Yes, there is sufficient evidence of a big bang event and a high density early environment dated about 13.8 billion years ago. That said, my view of the composition of the CMB differs from existing theory. I developed my hypothesis in my thread (moved to Pseudoscience) called “At Rest with our Hubble View”. The thread turned ugly, but in a nutshell, my suspicion is that there is a contribution to the observable microwave background radiation from outside our arena. Big Bang Theory with Inflation theorizes that surface of last scattering occurred 380,000 years after the big bang. Theory says that until then the opacity of the “arena” contained the photon energy and so no radiation escaped the expanding hot dense ball of energy. By that time the expanse of the space occupied by the contained photon energy had inflated and expanded much faster than the speed of light, and had cooled enough for atoms to form, lifting the opacity and releasing the photon energy. By that time the “universe” (arena in my lexicon) was so vast that when the opacity was lifted and the contained photons escaped, they started coming from all points far across that vast expanse and are still coming toward us from all directions today. However, if the idea of preconditions to the big bang is considered as an alternative to “something from nothing”, or “God did it”, then the preexisting universe would be an alternative source to the inflowing radiation that we now observe filling our arena and still coming from all directions at every point in observable space. That is my layman case for saying that part of the CMB is coming from preexisting space and out of a greater universe within which our Big Bang occurred. The consensus theory seems contrived to the extent that such a scenario is necessary to maintain the theory that everything began at the big bang (space, time and energy). My hypothesis is that our big bang was not the only active big bang event, and background energy coming into view from all directions might represent a background that is characteristic of a potentially infinite greater universe that has been characterized by a potentially infinite history of similar big bang type events all across the potentially infinite expanse. Yes, the phrase, “As we know them”, leaves a huge opening for the “as yet unknown”, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. True, and the quantum foam is another part of the generally accepted quantum theory that contributes to the “weirdness” of QM. It is a way to address another aspect of the “as yet unknown”, and is common to many of the interpretations of the QM, I believe. It goes along with the case that non-locality is characterized by the probability function that allows an unobserved particle to take an infinite number of paths, or even may not physically exist until it is observed. There is an alternative view, and I think it was really shoved to the back burner for a long time until some errors were found in the ideas of von Newmann. He presented a mathematical proof that had been generally accepted that said hidden variables could not work in the quantum world (see Hidden Variables in, “Q is for Quantum”, by Gribbin). It was John Bell that pointed out the simple error in von Newmann’s work. Yes, to be sure. But we can be comforted by the fact that in science anything that appears Supernatural has natural causes that we just don’t yet understand (assuming that the scientific method excludes anything Supernatural). No, I am not hypothesizing the Oscillating theory of Universal evolution, though that is a common misunderstanding about my so called model. Note that the article I quoted from the DeepAstronomyBlog included this comment about the oscillating theory: I agree with his assessment. My view is of a landscape of big bangs; a potentially infinite number of active big bang arenas at any given point in time, playing out across a potentially infinite space. I agree. Our ability to observe limits us in observing the details of nature at the micro and macro levels, but my so called model includes the hypothesis that as we improve our technology, as we have with the LHC for example, and with WMAP and the Planck Sky Survey, we will continue to push back the curtain. Yes, you should read Laura Mersini-Houghton’s paper called, “Is Eternal Inflation Eternal?”. http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1106.3542
380,000 years post BB/Inflation?? You appear to be aligning with the way I view cosmology and the opinions/hypothesis that I find more logical then others. Any misunderstanding on my part is due to the fact that I am also only a layman, who has soaked up whatever knowledge I have been able from participating in another forum, which had two very knowledgable blokes, one a GR expert, the other an Astronomer....That and reading such reputable authors as Hawking, Thorne, Davis, Kaku and a few others. Thanks for the "Is Eternal Inflation Eternal" link, I will get into that later after doing what I need to do around my abode.
