Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

[quantum_wave]

This next section is an important part of the Wiki, and explains why, in the theory of general relativity, gravitational waves are present throughout all space, all the time. Read this:

Sources of gravitational waves

In general terms, gravitational waves are radiated by objects whose motion involves acceleration, provided that the motion is not perfectly spherically symmetric (like an expanding or contracting sphere) or cylindrically symmetric (like a spinning disk or sphere). A simple example of this principle is provided by the spinning dumbbell. If the dumbbell spins like wheels on an axle, it will not radiate gravitational waves; if it tumbles end over end like two planets orbiting each other, it will radiate gravitational waves. The heavier the dumbbell, and the faster it tumbles, the greater is the gravitational radiation it will give off. If we imagine an extreme case in which the two weights of the dumbbell are massive stars like neutron stars or black holes, orbiting each other quickly, then significant amounts of gravitational radiation would be given off.

Some more detailed examples:

Two objects orbiting each other in a quasi-Keplerian planar orbit (basically, as a planet would orbit the Sun) will radiate.
A spinning non-axisymmetric planetoid — say with a large bump or dimple on the equator — will radiate.
A supernova will radiate except in the unlikely event that the explosion is perfectly symmetric.
An isolated non-spinning solid object moving at a constant velocity will not radiate. This can be regarded as a consequence of the principle of conservation of linear momentum.
A spinning disk will not radiate. This can be regarded as a consequence of the principle of conservation of angular momentum. However, it will show gravitomagnetic effects.
A spherically pulsating spherical star (non-zero monopole moment or mass, but zero quadrupole moment) will not radiate, in agreement with Birkhoff's theorem.
More technically, the third time derivative of the quadrupole moment (or the l-th time derivative of the l-th multipole moment) of an isolated system's stress–energy tensor must be nonzero in order for it to emit gravitational radiation. This is analogous to the changing dipole moment of charge or current necessary for electromagnetic radiation.

That part of the Wiki makes the point that gravitational waves are radiated by objects whose motion involves acceleration, except in certain circumstances, which it goes on to explain. Excluding the examples of specific exceptions, all relative motion radiates gravitational waves. Therefore, gravitational waves, according to General Relativity Theory, permeate all space, all the time. Gravitational wave energy is everywhere, and influences the motion of all objects continuously, except as noted.

Let me know if you understand that aspect of GR, since it is the part that makes gravitational waves as described by GR a problematic issue, i.e. what are the mechanics of gravitational wave radiation at the particle level, is there a gravitational field and what generates it, how does gravitational wave energy propagate through space, etc.? GR as incomplete until the mechanics are sorted out and become part of the consensus theory.

 

[CptBork]

There is absolutely no logical reason to insist that any mechanism need underlie General Relativity or any phenomena that arise as a consequence, nor is there any experimental evidence that such a mechanism exists. If it does indeed turn out that some sort of particle interaction underlies General Relativity, then those particle interactions would themselves lack an explanatory mechanism, and again there'd be no a priori reason or evidence to support one's insistence on such a mechanism existing.

It's neither reasonable nor responsible to postulate or speculate that something must necessarily exist when there's no supporting evidence to back its existence. The fact that existing science doesn't satisfy someone's personal aesthetic tastes is not in itself a conundrum requiring a scientific solution.

 

[quantum_wave]

There is absolutely no logical reason ...

That statement is hyperbole because of the use of the words "absolutely no logical reason".

...to insist

This is a false accusation and a straw man. I'm presenting and discussing, not insisting, and because "insisting" is your word to describe a reasonable presentation in the proper forum.

... that any mechanism need underlie General Relativity or any phenomena that arise as a consequence,

How does matter curve spacetime, how do particles radiate gravitational waves, what establishes the presence of particles, how do you reconcile incomplete and incompatible theories?

... nor is there any experimental evidence that such a mechanism exists.

This discussion is about various speculations and hypotheses that could answer some outstanding questions. Do you protest because you see no outstanding questions with GR? Is my impression correct that you consider GR to be reality?

