What is Quantum Wave Cosmology discussion thread

OK Oli, maybe I was a bit presumptuous. I thought that symmetry breaking created matter and anti-matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does a pencil falling over after being balanced on its tip create matter/ anti-matter?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please don't pretend you know about spontaneous symmetry breaking beyond what you read on Wikipedia. You've previously commented you don't like it when Prom and I rip into you but if you're going to try to BS people that you understand such things as electroweak theory then you're just asking for it.

There's many different kinds of symmetries and ways to break them. Such things as CP violation can perhaps account for the different amount of matter versus antimatter. This can be done spontaneously or not. Do you even know the difference? If I gave you a Lagrangian could you tell me if it breaks, or could break, a particular symmetry, which symmetries and how? I doubt it. If you want to be taken seriously stop trying to pretend you know more than you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cosmological constant reference? I don't get the point.

 

Not a cosmological reference.
It was an example (the first I was ever given, IIRC) of symmetry breaking.
A pencil balanced on its tip is in symmetry (admittedly a precarious one, but...), as soon as it falls the symmetry is broken.

 

Please link to the statement where I said I don't like it when Prom and you rip into me". I might have said that you say I say things that I didn't say and then you attack the straw man you created.

And you are doing the same thing by characterizing my discussion of symmetry breaking as if I was pretending to know something beyond Widipedia. A straw man.

Please read the OP and the Google doc. Try to stay on topic and avoid the straw men.

 

Oh, OK. Now back to the question about matter and anti-matter. Were the created by spontaneous symmetry breaking in your view, i.e. when the pencil fell?

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2308223&postcount=4

I don't see a reply to this post. We have nothing to discuss until the Guest fairy dust issue is off the table. Please re-read the post.

 

Short answer: not necessarily.
For example the pdf from the link about nothing breaking up has

Which could mean that the sister universe is anti-matter (speculation on my part).

Or baryogenesis could account for the lack... (I'm not sure if that's the same thing as C/P Violation, but I presume somebody will step in).
If it's not then C/P violation is another possible answer.

 

The thread of yours in the feedback or whatever it is forum, as well as the threads of yours in the astronomy forum. You've not liked the replies Prom and I have given you and you've previously put us on ignore.

Or did you just put us on ignore because you want to play hard to get?

Clearly throwing the phrase around in a discussion as if its old hat to you is an attempt to make people think you're familiar with it. Given your utter lack of grasp of even basic scientific concepts, never mind the particulars of quantum field theory I question if you even grasp the Wiki pages on it. Prom asked you about O(N) breaking to O(N-1), did you follow what he meant?

And the 'bogie' persona of yours on PhysOrg wasn't exactly a shining example of how to do science. And I'm quite happy to admit that the 3 statements you wanted to be axioms are not self evidence and so are tenuous to develop a theory from, never mind the fact they are vague and imprecise. I see in the 2.5 years since then you've not manage to actually do anything of any worth, just make up more BS.

 

OK, here is the thing. An axiom can be negated by any theory that refutes it, right. There are a million theories out there, all with their own math, and some that work together and some that don't.

How do I even address an axiom that says the universe has always existed if I don't know what theories are out there, if I don't know if the theories are mathematically sound and work together mathematically, and if the theories cannot be tested.

Short answer, I can't, at least not to anyone's satisfaction.

Now consider my objective as stated in the document, 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. 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 that they support or even condone. No one should believe that QWC is fact or science except to the degree that 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 about the universe beyond the consensus of the professionals but that is collaborated, well thought out, and cannot be easily refuted."

You see my dilemma? I either have to sacrifice a complete, consistent and connected physical picture of the universe, i.e. my personal cosmology (which is not an option) or I have to have statements about what is self-evident to me even if they don't stand up as axioms.

 

No, you're missing the point.
An axiom is something that cannot be proven (in the mathematical sense) to be true, but is self-evidently true and accepted as such by everyone.
Your "axiom" was not self-evident (in that someone, anyone, could simply say "I can't see that"), nor was it true because there are conflicting data/ theories.

So it's a personal view.
And will never be anything more.

There's the fundamental problem. The statement "which is not an option" regarding abandoning your personal view.
That makes it simply your individual dogma.
Not science, not protoscience, but dogmatic pseudo-science and a refusal to face facts.
You think a real scientist wouldn't give up his view of things if shown that it didn't conform to known facts?
Hell, I've lost count of the number of projects I've worked on (consuming thousands of man-hours* and tens of thousands of pounds of real money, not to mention that that time and money could have been used on something else) just to have someone turn up and say "We had another look and X is a real problem, it will never work".
Should I have said "Fuck you, I've put too much time and effort into this to give up and even though it won't work I'm carrying on"?
Being wedded to a personal view simply because it's personal and you've put time into it means nothing whatsoever if it goes against the facts.
That's part of life.
And NOT junking the rubbish to start again with something (hopefully) better is nothing more than than throwing good money/ time/ effort down the drain with the bad.
That's just compounding the folly.
You learn that shit happens, keep the good bits (if there are any) and lose the rest.

* Not just my time either.

 

I'm not disputing your appraisal, what I am saying is read #2 and realize that I will ultimately have to go where you, where science, where Prom and AN, where the community will not go if I want to fill in the gaps in the best that science has to offer.

I won't need to do that if you, science, Prom or AN, or anyone else can answer the question, "what caused the initial expansion of the observable universe". What is the answer to that question from your view point? Do you think that there will be an answer ever, let alone in my lifetime? No, and neither do I.

