The Big Wait

[quantum_wave]

The Big Wait

Waiting with my iPad

WARNING: Tossing up my own "word salad" (to use a common but acceptable flame often mentioned in my threads), in the Alternative Theories sub forum (it is in line with the guidelines and moderator comments about the purpose of this Alternative Theories sub forum), and not caring who likes it or not (except I always respect the opinions of administrators and moderators).

I find myself waiting for a lot of things these days, what with being retired, and somewhat solitary. I almost always have my computer with me when I'm waiting.

Good thing I have a hobby that can be pursued with a my PC or my iPad while I wait.

My hobby is to have a personal view of the cosmology of the universe.

I know, strange hobby, right? Often I am asked why, and after all of these years of answering that in various levels of detail to blank faces, both live and on the Internet, I now boil it down to, "Isn't it obvious", lol. We don't know what caused the Big Bang, and we don't know what causes the presence of particles, or the mechanics of gravity, and so I think about it while I wait.

The Big Wait is for the scientific community to answer the questions to my satisfaction (not to someone else's satisfaction, mind you), and I think it will take a consensus on a quantum mechanical solution to gravity to satisfy me. I keep abreast of the popular science media sources available to all laymen science enthusiasts, and watch and wait and contemplate.

Did you ever look for the answers to those three questions in the popular media? Google "what caused the Big Bang" for example. Here's one typical blogger's answer. I don't care what a few antagonistic members the professional scientific community say, they don't know the answer. The small but vocal minority that think they know or that say we can't know, are full of disdain for a layman who is impatient and impertinent like me. The best advice, and I get it from science forum administrators and moderators alike, ignore them if they can't be civil when addressing the questions they cannot yet answer conclusively.

But I have thought about it a lot. Enough to have spent years and years since the Internet and computers opened up the ultimate research source, doing my own personal investigation of layman level cosmology and the related physics.

As a practical matter, using the Internet to do the personal research, I end up at various science forums or websites where I find people who have given it some thought. They come in all levels from those who just thought about it last night and have come to a great insight or revelation, often followed by a marijuana leaf gif, to those who have made a career of it. My conclusion is that we still don't know for sure.

Ever so rarely I find someone at a professional level, or a well self taught layman, who knows a lot about it, and is honest and smart enough to say they are not really sure about the answers to my questions. Those few may or may not care to share their own speculations here like I do. They have peer pressure that increases with their professional status in the scientific community to consider, and I have no apparent relevant credentials and no claims of any status at all, so I "hypothesize" at will.

I hypothesize a lot in fact, and I have my own so called model, filled with speculation and hypotheses that I use as talking points, and that I keep updating in directions that my personal research leads me.

In my search for answers I enjoy conducting threads on the various aspects of the scientific observables that we have to work with, and the mainstream and the alternative explanations derived from those observations. Here at SciForums, and elsewhere, my recent threads have been filled with hundreds of rude messages from those who think they know the answers, or who are sure I couldn't have enough information or understanding to talk intelligently about it, even at a layman level. I think it is time to go off on my own again for awhile out here in the Fringe and just say what I think.

Therefore, this thread is in the Alternative Theories sub forum in the Fringe forum. Reputable science professionals don't generally muck around out here. I expect a few sincere searchers of the truth like myself, and a few who get their panties in a wad when I reject their version of the "truth" and tell them I still seek it for myself. I'll repeat a favorite saying, "Trust those who seek the truth, not those who say they have found it".

The rule here is to be civil.

That is a bit "in their face", but read through my last threads and you will see that there are a handful of truly rude people who can't resist throwing flames. This is to those who can't resist greater and greater expressions of disdain towards me because I don't appreciate their rigorous misunderstanding of inconsistent mainstream theories (don't take that wrong, it is hyperbole) ... show your incivility if you must, because I can truly enjoy ignoring you out here if you can't be civil.

I'll end this opening post with a brief description of the high points of my so called model as it stands:

We don't know what caused the Big Bang and so I speculate about preconditions.

Contemplation about preconditions leads me to suppose that space, time, and energy preexisted the Big Bang, and that there are as yet unknown quantum physics at work that caused our Big Bang to occur out of a preceding big crunch.

Contemplation about how a big crunch might form and bang opens up speculation about a greater universe where big bangs are common events, and each big bang inflates and matures out into an arena in the space from which the contents of its preceding big crunch were accumulated.

That leads to speculation about energy density, and the conclusion that the collapse of a big crunch represents natures maximum energy density, and the vacated space surrounding the collapse/bang of that big crunch represents natures lowest energy density.

That contemplation suggests a foundational force that I call energy density equalization, and I elaborate on how that force, and the corresponding opposite force of gravity work together to explain the mechanics that take place between the big bang events, and the big crunches that eventually follow big bangs across the big bang arena landscape.

