from various books, publications, and blogs. I have logged many thousands of hours in those activities which accompanied by a regimen of contemplation of those studies.
     
  21. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    You're doing the same thing that you've done in other threads, contrary to what you outlined in your opening post.

    You're not doing science, you're making things up as you go along.
     
  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I don't claim to be doing science; I am discussing ideas about cosmology, and those ideas start with questions identified in the document that science cannot answer.

    Perhaps you are criticizing QWC on that basis? Do you mean to say that science has the answers for the questions I ask? Or perhaps you are criticizing QWC for attempting to discuss those questions?

    Here are three basic questions that I am saying that science cannot answer:
    What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?
    What causes the presence of mass?
    What are the mechanics of gravity?

    In QWC I'm just discussing ideas about answers to these questions.
     
  23. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Because, unlike you, professional have to develop their models from justifiable premises and, heaven forbid, be able to make predictions. Unlike your work they have to take heed of how the universe actually is.

    Ideas are not synonymous with 'emerging science'. I have the idea the Moon is populated by invisible pink unicorns who speak Japanese. Is this 'emerging science'? Is fiction, deliberately fabricated stories, 'emerging science'?

    Collaborative with no one? And your work is not 'well thought out', you can't even decide what your assumptions (ie axioms) are. And it is easily refuted, we've done it.

    How can you consider consistency when you can't make your work logical and rigorous? You just claim it is.

    You've spent all this time and yet you couldn't pass the entrance exams required to get onto any decent physics degree. Clearly you spent your time well.
     

Share This Page