Yes. Look at this time line: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nice to hear. Feel free to comment at will, lol. Had? ... sounds terminal. Name the forum Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Yes we have taken similar paths then. But I have made a real hobby of it (in place of calling it a compulsion, lol). I understand that. I am a man of leisure (retired), but I am motivated to do things around the abode as well. (And my wife does like to offer suggestions to keep me busy in that regard :shrugPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's now defunct, but was run by the ABC [ Australian Broadcasting Commission] who's patron was Dr Karl Kruszelnicki.... The GR expert we had was a young fellow called Chris somebody or other, and the astronomer a Welsh bloke called Geraint Lewis. Not sure if you have checked out the "Black holes, White Holes and Baby Universes:" thread and the Eric Weisstein's definition of Eternal BH held together by the non-linearity of gravity... here.... http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...BlackHole.html Maybe you would like to comment?? Join the club!!!!....I'm also a man of leisure and am motivated also by a Mrs and a big Fijian war club she keeps out of sight, to use when that motivation needs stirring!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My comment on the Surface of Last Scattering occurring at 380,000 years post BB, was to highlight your error [typographical probably] of occurring at 380 million years. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmmmmm, Interesting hypothesis. I have hear similar with regards to gravity leaking over to parallel Universes over large cosmological distances....Max Tegmark may have been pushing the idea.....
Sure I would. I'll go there and look at the thread. The eternal black hole concept is new to me. Of course in my so called model nothing that physically exists in a given big bang arena is safe eternally. I describe the universe itself as being potentially eternal because my supposed process of arena action defeats entropy, but any matter in any given big bang arena is subject to being captured in the so called big crunch that I hypothesize forms when parent arenas expand and overlap. Anything captured in a big crunch is negated into its constituent wave energy and its individual particles collapse and merge into something akin to dense state energy that I associate with the hot dense ball of energy at t=10^-43 in Big Bang Theory. So I would ask, sort of as a play on the title of the Mersini-Houghton paper I mentioned, Is an eternal black hole eternal, lol. My position is that there are three dimensions plus time. The multiple additional dimensions and or faster than light travel via a wormhole are not options that I personally invoke in my so called model. However, I am going to venture a response on your referenced thread and hope you know that it is a layman level response for talking purposes, and not being presented as expert testimony Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I guess she only had to show you that Fijian war club once to get you to stay in line, right? Oh, LOL. I see now. I went back and corrected the error, thanks.
Did you ever get to the Mersini-Houghton paper. A few years ago I spent a lot of time getting a grasp of it, including going to each of the footnote references as I went. It was fun and educational and includes topics like Lorentz invariance and the multiverse, supersymmetry, eternal inflation, etc. Wasn't it Tegmark who discussed leaking gravity from other dimensions, thus explaining why gravity is so weak relative to the other forces? That too is an interesting hypothesis. I like this Tegmark link.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Not as yet...Just waiting for a quite moment...... Yep, that's the hypothesis of Tegmark's I was referring to.
If and when you do get a moment to scan the paper, you can use this page to supplement the footnotes. No pressure, lol.
Hi q_w. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As you may have gathered of late, except for the occasional comment/suggestion etc where that is indicated, I have practically withdrawn from internet discussion (Don't want to risk plagiarism at this late stage of imminent ToE publication!). This is one of the now-rare occasions when, in this case, I am moved to post to maybe save you and others time and effort in chasing "leaking gravity from/to other dimensions" and "multiverses and hidden other dimensions a-la-Brane theory etc etc." attempts to explain the observable phenomena and its nature and origins and extent etc. In my ToE, the explanations are consistent and complete and derive directly and from ONLY the self-evident and well known 3D-plus-Motion physically real system/dynamics (note: COMPARATIVE MOTIONAL measures/types are used as 'timing standards' and treated as 'dimensions' only ABSTRACTLY in graphs/equations etc; ie, time is not a real physical 'dimension'.) This timely reminder/caution is aimed at avoiding much waste of time and life/health resources chasing 'fantasies of maths theorists' long ago lost to physical reality dimensions/explanations (they describe/predict but do not actually identify the fundamental underpinning physical entities/origins etc). Anyhow, that's all. I most probably will stop posting completely the nearer publishing time approaches. Good luck and enjoy your discussions and explorations guys! Bye for now, q_w, everyone!