The arbiters between those two main foundational forces are the processes of quantum action which establishes the local presence of matter and gravity in new arenas, and arena action that leads to the formation of new big crunches that negate the local galactic matter into foundational energy that fills the medium of space in the new arena.

Big crunches form out of the convergences of two (or more) mature galaxy filled parent arenas. As particles form and fill "infant" arenas with hundreds of billions of galaxies as the arenas expand, the process of arena action results in convergences of those expanding parent arenas, and the force of gravity compresses the galactic material in the overlap space into new big crunches.

I visualize a dynamic and perpetual big bang arena landscape governed by natural limits and thresholds of those opposing forces, and controlled by quantum action and arena action; an arena landscape that fills the greater universe and defeats entropy.

(1 view)

 

[quantum_wave]

The Big Wait
...

Contemplation about preconditions leads me to suppose that space, time, and energy preexisted the Big Bang, and that there are as yet unknown quantum physics at work that caused our Big Bang to occur out of a preceding big crunch.

...

Though a summary of the high points of my so called model makes it look like I went right to the big crunch as the condition immediately preceding our big bang, there was some on line brainstorming and the popular theories were considered. I decided that the big crunch was consistent with the observational evidence, the raw redshift data. It eliminates the "something from nothing" option, and changes the nature of the initial event from a singularity to consideration of what a big crunch of that magnitude would be like physically and how it could "bang".

(32 views)

 

[quantum_wave]

...

Contemplation about how a big crunch might form and bang opens up speculation about a greater universe where big bangs are common events, and each big bang inflates and matures out into an arena in the space from which the contents of its preceding big crunch were accumulated.

...

To continue the development of the idea of a big crunch, I would like to describe the concept of an energy density environment. Though any patch of space can be said to contain energy, either in the form of matter or in the form of the energy content of the medium of space itself, in my so called model the energy density environments are differentiated from one type to another.

The existence of a big crunch is a typical energy density environment that has a natural differentiation. The crunch represents an interim stage in the arena process. It is the stage that is at the cusp between the mature parent arenas filled with galaxies that are separating from each other, and the new arena that is about to emerge out of the convergence of two or more such mature arenas.

The crunch, though a complex accumulation of matter and energy, is substantially composed of about half of the galactic material from each of two parent arenas (in a two parent scenario, though certainly remnants of other older arenas can be captured in the new crunch). Each parent arena was initially composed of about half of the galactic material from each of its two parent arenas, and so on.

So the big crunch is preceded by two expanding arenas full of galaxies. These parent arenas were expanding within existing space. The separation of the galaxies as evidenced by the redshift within each arena gives evidence of the expansion of the arenas as their galaxies move away from each other. The result is that two adjacent expanding arenas will intersect and overlap, setting up the energy density environment within which a big crunch can form under the influence of gravity.

(59 views)

 

[quantum_wave]

From the OP:

The Big Wait
...
That leads to speculation about energy density, and the conclusion that the collapse of a big crunch represents natures maximum energy density, and the vacated space surrounding the collapse/bang of that big crunch represents natures lowest energy density.
...

That statement from the OP alludes to the differentiation between the energy density environment at the point where a big crunch collapses inward to form a ball of "dense state energy" at the focus of the collapse, and the space just vacated as the matter in the crunch is negated by the compression of gravity to the wave energy of which is it composed. That vacated space is natures lowest energy density environment, and the focus point of the collapse, before the new arena "bounced" into expansion, is natures highest energy density environment. The collapse is the event that I refer to as a big bang.

In my so called model, the big crunch that forms out of the energy density environment mentioned in my last post ...

...
The result is that two adjacent expanding arenas will intersect and overlap, setting up the energy density environment within which a big crunch can form under the influence of gravity.
...

... collapses to an energy density environment containing the sum of the energy in the big crunch, but occupying a tiny space relative to the size of the crunch before it collapsed. That collapse reaches natures maximum limit of energy density; not infinite density, but as close to infinite as nature allows. It is at that instant of maximum energy density that the new arena emerges.

(84 views)

 

[quantum_wave]

Certainly I can't describe the big crunch as a black hole in the normal sense. Its capacity incorporates the equivalent matter and energy of trillions of black holes of various sorts, from the neutron stars and magnetars that endure after super novas, to the galactic black holes in the center of galaxies, to the mini black holes produced by the LHC (just kidding about that last one, lol).

But I wouldn't disagree with the big crunch being characterized as an ultimate black hole that is so massive that it is the one energy density environment that can negate all particles to their constituent wave energy.