If it does indeed turn out that some sort of particle interaction underlies General Relativity, then those particle interactions would themselves lack an explanatory mechanism, and again there'd be no a priori reason or evidence to support one's insistence on such a mechanism existing.

You are talking about infinite regression, and that is solved by one of the popular explanations for the existence of the universe, i.e. it has always existed.

It's neither reasonable nor responsible to postulate or speculate that something must necessarily exist when there's no supporting evidence to back its existence. The fact that existing science doesn't satisfy someone's personal aesthetic tastes is not in itself a conundrum requiring a scientific solution.

You're repeating yourself.

 

[CptBork]

How does matter curve spacetime, how do particles radiate gravitational waves, what establishes the presence of particles,

There's no evidence that any of those questions necessarily has an answer. It may well be that spacetime just does what it does in response to matter, and matter just does what it does in response to spacetime.

how do you reconcile incomplete and incompatible theories?

One explains the incompatibilities by asserting that at least one such theory is missing details. Lacking an a priori underlying mechanism one could divine on the couch isn't a criterion for calling a theory incomplete.

This discussion is about various speculations and hypotheses that could answer some outstanding questions. Do you protest because you see no outstanding questions with GR? Is my impression correct that you consider GR to be reality?

All I'm saying is that GR isn't incomplete simply for lacking an underlying mechanism. If GR successfully modelled every testable phenomenon in the known universe from macroscopic all the way down to the subatomic, there would be no reason whatsoever to declare it incomplete.

You are talking about infinite regression, and that is solved by one of the popular explanations for the existence of the universe, i.e. it has always existed.

Eternal existence isn't a mechanism, nor does it explain anything about why the universe does what it does or how it's done.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not all humans share your enthusiasm for an aether, though I do, of course. I'll go with "otherwise"; a spongy (compressible), infinite, eternal, wave energy carrying medium that cannot be created or destroyed.

But first, let me finish making sure all the children with fertile eager minds who flock to my threads here in Alternative Theories are exposed to the consensus theory of General Relativity from at least a layman's perspective. Then we can talk about what we humans call alternatives. I want all the children to read the Wiki link about gravitational waves so they know the scientific consensus before we get all seudo. After that there will be time to bring up some issues about the consensus views of gravitational waves without aether as we move forward.

My post:

yes ...we humans love the idea of an aether. [of some sort...pseudo or otherwise]

Isn't it funny how things can get confused when posting to these these fora.
I say "yes ..we humans love the idea of an aether" and you interpret that to mean that I (personally) love the idea of an aether."

Gasp!
You think I am human? Yes! [chuckle]

No.. I do not care for the idea of an aether as I believe this is a throw back to the days when the unimaginable was unimaginable due to the inherent fear of the idea of a planet floating in vacuum unsupported by an ambient aether.
My own particular theorizing requires no aether as it would render the the notion of universal constancy at the universes core impossible. IMO.

As does the notion of light speed ('c') being a speed limitation for objects to communicate at.

I might add as a touch of controversy, that currently science makes use of a virtual aether when applying the light (EMR) effect models that indicate a universe where all space is filled with unaccounted for EMR.

This is an pseudo aether created by default of current thinking IMO. [which is why I wrote that "We humans appear to love the idea of an aether"]

 

[quantum_wave]

There's no evidence that any of those questions necessarily has an answer.

That is probably why we are at odds on everything. My background, personal environment, and life long learning make me expect that there are answers. The question is, can we ever know enough or understand enough to figure them out; but there are answers.

It may well be that spacetime just does what it does in response to matter, and matter just does what it does in response to spacetime.

But spacetime is not something physical that can be differentiated from the 3 dimensions of space, and from the passing of time.

One explains the incompatibilities by asserting that at least one such theory is missing details.

Which is the same thing as saying it is incomplete.

Lacking an a priori underlying mechanism one could divine on the couch isn't a criterion for calling a theory incomplete.