Do you have a publication date? Thanks for the caution, but not necessary on my part. Time: It simply passes. The rate that time passes is the same everywhere, but the rate of measured time is dependent on the energy density environment of the clock; the rate that clocks function depends on energy density factors associated with the nature of matter and gravity. Note: spacetime in the standard cosmological model corresponds to the energy density of mrdium of space in my so called model, and so where the curvature of spacetime affects the rate that clocks function in the standard model, it is the energy density of the local environment that affects the rate that clocks function in my so called model. And since in my so called model there are no additional dimensions, only the three required to host a volume of space, I am not chasing other dimensions to explain why gravity is the weakest force Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Have just read it, and a large part is beyond my immediate comprehension....But I have never let that stop this old retired maintenace Fitter yet! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As with past papers and books I have read, I'll read it again more carefully, do some checking, ask questions and eventually get back to you...... Interesting on my first read though.
QM defines particles and particle forces in the Standard Particle Model, as well as particle interactions in a complete set of path integrals thanks to Feynman's work in the 1940's. Tests of the equations of QM confirms them to the point that if you want to say that the outcomes correspond to reality, you can, IMHO. What you can't do with QM is know very much about locality or the local detail of events that take place. There is uncertainty about the location and motion of particles participating in those events except when measurements are made. The act of making measurements gives us information at the expense of interrupting the event. A particle on its way from somewhere to somewhere takes a path, and by observing that particle (measuring), the particle will go somewhere other than where it was going; no mystery there. However, there are interpretations of QM that imply that changes in the present can change the past, and that changes in the present can cause instantaneous changes to entangled particles at a distance. That is the mysterious world of non-locality, and the implication is that there was faster than light, perhaps instantaneous communication between entangled particles which makes the concept of reality an impossibility. It can be said that you can't have both reality and non locality without there being hidden variables, or without the implication the QM is incomplete. Here is an interesting discussion: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30065/why-do-people-rule-out-local-hidden-variables Locality is what you see when you measure, and non-locality is what what is going on that you don't see, i.e. where the particle is coming from, going, the path that it is taking, and unseen unmeasurable interactions. That is all fine, and most people who care enough to understand the difference between the various interpretations of QM have a preference as to which one or which group of interpretations they like. The results of the tests, calculations, and outcomes are always the same, only the description of the hidden variables, if any, differs. In some interpretations there are no hidden variables but only information that we get when we observe something, and in others there are hidden variables that mean that QM, though extremely correct about outcomes, is incomplete as to the sequence of events that drive the outcomes. The difference of opinion will probably always remain until a way to observe more detail is invented. That said, the QM portion of my so called model should be depicted as a "hidden variables" interpretation, where the sequence of events that drive the QM outcomes takes place at a foundational level of detail below the fundamental level depicted in the Standard Model. If you watched the video linked in post #18, (here it is again), with the distinction between the fundamental level and the foundational level in mind, you will see places where the action on a lower level could serve to fill in the hidden variables. The mechanics of the hidden quantum action help explain the mechanics of arena action that was necessary for the macro level big bangs to occur. (1194)
Of course, this being a hobby, and the so called model of a layman science enthusiast, that frees me up a bit to define a new level of order below the currently defined fundamental level of quantum mechanics; a realm where "tiny" takes on a new meaning, and is much smaller than the fundamental particles of the standard particle model. Those fundamental particles are said to have no internal composition, i.e. they are sometimes considered point particles for practical purposes. I visualize the idea that particles, even when it makes sense to call them point particles, do have complex quantum wave composition. So let me take you down to the foundational level by describing what I visualize there. I am talking about visualizing the foundational level even though there is no way to observe anything at that level. The act of personal visualization of a state, or superposition of states at the foundational level is a feature of my so called model. It corresponds to decoherence that takes place at the fundamental level of the Standard Model when we make an observation or measurement. Decoherence occurs when we observe a particle or an object. We can say that by making an observation or a measurement we are untangling the quantum states into