The hypothesis that I am invoking from my so called model is that particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments. When a big crunch accumulates a "critical capacity" of matter/energy, the compression of the matter/energy in the crunch exceeds the particle density limit allowed by nature, and particles cease to function as individual particles; I call it the point of particle negation.

The particles are forced to give up their individual space and the wave energy of the internal quanta of all the particles in the crunch are forced into one huge high density ball of energy; one huge high density spot that forms for an instant at the focus at the center of the collapsing big crunch, and then bounces off of the natural maximum energy density limit and immediately expands back into the space that was just vacated as the particles in the crunch were negated.

This momentary maximum density high density spot produced by the collapse/bang of a big crunch/big bang is also what I refer to as an arena quantum.

(116 views)

 

[quantum_wave]

This momentary maximum density high density spot produced by the collapse/bang of a big crunch/big bang is also what I refer to as an arena quantum.

(116 views)

What keeps the entire universe from falling into the big crunch? Why stop at some finite limit; when everything is falling in toward the center of gravity at the overlap of two parent arenas, why don't all of the rest of the big bang arenas across the entire landscape of the greater universe just turn toward the growing crunch and eventually fall into one "end all" super crunch?

It is true that nothing, once attracted into a big crunch, can escape its grasp ... EXCEPT ... for the fact that the size that a crunch can reach has a limit; I mentioned earlier that this limit is called the "critical capacity" of a big crunch. When the critical capacity is reached, the crunch collapses/bangs, ending the inflow of galactic matter from the parent arenas, and starting a new expanding big bang arena.

Reaching critical capacity followed by the resulting big bang means that the gravitational attraction of a big crunch has a finite duration as well as a finite capacity.

I hypothesize that when particles are negated, gravity stops at the same time; there are no more particles to feel and express gravity. It isn't the density of energy in the foundational medium that exerts gravity, it is the presence of particles of matter that expresses gravity, and it is the process of quantum action that establishes the presence of particles and that therefore initiates gravity in a new arena.

So note that the beginning of gravity in an arena is the result of particle formation during the early expansion phase of a new arena, and the cessation of gravity in a big crunch is the negation of particles and matter that comes when arena expansion is interrupted by the convergence of parent arenas.

This high density spot, the arena quantum as I call it, at the focal point of the big bang, represents nature's highest density of the medium of space, but not natures highest expression of gravity. That highest expression of gravity occurred back when the crunch reached critical capacity. It was at the point of critical capacity that produced nature's highest expresson of matter density and gravity, i.e. at the instant of the collapse.

(171 views)

 

[dumbest man on earth]

quantum_wave, I have read and re-read your posts. You present some very interesting ideas/thoughts/musings/views and I, for one, can realize that you have done considerable research on this very interesting subject.
Being an inquisitive, curious, pondering..."thinker"..."philosopher"...of the amateur/layman variety myself, I would like to express some ideas/thoughts/musings/views of my own - if I may?

1. - I am under the impression that "The Big Bang" is a theory. Many years of testing/research/experimentation have been done in relation to said theory. The resulting "evidence", has not, for me (and others way more intelligent/learned/knowledgeable than me), been enough to change that impression.

2. - The presumption/assumption of "The Big Bang" theory as "fact", has resulted in many other theories to support said presumptions/assumptions. This "Big Crunch", you speak of, seems to me to be one of the resultant theories.

3. - You seem to opine : "Big crunches form out of the convergences of two (or more) mature galaxy filled parent arenas." Why must there be a minimum of "two...mature galaxy filled parent arenas." ?

I also have a couple of links that I believe may have some relevance - you may or may not have come across them - hence my posting of the links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mBOQ3KrbjE

Later,dmoe

 

[quantum_wave]

quantum_wave, I have read and re-read your posts. You present some very interesting ideas/thoughts/musings/views and I, for one, can realize that you have done considerable research on this very interesting subject.
Being an inquisitive, curious, pondering..."thinker"..."philosopher"...of the amateur/layman variety myself, I would like to express some ideas/thoughts/musings/views of my own - if I may?

* 1. - I am under the impression that "The Big Bang" is a theory. Many years of testing/research/experimentation have been done in relation to said theory. The resulting "evidence", has not, for me (and others way more intelligent/learned/knowledgeable than me), been enough to change that impression.

I acknowledge that Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted theory; the consensus, consisting of General Relativity, Inflationary Theory, the Cosmological Constant, and the Cosmological Principle. Like most will agree, the observational evidence that supports BBT does not make it conclusive, and the same evidence is also consistent with other alternatives; my so called model included.

*2. - The presumption/assumption of "The Big Bang" theory as "fact", has resulted in many other theories to support said presumptions/assumptions. This "Big Crunch", you speak of, seems to me to be one of the resultant theories.