All theory starts somewhere, but my speculations and hypotheses are not presented as theory anyway. A theorized underlying mechanism is not to the same thing as a layman level discussion of possibilities, done while the scientific community works on the science involved. You don't seem to be willing to accept the fact that some of us can discuss the problematic issues of science among ourselves without pretending to be "doing" science. If it amuses you to insist otherwise, enjoy yourself. I will enjoy myself doing it.

All I'm saying is that GR isn't incomplete simply for lacking an underlying mechanism. If GR successfully modelled every testable phenomenon in the known universe from macroscopic all the way down to the subatomic, there would be no reason whatsoever to declare it incomplete.

Do you ever read what you write? Note that you used the word "if", and then concluded that GR would be complete if it did all the "ifs".

Eternal existence isn't a mechanism, nor does it explain anything about why the universe does what it does or how it's done.

Straw man. Read the previous two posts and see if you can make sense out of why I mentioned the "always existed" explanation of the universe. Either way, it is not something we seem to agree on.

 

[quantum_wave]

My post:

Isn't it funny how things can get confused when posting to these these fora.
I say "yes ..we humans love the idea of an aether" and you interpret that to mean that I (personally) love the idea of an aether."

Gasp!
You think I am human? Yes! [chuckle]

Lol, you faked me out. But yes, it is true that you have to be pointed in what you say, and even then misinterpretations abound.

No.. I do not care for the idea of an aether as I believe this is a throw back to the days when the unimaginable was unimaginable due to the inherent fear of the idea of a planet floating in vacuum unsupported by an ambient aether.

Those days are gone now, but today's aether is a medium to carry wave energy, and in my view it cannot be described as having any particulate nature; it has a presence, and waves can traverse it. The waves that traverse it are all that is necessary in my hobby-model. What I say about the aether itself, its characteristics, are deductions and conclusions necessary to account for how everything can be composed of wave energy. The key becomes gravitational wave energy density, and the gravitational waves are traversing the medium of space at all points and in all directions. That gives us a few things to work with, like wave energy density of a local environment governing the speed of light and gravity in that locality, and standing wave patterns that maintain a particle's presence, and that move in the direction of the net highest inflowing wave energy density, etc. (See my thousands of posts to get the overall picture, :tongue in cheek:

My own particular theorizing requires no aether as it would render the the notion of universal constancy at the universes core impossible. IMO.

As does the notion of light speed ('c')being a speed limitation for objects to communicate at .

I'll take those as two of the basic characteristics of your particular theorizing that I asked for, and will contemplate them until the time comes when you share more.

 

[quantum_wave]

...
That part of the Wiki makes the point that gravitational waves are radiated by objects whose motion involves acceleration, except in certain circumstances, which it goes on to explain. Excluding the examples of specific exceptions, all relative motion radiates gravitational waves. Therefore, gravitational waves, according to General Relativity Theory, permeate all space, all the time. Gravitational wave energy is everywhere, and influences the motion of all objects continuously, except as noted.

...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

The Gravitational Wave Wiki covers the whole picture on a layman level of these waves as predicted and described by General Relativity. If you already know all of this information, or if you have worked your way through it by now, what are your views? To me, it makes me want to compare the gravitational waves of GR with gravitational waves that would permeate all space if we were not talking from within the context of General Relativity.

The difference would be simple to describe in general terms from a layman's perspective. It would have to do with the idea that without GR's curvature of spacetime to tell matter how to move, the cause of motion of objects would rely wholly on non-GR means, and that would mean that non-GR gravitational waves would play the major role, instead of the minor role they play in GR.

There would be no geodesics for objects to follow, but only the gravitational wave energy that traverses space emitted by all objects in space. The relationship of the strength of gravitational waves relative to the curvature of spacetime as described by GR would swing completely to depending on the wave energy instead of depending mainly on the curvature of spacetime because there would be no curvature of spacetime.