That is why QWC exists at all. It is unabashed speculation with a methodology. It is the best I can do and I want it to be better and better, but I what a scenario that answers the question.

The step by step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible speculations are speculations. They cannot be tested and they introduce a minimum new physics to accomplish the task of filling in where science leaves off.

 

You lost me.
#2?

If they cannot be tested then what's the point?
If they can't be tested then, frankly, the whole thing is either philosophy or mental masturbation (which is, at times, what philosophy is).

 

Section 2 in the Google doc.

Read section 2 in the document.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you mean you didn't read the Google doc and you have been thinking I was calling QWC science? http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9

I have been talking about new physics, arenas comparable to our expanding known "universe", a landscape of arenas making up the greater universe, a quantum level where a single quantum of energy might be comparable to a single string in energy content. This is speculation and I thought I had been clear about that.

But I do acknowledge that you are a new face and one that I have appreciated.

 

Ah, I have memories of previous "incarnations" of QWC being touted as "protoscience" in other threads.

 

In other words, "you keep asking questions I can't answer so I'm going to blithely refuse to answer any of them." There's always an excuse - it's the wrong forum or I don't like the way the question was phrased or some such.

I think anyone reading this can see that what you're doing is wasting your time. Remember, if you want your ideas to get anywhere it's up to you to put the work in to convince people why they are any good. Just because you don't like the fairy theory that guest pointed out was identical to yours except for using different words (he used fairies, you say "quantum action" which is a gross misuse of a scientific term) doesn't mean it isn't a fair and accurate representation.

Anyway, before the guest theory and the ensuing hissy fit, I'd already pointed out that QWC cosmology said nothing and misused scientific terminology left right and centre as I'm sure other people had also done. (actually, it was in the second post I made to you.)

I have no doubt you'll just completely ignore me again, but that's good because it makes you look conniving and immature. I have no doubt that you have no genuine understanding of any proper physics you are talking about, like spontaneous symmetry breaking for example.

 

Yes, protoscience is a good description. Let us say that science takes us all the way to today's version of the best science we humans can do, and let's say that is Big Bang Theory with inflation, the Cosmological Principle, and on the particle front, the Standard Particle Model. I call that Science and we all agree it includes the leading edge of consensus on theory.

I say that science leaves off and protoscience begins with the question, "What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe", and I set out to speculate starting back in 2003 on forums, through Internet discussions, searches, off line discussions, etc. Read sections 3 and 4 of the document now, http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9. That is why I call it protoscience.

The stark reality is that if I or anyone in the world (accept Prometheus) wants ideas about that realm of reality that science has not yet unfolded to us, that person has one avenue; speculation.

Prometheus does not recognize the existence of any speculation that doesn't invoke fantasy but there are real scientists doing speculation every second of every day. They are hesitant to talk about their personal speculations because they know that speculation is not science but they do it because it is pre-science, often referred to as emerging science or protoscience. I simply have no fear of a peer reprisal and so I talk about my speculation freely and ask others to do the same. Some do.

Do you deny this and call all speculation fairy dust like Prometheus does, or do you agree that before the scientific method can be applied, there has to be pre-science in the form of ideas?

Some agree that there is pre-science. And then they agree that there has to be a methodology in pre-science. Mine is that you don't start with preconceived ideas, you start from the bottom up. That means you look at the fact that the galaxies in our observable universe are all moving away from each other (accept in local groups) and you ask what caused them to move like that. As I have found and you would too, you start with a small step and that leads to a new point in speculation, i.e. a next step. If you do the step by step bottom up speculation in a reasonable and responsible fashion with collaboration from anyone who wants to contribute across the Internet, you have a connected set of speculative ideas. I my case I am the moderator of the set of ideas that is my personal view of cosmology and I call it Quantum Wave Cosmology.

Some hate it and use every tactic to belittle it. Most science oriented people outwardly talk it down but might themselves have some speculative ideas that peer pressure keeps them from airing. Then there are old guys like me who fear nothing that Prometheus or AlphaNumeric can say because I know they are trapped in their lives of dedication to rigor and my technique is so different that they are unable to appreciate it.

Where do you stand. That is a rhetorical question for everyone. Where do you stand on what you are willing to talk about because it is a certainty that you think about these things.

 

It doesn't work like that. You make an observation and then take that to it's logical conclusion to make a prediction (or many predictions). You seem to think that science and pre-science is people dreaming - it's not, as I've told you before. Results are mathematically derived from postulates that are physically acceptable.

For questions about things that science hasn't gotten to like what happens to cause the big bang, there are plenty of scientific ways to explore that. Both string theory and loop quantum gravity have developed ideas about this, so it's wrong to say we can only speculate.

You can believe it or not, but scientists generally believe in the scientific method so you saying that peer pressure keeps us from accepting new ideas is totally wrong as well. The thing that prevents your ideas being accepted is because they are not based on anything other than your own personal view, which you yourself acknowledge. Science doesn't rely on people to tell it what the facts are, it's up to people to work that stuff out in a way that can be tested.

For you to call your ideas pre science or protoscience does two things - it makes it clear that you don't have any idea about how science really works, and furthermore it makes it very obvious that you have nothing but contempt for real science and the practitioners thereof because you feel you can walk into the area and revolutionise it without putting the work in.

 

Get over yourself. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2308707&postcount=28

And re-read this: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2309248&postcount=38

And read the OP. Here is the Googl.doc that this thread is about. http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_6dtnkzxg9