You are misunderstanding my so called model, but is is my mistake that I refer to a big bang event that is evidenced by the redshift data, leading you to think I am talking about BBT as a whole perhaps. But if you followed my contributions to my thread, "At rest with our Hubble view", you know that my so called model departs from BBT immediately after I acknowledge that there was some event causing the expansion. Maybe it would be more appropriate for me to drop the common phrase, "Big Bang", and replace it with "collapse/bounce of a big crunch", or something, but by sometimes referring to that event as the Big Bang, I am just confirming my agreement that there was some initial event underpinning the observed expansion; an event caused by some unknown and unmentioned preconditions.

I am OK with the expanding universe concept once I convey the idea of an arena, and point out that it is the arenas that expand, not the universe as a whole. I depict the greater universe as a potentially infinite arena landscape. The big bang event is not defined by BBT, and I am speculating about the event preconditions, and do not otherwise include the particulars of the official Big Bang Theory, as you will see as this thread unfolds.

*3. - You seem to opine : "Big crunches form out of the convergences of two (or more) mature galaxy filled parent arenas." Why must there be a minimum of "two...mature galaxy filled parent arenas." ?

You are picking up on my explanation to simplify the concept of arena convergences; the two parent scenario is easiest to describe though here are a couple of places where I imply multiple arena convergences must be considered, and in my more detailed discussions there would certainly be a complex set of arena contributions to any accumulating big crunch. See these posts where I hint at that:

Big crunches form out of the convergences of two (or more) mature galaxy filled parent arenas. As particles form and fill "infant" arenas with hundreds of billions of galaxies as the arenas expand, the process of arena action results in convergences of those expanding parent arenas, and the force of gravity compresses the galactic material in the overlap space into new big crunches.

The crunch, though a complex accumulation of matter and energy, is substantially composed of about half of the galactic material from each of two parent arenas (in a two parent scenario, though certainly remnants of other older arenas can be captured in the new crunch).

I also have a couple of links that I believe may have some relevance - you may or may not have come across them - hence my posting of the links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mBOQ3KrbjE

Later,dmoe

Thank you, dmoe, for the deep field and extreme deep field videos. It is always fun to watch related videos, and I think it is appropriate for me to refer to the deep field as the "extreme deep field (XDF)" in my descriptions of the Hubble view from now on .

(225 views)

 

[quantum_wave]

*3. - You seem to opine : "Big crunches form out of the convergences of two (or more) mature galaxy filled parent arenas." Why must there be a minimum of "two...mature galaxy filled parent arenas." ?

Earlier I misunderstood your third point. You asked why a minimum of two parent arenas. The reason for needing at least two is that there is a mimunum amount of matter/energy that has to be accumulated in a new big crunch before it will bang; the arena quantum as I call it. Since the galactic material in a single arena is always expanding with separtation momentum, one arena cannot collapse, its expansion has to be interruped. The only interruption significant enough to cause enough galactic material to accumulate around a new center of gravity to create a new big crunch equal to a new arena quantum of energy is the intersection and overlap between at least two parent arenas.

Each parent has a full arena quantum to contribute, so it would take half of the galactic material from each to equal a new arena quantum. My initial misunderstanding of your question resulted in me pointing out that there certainly could be more than two "parent" arenas contributing to the crunch/bang that produces the new arena.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

This high density spot, the arena quantum as I call it, at the focal point of the big bang, represents nature's highest density of the medium of space, but not natures highest expression of gravity. That highest expression of gravity occurred back when the crunch reached critical capacity. It was at the point of critical capacity that produced nature's highest expression of matter density and gravity, i.e. at the instant of the collapse.

That statement mentions two stages in the arena process that occur sequentially over a short duration; the point where critical capacity is reached in the big crunch causing particles to be negated which initiates the collapse, and the point that quickly follows the beginning of the collapse where particles are gone (negated) and where the energy content of the crunch has been compressed to its maximum. Those two events are immediately followed by the emergence of the new arena composed of an arena quantum of energy.

At that point in the process of arena action, we have arrived at a high energy density spot of finite volume, internally equalized to nature's smoothest and almost isotropic perfection throughout, and ready to bounce into nature's most rapid instant of expansion fueled by the force of energy density equalization.

As a result of the "dark energy" released by the rapid expansion, the isotropy of the high density spot is soon subject to perturbations as the expanding arena encounters the as yet unnegated remnants of the parent arenas. That causes the infant arena to immediately take on an degree of anisotropy, or imperfections in the smoothness of the density of the newly expanding infant arena. The causes of that anisotropy are several and diverse, and their effects begin to unfold immediately and continue to unfold over an extended period during the arena maturation process, leading to the large scale galactic structure that we observe today in our own expanding arena.