something that we can then call real; we give it "locality" by observing it, and we can describe what we see. For example, decoherence is occurring when the photons bouncing off of an object reach our eye. Before and after our observation the object can be said to be in a state of superposition, which is the unobserved hidden action taking place (or not even taking place if you fancy some form of the interpretations arising from the Copenhagen interpretation of QM). In The Copenhagen interpretation, when we aren't observing something directly, it is like Schrodinger's "dead or alive" cat; is it dead, alive, both, or neither? In my version, the "hidden variables" can be characterized by continuous action where there is a physical impression of each quantum of energy in the foundational medium at all times, and therefore for every single individual spherically expanding quantum wave in the composition of the moon, seen or unseen; but nothing is standing still. There is a good definition of decoherence by Zeilinger in "Dance of the Photons". While talking about the double slit experiments he said that there is a need for a system or experiment to "be well isolated from the environment, since most disturbances from the outside world destroy the quantum states". "Each disturbance of a particle, which would in principle allow us to find out which of the two slits that particle takes, destroys the quantum interferences", i.e. we see particles and not waves. As I move into visualizations at the foundational level I will be describing the "real" action, the hidden variables, because the act of visualization doesn't have the same effect as observation has in QM, i.e. visualization doesn't cause decoherence and doesn't destroy the quantum interactions of superposition in my so called model. (1484)
This concept of "going deeper" into the "real" nature of the physical universe goes right against the grain of the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics that say there are no hidden variables. Those interpretations are where the philosophy of non-locality is OK; there is no reason to look "deeper" for a hidden "reality". Think about it from the standpoint of those who find it OK that there isn't a deeper level of order that hosts the hidden variables. It is reasonable to conclude that they are OK with it because as educated quantum physicists and researchers they know all of the current interpretations, and know that the probability functions and the means of dealing with uncertainty will always, without fail, give the same mathematical outcome from one measurement to the next when dealing with QM. We can only predict with some level of certainty what a particular quantum state of a particle will be when observed. The reasoning might go such that, if there is no way to observe the quantum action at the foundational level, i.e. the action going on before and after a measurement is made, is there any specific action there at all? If it is not there at all or if it is strictly a probability, then there is no ignorance of hidden variables, is there! The universe simply works on fundamental probability. Something is real only when a measurement or observation is made. We don't and can't know of anything deeper. The reasoning of this group has to be that that is the fact and we have to be OK with it. This is one of the most important human filters in quantum mechanics; the intellectual filter that asks, are you OK with the universe being based on probability at the fundamental level, or do you feel motivated to look deeper into the as yet unknown and unobservable, for something hidden there. Clearly the community as a whole is looking hard, but there is a growing acceptance of a universe based on probability at the fundamental level. I'm not one of the players who face that decision or who know enough to decide on non-locality vs. hidden variables. Realistically, as an interested layman hobbyist, while I wait for the professionals to turn their probability function into quantum gravity, I will be entertaining myself with hypothetical foundational level quantum action as the place to look for an explanation of the presence of particles and gravity; the hidden variables. (1706)
One thing I think is worth pointing out in defense of my hobby is that QM does not fix all of the problems of classical mechanics. The obvious shortcomings of the classical models of the atoms and the nature of energy density in regard to the electromagnetic spectrum, and black bodies were neatly solved by the discovery of quantization. But the issues of wave-particle duality, as well as the mechanics of gravity, not so much. Clearly there is a strong correlation between light and quantization. But it is not so clear that quantization is the whole story. The same goes with gravity; it is clear that quantized particles all respond to gravity in the same way (I think it is clear anyway). But gravity, just like light, seems to also fit into the wave category as well as the particle category (gravitons?). My view is that we can't solve wave-particle duality unless we look deeper into the nature of quantization. So I hypothesize that we will find a foundational level of order where the nature of things is not quantized, but where quantization emerges out of continuous wave action to form particles, and out of the presence of charged particles comes light that traverses the continuous wave medium of space. That is the basic characteristic of the foundational level in my so called model. There are literally energy waves that fill the entire medium of space, and as such, energy would qualify as a potentially infinite commodity associated with space. Waves of energy then would be intersecting