Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

I don't know if you see how insincere it makes you sound to me if you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the big bang could have occurred in preexisting space. I do know that you don't care if you seem insincere to me, so you don't have to say it. If we were both honest agents in a discussion about my layman speculation, hypotheses, and hobby-model, we would sound honest in our responses to each other. If we don't, it is best we don't talk.

I would love to go into the issues that you bring up, one by one, if you could stand it. I wouldn't expect you to change a single iota of your thinking, just acknowledge the difference between fact and theory, and be able to distinguish between explained observational evidence and unexplained evidence. But that won't matter if we decide not to discuss it with each other.

If we are going to have any discussion going forward, you don't have to answer the OP question straight out, but you do need to acknowledge that GR and other theories notwithstanding, there could have been preconditions to the Big Bang that include preexisting space.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since you haven't connected it to a single piece of known data other than the vague understanding that distant galaxies are accelerating away from us (a result which in turn depends on using GR to interpret the nature of the starlight coming towards us), why would I acknowledge the possibility of your proposals more than any other? Yeah it's "possible" there's some sort of pre-existing space doing whatever you want it to do, it's also "possible" there's a magic box on Jupiter which creates the illusion that anything exists beyond our solar system, either assumption at this point yields pretty similar predictions. You haven't even defined what "pre-existing space" is, nor how it's supposed to surround the theoretically infinite one we already know about, nor what the rules are for how your hypothetical energy densities should flow from one region to another.

Speaking of possibilities, you haven't even acknowledged that a successful theory of everything would have to yield our existing theories as highly accurate approximations under the sorts of conditions we're able to test at present, and that it's entirely possible such a theory won't look terribly different from GR and the Standard Model as we already know them today.

I left you alone for a long time after we last discussed some of our disagreements, but then you went and posted in a section intended for genuine scientific discussion, which is all I've been giving you.

Ok, well the first thing I want to discuss more than anything else is Bell's Theorem and the nonlocality issue. I don't think anyone with a respectable science background is going to have an interest in discussing your other ideas in detail if they're based on a foundation which contradicts known reality, so it's one of the most logical things to check first. We could have pinned this down ages ago if you'd wanted and spent far less time arguing back and forth, but now's as good a time as any.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do and intend to do, by engaging in a discussion about Bell's Theorem and other potential complications. I've said a thousand times in a thousand different ways that I don't believe physics is complete or flawless in its present state, physicists themselves are the ones who make people like you aware that there's even a problem in the first place, and that no honest person can claim today that they know what the eventual understanding will look like if the problems in present-day physics are resolved.

Not only can I acknowledge that what you say is entirely possible, I can also acknowledge that it's entirely possible space has 100 dimensions to it and doesn't do any of the things you say it does. I do not, however, believe it's possible for a localized theory to reproduce known experimental results, and if you're indeed pushing a localized model, then I want to see you try to prove me wrong. You actually did make an attempt at one point to address the question, but your simple discussion of pre-determined spins didn't address the off-axis spin measurements described in Bell's Theorem, which led me to believe you hadn't actually looked at the specific contents of the theorem, the situations is applies to or the assumptions made in its deduction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And let me say, in the name of honesty, that while I can acknowledge your ideas as possibilities that I can't completely rule out (indeed, you can just as plausibly argue that it's possible 100 years of experimentation is simply dead wrong altogether), I do think your ideas are entirely arbitrary, not reasonable and responsible, and won't be able to describe and predict the intricate phenomena of our universe with even the slightest degree of success. By pushing for outside the box alternatives to existing theories, it seems like you're the one who's discounting possibilities, such as the Standard Model and GR being almost entirely correct and possibly only needing a few small tweaks to mesh properly and resolve issues of renormalization. Despite what I think, I'm willing to entertain your ideas and only dismiss them outright if I can show that they contradict a known piece of evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not asking you to do that, and for the record, if we spend time tolerating each other enough to walk through this, save your obvious stipulations. They aren't necessary. I have been doing this for years and I know what you are going to say before you say it, lol. Maybe not exactly, but if every exchange involves you educating me on things I already am aware of, though I don't have them in depth, if they aren't critical to the next step in my hobby-model, let's wait until we get there. AN used to love to expound on the details, call me a name, and then move on, so suit your self, but if you write it I suppose you think I read it, and I won't always, so be brief with your counter arguments until we get to where they are needed to falsify some step in my model.

You must read everything I say though, lol. Now you can take that as an affront and tell me to shove off, or you can take it as a opportunity not to have to type all of the theory specific physics, because my stuff is just simple, bottoms up speculation where one step leads to another. Can we get to a place where GR is replaced with some mechanics for gravity, and where GR mathematics still is almost perfect, and at the same time there is an hypothesis (not a scientific theory) of the mechanics of gravity as a result? Certainly we won't get that far before you falsify some major part, or you give up.

Acknowledged, QW's model is indistinguishable from fantasy. I'm OK if you insist on it being "fairy dust". But to be honest, why bother with it then? What is the point of wasting your time? (Rhetorical question). Nothing you have said falsifies the existence of space as a three dimensional place where whatever happens has preexisting conditions. An event has a start and a duration, and space is required. If you have the philosophy that the universe came from nothing, you will have to say how that could be.

One step at a time.Try to think like the simple layman that I am; try not to hurt yourself though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Space is a place that we can move around in. If a Big Bang can happen, it can happen in preexisting space, in my layman logic.

I acknowledge that.