(291 views)

 

[origin]

You sure do write a lot and yet say so little. This is a bit of an assumption however, as I have not really read anything in this thread, your posts tends to be the same confused BS over and over.

(292 views, 0 reads)

 

[quantum_wave]

In post #10 I described an interesting place in the arena process.

At that point in the process of arena action, we have arrived at a high energy density spot of finite volume, internally equalized to nature's smoothest and almost isotropic perfection throughout, and ready to bounce into nature's most rapid instant of expansion fueled by the force of energy density equalization.

In my so call model, that point corresponds with t=0 in our arena, or any new arena across the landscape of the greater universe. The energy contained in the dense ball is the same amount of energy that initiates every arena; the arena landscape is quantized and each new "infant" arena emerges from a low entropy high density ball of isotopic energy density.

(364)

 

[quantum_wave]

In my so call model, that point corresponds with t=0 in our arena, or any new arena across the landscape of the greater universe. The energy contained in the dense ball is the same amount of energy that initiates every arena; the arena landscape is quantized and each new "infant" arena emerges from a low entropy high density ball of isotopic energy density.

This arena quantum is nature's lowest entropy energy environment. It is too dense for particles to exist or to form and function. There is a maximum amount of potential energy in the minimum volume of space.

The space immediately surrounding the big crunch/collapse event has given up much of its useful energy to raise the arena quantum to this highest possible natural state of useful energy and low entropy.

The energy environment at that exact point in time and place features nature's highest energy density state surrounded by nature's lowest energy density state; but just for a instant. That combined state is the ultimate outcome of an environment that has succumbed to the maximum force of gravity.

The two environments have an unsustainable relationship that defines the border between them. It is that unsustainable energy density differential that activates gravity's opposing force, energy density equalization.

The first sign that this has occurred is the "bounce"; as soon as the gravitational collapse compresses the energy contained in the crunch to nature's limit, the collapse bounces into expansion. It is at that moment that energy density equalization begins in the new arena, and it is as a result of that force of equalization that the new arena bursts into expansion; cause and effect.

(397)

 

[quantum_wave]

In my so called model the process of arena action that I have been describing governs the quantization of the arena landscape of the greater universe. I refer to that as the macro realm.

I refer to the process of quantum action that governs the quantization of particles as the micro realm. For comparison, in the macro realm I discuss the landscape of the greater universe, and in the micro realm I discuss a foundational medium of space. My so called model addresses the nature of the two realms, highlighting the supposed similarities and differences in the action that governs the quantization in each realm, and describing the two major forces, gravity and equalization.

If one envisions the concept that the medium of space contains energy, and everything that exists in space is a quantized from of that energy, then in order for energy to be differentiated into meaningful increments, there are processes that govern the quantization of energy at each level. Those processes, arena action and quantum action, are central to the perspective of a perpetually active universe that is characterized by an active arena landscape that fills all space, and an active foundational medium that likewise fills all space; the macro and the micro realms.

But there is that big elephant in the room, lol. Each arena has the same physics, and is composed of energy that has always existed, and the action is governed by processes that have always orchestrated the quantization of energy at both levels of order.

The elephant in the room is that the universe in my so called model has always been that way. The energy and the processes didn't somehow all of a sudden come about, and didn't evolve from some primordial state. The universe has always existed in the same fashion it exists today; and today, like at any time in the past or future, it will look essentially the same on a grand scale from any point of observation.

Most cosmological models invoke the Cosmological Principle, and some, like my so called model, invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle that I have just described; a sameness on a grand scale, as long as the grand scale gives you a view of the multiple arena landscape, and a sameness throughout all time.

Along with that perpetual sameness, in my so called model I take the view that there has always been a grand ratio between energy and matter. It is a universal average energy density and a universal ratio of matter to energy that must exist at that level of energy density. Given that grand ratio, matter exists and has always existed across the landscape of the greater universe, and on a grand scale the ratio of matter to energy remains constant.

While matter is being negated into energy in big crunches, energy is being quantized into matter in other arenas that are at different stages of maturation across the greater landscape.

(454)

 

[quantum_wave]

...

I refer to the process of quantum action that governs the quantization of particles as the micro realm. For comparison, in the macro realm I discuss the landscape of the greater universe, and in the micro realm I discuss a foundational medium of space. My so called model addresses the nature of the two realms, highlighting the supposed similarities and differences in the action that governs the quantization in each realm, and describing the two major forces, gravity and equalization.

...

I like to point out the similarities between quantum action at the foundational level of order, and arena action across the arena landscape of the greater universe.