In place of the curvature, there would be a gravitational wave energy density gradient every where in space, and objects would move in the direction of the net highest wave energy density gradient surrounding them.

That is where my hobby-model picks up and in layman terms, and without any new evidence, tries to replace general relativity with a mechanism of gravity. Because if there were preconditions to our Big Bang, like preexisting space, time, and energy, as suggested by the initial issue in the OP, then General Relativity might not even be part of the resulting picture. Agreed, or no?

 

[Quantum Quack]

But what exactly IS a gravitational wave?
...and would GR be rendered invalid is they were NOT found?

 

[quantum_wave]

But what exactly IS a gravitational wave?

From the Wiki, as a layman, what I get from the math is that there are tensors, and various other equations to describe the energy density affecting the curvature of spacetime. When objects follow the curvature of spacetime, their course is instantly determined by the local curvature. But events happen that throw the path of objects in directions not described by the local curavture. Those events are interruptions in the mathematical path, including collisions, explosions, and various interactions that must go right down to the individual particle level, as enumerated in the Wiki. There is an energy consequence for any such event, and any altered path must deal with the conservation of momentum. The mathematical result requires energy to be emitted as gravitaitonal waves to conserve energy and momentum in general relativity.

...and would GR be rendered invalid if they were NOT found?

No, not finding them could be explained by their insignificance relative to the energy causing the curvature of spacetime. In GR, the gravitational energy of even the most massive events will cause a change in the distance between the mirrors in the measurement devices so small that it could be lost in the noise and the measurement precision. The newest experiments have, or will have more complicated ways to make the measurements, and there are state of the art mathematical and technical corrections to the measurement data to average out the noise and tiny temperature fluctuations, but sill, the expected oscillation in the apparatus due to even a massive event is unbelievably tiny from a layman perspective. So no, the failure to detect them would not alone result in anyone claiming GR was invalidated.

Further, any explanation of gravity, whether within the description of GR or not, will include some form of wave energy related to gravity. It might be that there is an as yet undetected gravitational field that affects some as yet undetectable "particle", or an undetected medium that carries waves that are emitted and absorbed by matter.

While we wait, the mechanism of gravity is open to speculation. The various speculations about the cause of gravity might also suggest possible explanations for other as yet not understood observations, like dark energy, or the wide angle anisotropy in the CMBR.

 

[Quantum Quack]

thanks!

 

[Quantum Quack]

btw, sorry for the briefness of my response.
I am just struggling with the incredible difference I have in perspective on this issue of gravity. The more I read about currently held belief the more incredible my position appears to be. This leaves me "speechless" as anything I would write would be "up against it" big time.
For example it is no secret that I have a long standing offer of $500 usd to any one who can show unambiguous evidence that a photon actually propagates in a vacuum [that eliminates the possibility that the light [EMR] effect observed is not a superficial inertial effect causes by mass resonating. That the light effect is a resonance phenomena and not a photon phenomena.
Of course this immediately creates all sorts of credibility issues, yet the $500 usd has stood for over 6 years now and as you can gather it will never be able to be won due to the need to isolate reflective matter from the evidencing of a photon in transit.
This is only one aspect of many that are direct conflicts of interpretation of what is observed by science.
The same challenge applies to evidence of gravity [with out mass to demonstrate it (ie. free fall)]

As it stands I have no reason to believe that a photon as modeled exists other than as a rather convenient virtual-ity that allows science to progress in other areas of endeavor.

 

[quantum_wave]

btw, sorry for the briefness of my response.
I am just struggling with the incredible difference I have in perspective on this issue of gravity. The more I read about currently held belief the more incredible my position appears to be. This leaves me "speechless" as anything I would write would be "up against it" big time.

If it makes sense to you, then there is value in it. Value is as individual as our diverse backgrounds, upbringings, education and experiences. There are a lot of unknowns and it is possible each of us have bits and pieces in our perspectives that could be the missing bits and pieces to someone else.