I know, right there in P&M, the audacity. Why didn't you save me the effort, and just come out here? (Rhetorical question, no response expected)

Save me the time of doing it and go back to where we discussed that. If you insist you can falsify the existence of a finer lever of energy density, you can end it here then, because my model is based on the interpretation that the tools of QM are incomplete, and that there is a physical level where the action is on a smaller scale. Falsify that (Rhetorical challenge, no need to tell me there is no measurable evidence). My model is based on it being there, so save your breath and call me a derp, and don't let the door hit you, or what ever that is you said I did. It is the micro level equivalent to looking out at our Hubble view on a large scale and realizing we can't see the whole universe. The idea in my methodology is that we cannot observe the ultimate depths and reaches of reality, but if the models we have don't work together, something is wrong somewhere. Tell me where.

I know it isn't the same thing, but I am aware of Bell's Theorem, and I gave you information of how I understood that the Hidden Variables interpretations that were tested were crafted. They had to be falsifiable with the existing tools (equations, theory, etc.). They did not include any interpretations that were based on QM being incomplete. No one knows in what way they might be incomplete, so you can't craft an interpretation that shows that they are.

I'm not interested in proving you wrong. I don't care what convoluted theories you believe. There are inconsistencies in them so how far back do you have to go to construct a theory where the inconsistencies disappear, and what would have to be different? You don't know? Where do you start if you want to resolve them? Do you try to keep some significant parts when you don't know where the problems are? I simply start with the observations and data.

Maybe, but I don't have the particle physics rebuilt from scratch, so if you want that, then save your time. If you want a framework which brings you to a point where particles form, and can then invoke what we know about particles and particle forces, the Standard Model, then how we get there isn't the issue. What we need is an environment where particles can form, and where the standard particle model can be derived from observation, testing, experiments, etc.

There are other aspects of my model that point to the deeper level of energy density. If there are physics that can cause a Big Bang for example. What are they? You have the answers yet, or would you have to speculate. If your theory cannot explain a Big Bang then it is incomplete, unless you are saying there was no Big Bang, or that it came from nothingness. If it came from nothingness, we are finished if you have satisfactory evidence. My suspicion about a deeper level of "reality" is consistent with other aspects that are necessary to make the whole thing work.
""""""

Save your breath; you are making up a straw man with that. It is a tactic.

Save your breath, they are not entirely arbitrary, only somewhat arbitrary.

I know that is your position; what I wish is that you would say it once, give me credit of being able to read, and then let's get going, or just wave me off. We don't need each other, we only go forward with the interest of a consistent model.

That is all you needed to say to move forward. I hate having to respond to ten line items. I am old, I have thought about this for years, and I don't care about how difficult is for you be seen talking with me, get over it. Just think of it as looking like your are tolerating a layman, and show me what is wrong with the model.

Let's see if you can falsify the concept that space has three spatial dimensions, and things that happen in it take time to occur, hence there is space and time. My speculation is that this three dimensional space is infinite, but right now we only need enough space to surround the known universe with sufficient extra space for the Big Bang portion of the universe to expand into without any need for new space to be added as it expands. Can we continue on that basis?

 

Well here's the crux of it, your understanding is completely wrong. All local hidden variable theories have been experimentally ruled out, regardless of what they specifically say or how their hidden variables work, and no matter in what way quantum mechanics might eventually be falsified. If you're saying that you accept the principle of nonlocality as part of your model, then you could have said so and settled the matter ages ago.

 

Good, you just saved me a lot of time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Since the general topic was raised in post #5 by CptBork, what you really mean is you have wasted 5 pages avoiding the discussion?

 

Ok.

 

So you're in agreement that any viable theory must be able to reproduce the known results of nonlocality experiments, without violating causality?

 

So you are in agreement that you went through all that to avoid answering the OP question, and to insist on imposing your straw man tactic? Honest agent? No.

 

.

Because they are brilliant and sometimes genius , far beyond what we are discussing

Hence why I keep on giving alternative websites

Some brilliant people and genius are not in the hands of any , they are , independent

 

So then you're saying you actually don't accept the principle of nonlocality?

 

And if so what would be the implications ?

 

The implications would be that there's no point in speculating on a theory restricted to localized hidden variables, since that restriction alone, regardless of any other postulates, can be mathematically demonstrated (Bell's Theorem) to prevent the theory from correctly predicting the results of Alain Aspect's and subsequent experiments (experiments which just so happen to also agree precisely with the nonlocal QM prediction). This is a result which does not depend on the specifics of the local hidden variable theory in question- every single possible local hidden variable theory restricting things to the speed of light has been conclusively disproven, just as any theory which says you can't go faster than 60mph has been conclusively disproven. The nice thing about QM, is that it allows for nonlocal effects to occur without any information being sent faster than light, precisely because of its statistical nature. There's no point in making such assumptions then, insofar as the theory is supposed to be based on "reasonable and responsible speculation" which is further specified to imply no disagreements with known experiments.

So the question is, do we want reasonable and responsible speculation here, or do we not want it?

 

This is the thing though , statistics , the average

The statistics lack depth , and detail

 

But they contain truth, and that's the most important thing above all.

 

True

But a limited truth , through average

 

You can get a lot more than just an average out of a probability distribution, but I think you've got the idea. Well, if you know how a nonlocal theory can be deterministic and not violate Relativistic causality, while making testable predictions without having to take account of every single particle in the entire universe, I'd love to hear it.

 

What is missed by probability will probably be important

The pure mathematical physics would be daunting , but still should be done

I think though right now , at our point of knowledge , of the Universe , is a little to soon to be taking the mean , and making the mean , an absolute truth

 

I believe, though I need to find the appropriate links, that nonlocal effects were proved to be other than merely of a statistical nature....
Initially non-local effects was proven by use of statistical assessment, which apparently amazed the researcher who was actually trying to dis-pove QM and not prove it.

any ways I shall do some more research and see what we can dig up...