Energy environments are naturally differentiated throughout the process of quantum action just like they are throughout the process of arena action.

Spherical wave action characterizes both levels. A big bang arena emerges spherically out of the collapse/bounce of a big crunch, and a new foundational quantum of energy emerges spherically out of the high density spot formed by converging quanta.

A high density spot at the quantum level must accumulate a full quantum of energy before it emerges into spherical expansion on its own, corresponding to the critical capacity required at the arena level for a new arena to form out of a big crunch.

There are two or more spherically expanding parent quanta needed to produce a new quantum at the foundational level just like there are two or more spherically expanding parent big bang arenas needed to produce a new arena quantum at the arena level.

Particles at the foundational level are composed of multiple quanta, i.e. they are composed of energy in quantum increments, and the arena landscape of the greater universe is composed of multiple arena quanta. The meaningful action at the foundational level is quantized, and the meaningful action at the arena level is quantized.

There is quantized wave energy and there is non-quantized wave energy at both the foundational level and the arena level. The space between particles contains non-quantized wave energy, and the space between big bang arenas contains non-quantized wave energy. The non-quantized energy at both levels of order are remnants of quantized waves that are not caught up in the overlaps of parent quanta. In any two parent convergence, only about half of each parent contributes to the new quantum, the rest continues to expand until it too is caught up in a subsequent convergence.

The medium of space has a sponginess that causes a time delay during the compression of the volume of the medium of space involved in the overlap of converging quanta. This time delay at the arena level is the time between the start of the collapse of a bit crunch and the start of the bounce of the high energy density ball into expansion. At the foundational level, there is a corresponding period of time that starts when a quantum of energy is accumulated in the overlap space between two converging quanta, and the point in time when the new quanta emerges spherically from what was a lens shaped overlap.

I acknowledge the difficulty one might have visualizing the similarities between the processes of quantum action and arena action. The effort it takes in terms of contemplation and concentration to put the visualizations together is unlikely to be considered a worthy challenge when the entire so called model itself is so different. But I do think that once one does visualize the quantization processes, there will be an appreciation of the internal consistency of the so called model.

Some of the more interesting parts of that internal consistency involve the differences between the two action process, and how those differences differentiate the two levels of order to dispel the fallacy of "turtles all the way down". Nothing bigger than a big crunch can form because the crunches collapse/bounce too soon. Nothing smaller than a foundational quantum can be meaningful because particles must be composed of quantum increments in order to establish stability. But more on that in the advance material, lol.

(531)

 

[quantum_wave]

...

I acknowledge the difficulty one might have visualizing the similarities between the processes of quantum action and arena action.
...

It follows that the fate of nature's highest energy density ball that represents the new arena at t=0 (the instant of the "bounce") immediately hosts a process characterized by the force of energy density equalization.

The dense state energy begins to equalize with the low energy density of the surrounding space, and the result is an on-going trending equalization between the two energy environments; rapid expansion of the high energy density space as it intrudes into and mixes with of the low energy density space surrounding it. That action lowers the energy density in the new arena toward the particle formation threshold (as the arena expands spherically).

It is at that point in the arena action process that the quantum action process begins in the new arena, and resumes in regard to the energy that occupies the two interacting energy density environments that are confronting each other in the medium of space where this equalization is playing out.

I say "resumes", because it is the same energy that was negated from the particles in the crunch that is going through a transformation process under the influence of the two action processes. Conventionally we say that energy is conserved, but in my so called model I say that the ratio between matter and energy is conserved on a grand scale, and the action processes govern the maintenance of that ratio. That is different from saying that energy is conserved, because in my so called model, the amount of energy is potentially infinite, so the phrase "conservation of energy" better applies to quantized energy, and means that energy that is contained in particles is added and removed from the particle space in quantum increments, and every quanta of energy is accounted for in the maintenance and interaction of particles.

(741)

 

[quantum_wave]

I gave you a link in the OP, and it is an example of the simplification in the popular media aimed at laymen, but as far as it goes, it does a good job of putting the question about the cause of the Big Bang into perspective. In case you didn't read it from the link in the OP, here is what it says:

What Caused the Big Bang?

For almost one hundred years, we have known that the universe is expanding. We have traced this expansion back in time, through to the very beginning when the universe occupied an infinitesimal point in space. This was the state of the universe at time t=0, over 13 billion years ago.

It is from this starting point that everything we are familiar with came into existence: protons, neutrons, stars, galaxies - even space and time itself are here. At time t=0, this point began an unprecedented inflation, in this instant time and space were born. This event has become known as the Big Bang.

The big bang is our current, most accepted theory for how the universe began. It was inspired by the discovery that the universe is expanding.