Being cautious of the consensus is quite practical. The consensus is much like majority rule, and the majority can vote to have your ideas ridiculed until you are too embarrassed to discuss them, regardless of their merit or lack of merit .

For example it is no secret that I have a long standing offer of $500 usd to any one who can show unambiguous evidence that a photon actually propagates in a vacuum [that eliminates the possibility that the light [EMR] effect observed is not a superficial inertial effect causes[d] by mass resonating. That the light effect is a resonance phenomena and not a photon phenomena.
Of course this immediately creates all sorts of credibility issues, yet the $500 usd has stood for over 6 years now and as you can gather it will never be able to be won due to the need to isolate reflective matter from the evidencing of a photon in transit.
This is only one aspect of many that are direct conflicts of interpretation of what is observed by science.
The same challenge applies to evidence of gravity [with out mass to demonstrate it (ie. free fall)]

As it stands I have no reason to believe that a photon as modeled exists other than as a rather convenient virtual-ity that allows science to progress in other areas of endeavor.

My view is that your $500 is safe. There are different reasons that it is safe, and to mention one from my model, it is impossible to create a complete vacuum because gravitational energy is emitted by the container housing the vacuum, if for no other reason.

My "model" of a photon is as different as my hobby-model is from the consensus. In it, first, all space is filled with a medium that carries wave energy, so no perfect vacuums can exist in it. Self-propagation isn't necessary. Second, a photon is a wave-particle as are all particles, and photons have a tiny mass. They can display particle characteristics because their "packet" contains high density spots where their internal waves intersect, and those high density spots cause their particle nature to be observed in some forms of measurements. The wave characteristic causes them to be seen as waves under different forms of measurement. I model them as wave packets or complex standing wave patterns that have two main components, inflowing gravitational wave energy arriving from surrounding objects through the medium of space, and out flowing gravitational wave energy emitted by the wave-particles while in motion. Third, photons get all of their directionally inflowing wave energy from one direction, the direction of motion that is established when they are radiated. The wave packet goes "straight", and the packet emits a spherical gravitational wave as they move that equals the gravitational wave energy "absorbed" directionally from the forward direction. The directional inflow from the forward directions is because the gravitational wave energy that fills all space is all traveling at the speed of light, and the nature of the photon is that it is emitted at the speed of light, so no gravitational wave energy can catch up with it from any angle behind the mean forward directional motion. I tried to describe it in "The Big Wait", with pictures. I know, it is hard to grasp someone else's "hobby" model, and it usually isn't worth spending too much time on, unless there is some particular tidbit that leads to further investigation :shrug:.

The point is that the photon, and all particles are composed of waves traversing the medium, and the "presence" of any particle is based on the energy contained in its wave packet. The standing wave packets are stable because they are so much more dense than the surrounding space, and the speed of gravitational waves in my model is variable relative to the wave energy density of the environment they are traversing. Of course the internal wave density of a particle is extreme relative to the surrounding space, so the energy contained in the particle experiences a time delay (slows down) as it enters and traverses the particle space.

Much more for free upon request, (or even if unrequested) lol.

 

[quantum_wave]

Help keep the Fringe Forum alive by participating out here

If you just noticed this thread, and especially if you haven't yet registered as a member, please do so and make your first post here or start your own thread; and welcome to the Alternative Theories sub-forum, out here on the Fringe of the SciForums community.

My threads are presented in the context of a layman science enthusiast who enjoys the hobby of discussing ideas that play nicely together; speculations, and hypotheses, generally about cosmology and quantum mechanics on a layman level. I've been surfing the internet discussion boards about science news and issues since the days of CompuServe and Prodigy in the 1980's. I don't see why layman science enthusiasts don't enjoy my hobby with me by reading about physics and cosmology, commenting on alternative ideas they think might work or might not work, and why, but alas, there are very few who enter the discussions here on the Fringe. My threads are open to everyone interested in the nature of the universe.