and overlapping to cause a continual fluctuating wave energy density at all points in space. If you remember, I left the description of our new big bang arena at a start point (t=0) as a ball of dense state energy at the center of the collapsed big crunch, ready to emerge in the next instant into expansion into the very low energy density of the surrounding space that was vacated by the collapse. I see all big bang events to be the defeat of the entropy; entropy that had been taking place in the parent arenas before they converged. Billions of years of entropy had occurred as the energy in the parent arenas formed into the mature galactic structure. Now I am hypothesizing about the quantum realm where the foundational medium of space is continuous instead of discrete. There would therefore be a transition from quantized particles back to wave energy achieved by each big bang. That presents or creates a boundary between the dense state energy at t=0, the birth of the new arena, and the surrounding foundational medium of space mostly devoid of matter into which the dense state energy intrudes as the new arena inflates. The stage is now set for discussion of the continuous nature of wave energy at the foundational level and the way that discrete quanta form and establish the presence of particles, light and gravity as that boundary expands in a new arena after t=0. (1828)
Here is how I describe what I am envisioning in the local vicinity of a new arena's ball of dense state energy at t=0. First, t=0 indicates the start of expansion of a new arena, but the "t" associated with the arena history of the space surrounding the arena is the length of time since the parent arenas were at t=0; maybe their net combined t is t=1,000,000,000 (a trillion) by the time the new arena is setting out on its own. Of course, the t associated with the space itself, regardless of the arena history in that space, is t=∞ in my so called model, and the age of the energy that is in the new arena's dense state ball is also t=∞. So I envision a new arena's dense ball of the potentially eternal energy commodity that has been forced to nature's highest energy density by the collapse of a big crunch and we are at t=0 in that arena. Perhaps the ball is a light year across for talking purposes. The space surrounding that dense state ball also contains the energy commodity, but at natures lowest energy density state. The history of the most recent energy action in that surrounding space is that it has just been essentially vacated by the collapse of a big crunch. An instant ago it was occupied by the high density of the compressed particles that had survived the formation of the crunch; a crunch that may have been many light years across. I envision the local vicinity of our new arena as an energy environment that contains examples of nature's highest and lowest energy density states, separated at that moment in time by what would be called the first surface of interaction, where the outer surface of the dense state ball intersects with the surrounding low energy density space. Things are about to change in that local vicinity. (1884)
Obviously you are far more into this quantum weirdness stuff then I could ever be..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I can understand the above Copenhagen interpretation on face value....... The question remains, and will always be asked, "which quantum interpretation, at its most fundamental level, can we really be sure of, at least until we can measure and/or observe at those levels?"......The modelling at the most fundamental level seems so precise and beautiful mathematically speaking [or so they tell me, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ] but until we are able to observe and/or measure, it remains just beyond "scientific theory" and acceptance as such. Will we ever have an observable and measurable QGT? It seems as far out of reach today as it was 20 years ago, but being an optimist I'm sure it will happen one day....Just hoping they achieve it before I kick the bucket!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't know of anyone who thinks that they understand QM and from what I read, they say if you think you do, you are confused Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. The thing that differentiates the various interpretations is the theory of what is going on that we can't observe. Those are the non-local goings on that the various interpretations presume to define. My view is that when two particles are entangled, they each have their particular quantum state already determined, but we just can't know which particle is in which state until one is observed. If we say that my view alludes to "hidden" variables that exist though not yet confirmed by observation, the opposing view is that the individual states of each entangled particle are not determined until observed. Under that view, once one particles state is observed, the state of the other immediately becomes determined as if the information of the observed state is communicated instantly (faster than light) to the location of the other particle. The latter view leaves open possibilities that I personally don't subscribe to, like teleportation, time travel, faster than light communication, etc. But my main interest, like yours, is just to have the professionals come to a consensus on quantum gravity that has a good layman level description of the mechanics, something that can be tested and observed, before we die. How is your health, lol.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Who was it that said, the Universe is not only weirder then we Imagine, it is weirder then we can ever Imagine...or words to that effect......