It was an unusual and highly counter intuitive event. It was not an explosion, it did not occur inside anything, rather, everything that we are familiar with: left, right, up, down, cause and effect, the stage for all physical laws, was getting larger.

We possess a natural curiosity of the world around us. We want to know how and why things are the way they are.

This curiosity has served us well because it carries significant survival benefits. If we see an event and ask ourselves why it happened or what caused it, we are more likely to spot a threat before it becomes dangerous in the future.

Our curiosity gives us the ability to look beyond the present moment. From it, we have evolved an urge to look for causes, it is an inseparable part of our biology. Because of this, we really can't help ourselves when we attempt to find a cause for creation, it is second nature for us to ask, 'What Caused the Big Bang?'

Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience.

In this realm, the solution, whatever it is, will seem very strange to us, and it will almost certainly make no sense to our brains because here, it is possible to have an event with no cause. There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.

We must somehow come up with a solution that exists outside time and space.

GOD MADE IT HAPPEN

For many "God caused the big bang" is a perfectly reasonable response. This seems to help many cope with the unsatisfying prospect of an event without a cause.

The problem of course is that one is then immediately forced to ask, "From where did the creator come?"

If the answer is "he always existed" then we have a situation, from a causality standpoint, that is no more satisfying than a universe that springs forth from nothing. A creator that has always existed is an entity that somehow exists without a cause.

So this answer doesn't solve the causality issue whatsoever.

THIS UNIVERSE IS ONE OF MANY

Further, the idea of cyclical universes doesn't solve it either.

For reasons having to do with entropy and the second law of thermodynamics the process of an ever cycling universe - one that continually expands and contracts - cannot be perfectly efficient. This means that each successive expansion will take a little longer than the previous one.

If each previous universe is, say, half as long as the one that succeeds it, and the one before that half as long, this infinite sum does eventually converge to a universe with zero length with no obvious past and we are back again to at least one big bang starting for no obvious reason.

OUR BIOLOGY BETRAYS US

The real problem with this question of what caused the big bang is ultimately a biological one; our brains have evolved to assume that everything has a cause, we can't imagine any event ever not having one.

But 100 years ago, we couldn't imagine that our galaxy was only one in an ocean of one hundred billion. 200 years ago, we couldn't imagine that the stars were more than 13,000 light years away. 500 years ago, we couldn't imagine that the Earth revolved around the Sun. If our past enquiries into the universe are any guide, the truth of the cosmos is always more than we have imagined.

The answer to the cause of the universe will almost certainly be something strange and, by definition, wholly beyond our experience. Our occluded brains must always be open the answer, especially when asking questions that push the limits of our capacity to understand.

End of article

Before I take the description of my so called model further into the quantum realm and describe how quantum action begins and proceeds in the new arena, I wonder if you can see the initial correlation between my so called model and Big Bang Theory?

My descriptions of preconditions to the Big Bang are at the point in this thread where a ball of dense state energy is about to emerge into expansion from the collapse of the big crunch; that is the intended initial correlation. Everything before that moment are referred to as preconditions, and those preconditions are all hypothesized in my so called model. BBT officially starts with the expansion taking place early in the first second after the big bang, and does not specify the source of the hot dense ball of energy that is expanding at the moment Big Bang Theory begins. The designation, Big Bang, didn't come along until later as General Relativity was being criticized by the popular media.

(761)

 

[quantum_wave]

In regard to the above, I have hypothesized a so called model of the universe within which the Big Bang Model is a single arena. It therefore accommodates the current cosmological model, while it hypothesizes about preconditions and post conditions to that consensus model. I claim that the sum of the preconditions/post conditions defeat entropy and that the so called model predicts a perpetual arena landscape, eternal in time and potentially infinite in space and energy.

Now I am moving the thread into my view of quantum mechanics. The mechanics at the quantum level are governed by the process I call quantum action. This action is not your standard quantum mechanics which includes QED (quantum electrodynamics) and QCD (quantum chromodynamics). Quantum action in my so called model is related to QM as Arena action is related to BBT, i.e. today's view of QM (QED/QCD) fits within the so called model.

QM is characterized by various interpretations or approaches that generally come to the same result at the points of measurement where the position or momentum of particles are determined. My so called model invokes hypotheses about the quantum mechanics at an as yet undiscovered foundational level below the fundamental level of the Standard Model. Those hypotheses are my version of "how" it might all work if there were certain "hidden variables" in the form of a foundational level of order below the standard particle model.

The foundational level in my so called model describes a medium of space characterized by spherical waves and wave interactions governed by the process of quantum action. Quantum action orchestrates the presence of particles and gravity out of actual physical waves of energy in the medium of space.