In one formidable sentence, my hobby-model, called the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU), which introduces Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC), and which implies that the mainstream theories might be inconsistent, incompatible, and/or incomplete, can be called a steady state, multiple big bang arena model, that defeats entropy via the process of Arena Action on the large scale level which features multiple big bang arenas making up the landscape of the greater universe, without the implied "something from nothing" beginning of General Relativity (GR), and where, on the smallest scale at the foundational level, the process of Quantum Action establishes the presence of particles and motion under the Hidden Variables Interpretation (HVI) of Quantum Mechanics (QM), with local reality and without faster than light communication between particles, noting that both action processes feature the same potentially infinite gravitational wave energy traversing the aether medium of space, and both processes are described in the context of two major opposing forces, hypothetical energy density equalization, and hypothetical quantum gravity, while the whole model complies with the "Perfect Cosmological Principle" which states that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time, i.e. in this view the universe looks the same everywhere, the same as it always has and always will.

My disclaimer:
"My hobby-model is internally consistent as far as it goes, though it is a work in progress and far from a complete model, and it is not inconsistent with known scientific observations and data, stipulating that those observations are understood and explained with the mechanics that they operate by."

My methodology is called step by step reasonable and responsible speculation (upon speculation), with which people generally agree to some extent when they see the steps, but based on the fact that "reasonable" is subjective, and speculation upon speculation quickly gets individualized, generally other people's speculations are not the same as mine. Those differences in what we individually call "reasonable" make for good topics of discussion and continued learning on everyone's part, as we share our thoughts in a civil discourse.

 

[quantum_wave]

Using my "reasonable and responsible" methodology of speculation, here are the steps that lead to the me choosing the name, "The Infinite Spongy Universe", for my hobby-model.

1) It is generally accepted that the universe exists, and I am trying to understand it.
2) Calling it "The Universe" is fine, but that word is getting corrupted by exotic models of cosmology that call for multiple universes, each with different physics, and my definition is that there is only one universe and one invariant set of natural laws.
3) By naming it, I designate it as the one universe I am talking about, and if you think there is more than one, please name them individually so I can keep them separate from the one I'm talking about. Mine encompasses everything, even all of the supposed multiple universes.
4) My view is that space is potentially infinite, and since all space is part of the universe, the universe is potentially infinite spatially, hence the "Infinite" in the name. I also consider space to be filled with a medium that carries wave energy and so energy is also infinite in my model, but I have a separate set of steps that I use to support that conclusion.
5) My view is that we live in a Big Bang arena that is expanding, and that had preconditions that include the accumulation and collapse of a Big Crunch, out of the galactic remnants of prior big bang arenas.
6) When I visualize an infinite universe characterized by the continual interaction of big bang arenas (Arena Action) across the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe, sponginess comes to mind, hence the "Spongy" in the name.

 

[quantum_wave]

I mentioned that the hobby-model introduces "Quantum Wave Cosmology" (QWC). QWC addresses all of the mechanics that I describe associated with the processes of Arena Action (big bangs and crunches across the landscape of the greater universe) and Quantum Action (the presence of particles and gravity), as well as the descriptions of the two major opposing forces, energy density equalization and gravity. The mechanics of QWC describe how the universe continually produces hospitable environments in which the life yielding "forces" I call the generative and evolvative (to coin a word) forces go to work to populate the ISU with intelligent life forms.

The steps that lead to the concept and naming the mechanics, "Quantum Wave Cosmology", were preceded by step 5) in the steps leading to the naming of the "ISU". Call it ISU step #5), "My view is that we live in a Big Bang arena that is expanding, and that had preconditions that include the accumulation and collapse of a Big Crunch, out of the galactic remnants of prior big bang arenas".

Then the steps to get to the name QWC are:

1) I had done a little on-line brainstorming before I even decided that I might be going to evolve a personal model of the universe, and the question that was brainstormed was, "What caused the Big Bang?". I don't think there was much response, other than "we can't know", or there was no "before" the Big Bang, but I had read a lot on the topic, and the idea of a big crunch forming out of preexisting matter and energy in preexisting space seemed like a natural. That is, as opposed to "something from nothing", which I felt was implied by Big Bang Theory (BBT) at the time.

