Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quantum_wave, Jun 23, 2016.
What if our understanding of red shift is wrong and the universe is indeed static.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That would make us both happy as far as simplicity is concerned. Perhaps the redshift has to do with some effect on electromagnetic waves over great distances and through the curvy path from source to our eyes, that we don't yet understand. I haven't spent much time contemplating that, since my own version of cosmology, the ISU, has come together for me, and answers many cosmological questions to my satisfaction.
There is an elegance about the ISU that I like; the "sameness " doctrine, where the wave mechanics are quite similar at both the macro and micro level. The macro level waves are the big bang arenas that expand until they converge with other expanding arenas, and the micro level waves make up the wave-particles and orchestrate the (layman level) quantum gravity solution of the model.
I'm tempted to start a new thread to include the updates that have occurred to the model in the past year. Though I'm pretty happy with the forum I'm posting in at the present because they have some features that are great for my style of posting: 1) unlimited time for editing previous posts, which means I can go back and revise based on comments and research, 2) an image hosting gallery to link to threads, and they do third party image hosting, and 3) as long as one doesn't go astray of the rules, freedom to speculate, with moderators who defend that freedom against unsupported disparagement.
It wouldn't be out of the question to run simultaneous threads though, if you would at least try to follow and comment from time to time? It was pretty lonely on my threads, as you may recall. Thumbs up or thumbs down on that, from you and anyone else who has an opinion?
I know it must get lonely and I would like to encourage you.
I have refined my model.
No start no end no top no bottom no sides flat and the same all over.
Was not so hard when I thought about it.
Funny however it would presumably get regions that would colapse and ....mmm
Yes I will have a spongy as well.
I know, it is simple when you have a whole picture in your mind.
Part of it though is in the details, like speculating about wave mechanics explanation for the spacetime saying, matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move. Also, a wave-mechanics explanation of quantum gravity that defines the wave nature of particles and particle interactions, along with a gravitational wave energy density profile of space based on wave-particles as standing waves, with two components, the inflowing gravitational wave energy from surrounding particles and objects, and the out flowing gravitational wave energy emitted by particles and objects, etc.
Oh well, I get all the fun, lol.
But what is a wave?
Does a wave exist or is it our way of describing something that may be physically different in reality.
I dont understand wave collapse...we have a wave that becomes a particle.
Is that a correct description?
Surely it was always a particle and only a wave because that is our description to manage data.
This is really a nagging question, because the concept is simple and the observation of waves is found everywhere, and yet the concept of gravitational waves that cannot be directly observed can be problematic to some.
I find the quantum mechanics application of the wave function to be the scientific community’s way of saying that we cannot know both the precise momentum and location of a particular particle at the same time.
I interpret the wave function as a mathematical convenience, and not something that applies to waves in terms of an objective reality. The mathematical location of a particle at any instant is within some volume of space, but where in that space is not evident until it is observed.
At the instant it is observed, we cannot know its precise momentum (direction or velocity).
So for doing the math in QM, the wave function is a set of probabilities; there is a different probability value for each point in the space. I find the wave function concept to be much like the concept of a gravitational field that contains a particle, and the quantity for each point in the field is a probability value for the presence of the particle at that point in the space.
That is not true in the ISU. In the ISU, every particle is composed of wave energy in quantum increments (quanta) which I think of as meaningful wave convergences, (there is no particle that is solid through and through).
The presence of a particle is in the form of a complex standing wave pattern. The pattern of any stable particle in space is the decay product of the hot, dense ball of wave energy dating back to the instant of the big bang. The hot dense ball of wave energy (plasma) expands and cools, and the dense containment of the wave energy is loosened, and decays (breaks up) into tiny pieces that start out as exotic particles (Higgs bosons) and decay further until the space in the expanding arena is filled with stable particles.
Those stable particles are the wave-particles of the ISU. Every individual particle occupies an amount of space, at a precise location, and has a precise momentum (direction and velocity) at all times; we just are unable to detect both the location and directional vector at the same time. Any such detection in the ISU equates to what is described as the collapse of the wave function in QM.
I like playing pool.
I like to think of the universe as a large pool table with balls going this way and that ...they hit each other which determines where they go but they move because the table moves.
Its late I think I am dreaming.
I used to be good at pool, but now I wear trifocals, an my pool game has decayed such that each ball appears as multiple images.
QW: glad to read that you have your whole ISU model in your mind (no sarcasm) It is our privilege to think in images like that at this stage.
question: how would you see standing waves arising in such a permanent theater?
Separate names with a comma.