By saying that, I am taking the position that the Standard Model of Particle Physics is fine but incomplete, and in my so called model I address the question of "non-locality" using the concept of hidden variables. My descriptions of the foundational level, quantum action, and the medium of space include my hypotheses about the nature of the hidden variables.

As such, where existing QM hosts the commonly described "weirdness" of uncertainty and entanglement, my so called model borrows the concept of partons and Parton Theory. As such, it accommodates the quarks and gluons of the standard model, while going further to encompass a framework for the mechanics of the force of gravity orchestrated by quantum action at the foundational level in my so called model.

To review the fundamental concepts of quantum physics watch this:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y0Z5i9...uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dy0Z5i9qMbd0%26autoplay%3D1

Once those concepts are recognized, it is easier to see my motivation for the hypotheses in my so called model that address the inconsistencies and weirdness of generally accepted science at both the macro and micro levels. Of course all of this is in the context of my layman hobby of working on a so called model of the universe that is internally consistent and not inconsistent with observations and data.

(803)

 

[paddoboy]

It is from this starting point that everything we are familiar with came into existence: protons, neutrons, stars, galaxies - even space and time itself are here. At time t=0, this point began an unprecedented inflation, in this instant time and space were born. This event has become known as the Big Bang.

The big bang is our current, most accepted theory for how the universe began. It was inspired by the discovery that the universe is expanding. )

That bit of evidence along with the discovery of the CMBR and of course the abundance of lighter elements, all point to the Universe evolving from a hotter, denser state about 13.8 billion years ago.

It was an unusual and highly counter intuitive event. It was not an explosion, it did not occur inside anything, rather, everything that we are familiar with: left, right, up, down, cause and effect, the stage for all physical laws, was getting larger.

We possess a natural curiosity of the world around us. We want to know how and why things are the way they are.

This curiosity has served us well because it carries significant survival benefits. If we see an event and ask ourselves why it happened or what caused it, we are more likely to spot a threat before it becomes dangerous in the future.

Our curiosity gives us the ability to look beyond the present moment. From it, we have evolved an urge to look for causes, it is an inseparable part of our biology. Because of this, we really can't help ourselves when we attempt to find a cause for creation, it is second nature for us to ask, 'What Caused the Big Bang?'

Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience.

In this realm, the solution, whatever it is, will seem very strange to us, and it will almost certainly make no sense to our brains because here, it is possible to have an event with no cause. There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.

I always like to talk of the BB bringing into existence/creating space and time "AS WE KNOW THEM". I see that as very important, and distinguishing from space and time, "AS WE DON'T KNOW THEM"
This space and time "AS WE DON'T KNOW THEM" is often referred to as the quantum foam.

We must somehow come up with a solution that exists outside time and space..

Well at least outside of time and space " AS WE KNOW THEM"
And of course any hypothesis so formed, including a divine omnipotent deity is outside the descriptive/predictive parameters of our current model of the BB and GR.



It appears to me that you are hypothesising "The Oscillating theory of Universal evolution, which was on level terms along with the BB and Steady State in the early fifties.
Two of those quickly fell out of favour with the Hubble expansion discovery, although the Oscillating theory would encompass the BB theory, but we do not have any evidence for any big crunch and then re-expansion.
And the recent discovery of the acceleration in the expansion rate, points to a recollapse as impossible.

At this stage from what little I know, string theory, Quantum Loop Gravity and other derivitives seem to mathematically describe the Planck era/10-43 seconds after the initial event quite eloquently, but as yet we do not have the technology or know how of observing and/or measuring at those scales.

My pet hypothesis is as I have said before....Our BB was just one of a near infinite number to have arose out of fluctuations in the quantum foam....some of those fluctuations arose and collapsed again...others have expanded far to quickly and have burst, while our own Universe bubble continues.

 

[Aqueous Id]

And of course any hypothesis so formed, including a divine omnipotent deity is outside the descriptive/predictive parameters of our current model of the BB and GR.

And of course that question is all that's really omnipresent.

At this stage from what little I know, string theory, Quantum Loop Gravity and other derivitives seem to mathematically describe the Planck era/10-43 seconds after the initial event quite eloquently, but as yet we do not have the technology or know how of observing and/or measuring at those scales.

It seems that at that scale, causality is probably moot. At some very small scale, in which the wave of a fundamental particle hasn't even launched the first fraction of its period, there is not enough information available to say any cause has yet begun. I think all of the focus on the need for cause that the creationists impose on this kind of conversation is entirely off the mark. Their energy would be better spent trying to define what happens at the onset of time (and space) and what it means to be within some fraction of the wavelength of an X-ray, with the timeless state just to the left. Anyone really worried about understanding cause would want to explore the meaning of this. I think it's entirely overlooked in all of their dialogue.