2) But even invoking the big crunch as a precondition did not get me to the cause of the Big Bang. The crunch had to collapse and "bang", and I needed to come up with some mechanics that could cause that to happen. It wasn't hard to equate the collapse to the concept of a supernova of Big Bang proportions as a starting point, and I was imagining the particles collapsing, giving up their individual particle spaces, and collapsing into nature's highest density ball of energy.

3) There was still a problem though, and the nature of the particles themselves had to be described in such a way that they could collapse and give up space. I had come across descriptions of particles as "patches of disturbed space", and certain particles as "standing waves", as well as the quantum nature of particles, and so I went with particles composed of wave energy in quantum increments, because they could collapse and give up space. The result of the collapse of a big crunch then became a hot dense ball of wave energy, compressed by gravity into nature's highest energy density state; dense state wave energy was the name given to the momentary ball of energy at the focus of the collapse from which expansion of our arena began.

4) Of course that hot dense ball of wave energy immediately "bounced" off of nature's highest allowable limit of energy density, into expansion. So I had it, the cause of the the Big Bang was the collapse of a Big Crunch, under the compression of gravity, when the matter and energy accumulating in the crunch reached some natural predetermined capacity, sufficient to cause the wave particles in the crunch to collapse and give up their space, condensing them into a what was an alternative similar to the hot dense ball of wave energy that seemingly came from nothing in BBT.

5) One more step though was needed, and that was the source of the matter and energy that got accumulated into the big crunch. The thinking came to mind that if there could be one Big Bang, why not more, why not a potentially infinite number of them across the landscape of the greater universe. Expanding arenas were waves of energy within which particles and eventually galactic structure formed. The material and energy that got accumulated in the big crunches was the galactic material and energy that had formed during the arena wave expansion of the other big bang arenas, and the convergence of those expanding arena waves lead to the swirling gravitational rendezvous of galactic material from the parent arenas.

6) Out of that scenario came the name, "Quantum Wave Cosmology", and also my SciForums screen name.

 

[quantum_wave]

I said that the model implies that the mainstream theories might be inconsistent, incompatible, and/or incomplete, and rarely does anyone so that isn't so. Still, do some members think all the consensus theories work together? Why else would anyone be criticized for disrespecting the scientific community for talking about alternatives? Is it because that false accusation is intended to show their disdain toward alternative thinking? I don't think so, when that is what the scientific community is doing all the time, thinking of ways that things could be, ways that would explain why and how the universe works the way it does, knowing they don't yet have the answers.

1) Google "Problems with ..." and finish the sentence with any major theory. You will get plenty of links.

2) Google "Incompatibility between GR and QM". Always an interesting search.

3) Google "Conflicting major theories". More and more results.

4) http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
http://www.letstalkphysics.com/2010/02/problem-with-quantum-mechanics.html
There are almost endless examples like these.

5) Spend a lot of time reading about the major theories, what makes them the consensus, and what are the problems with them and between them. When you begin to understand the problems, you may find yourself waiting for the scientific community to solve them. I call that, "The Big Wait".

6) While I wait, I keep interested by building my personal view of the cosmology of the universe from the bottom up, imagining what things might be like if they worked together, and that is the genesis of my hobby-model. What else can a layman science enthusiast do to pass the time while they figure things out for us :shrug:. When there is a lull, like now, in the discussion, I go back and present things like this to explain my hobby, and invite people in. It's not "doing" science, but really, how many of you are doing science. I see a lot of bickering and gotcha posts that aren't any less of a waste of time than hobby-modeling, lol.

7) My objective is to always able to stand by my disclaimer:
"My hobby-model is internally consistent as far as it goes, though it is a work in progress and far from a complete model, and it is not inconsistent with known scientific observations and data, stipulating that those observations are understood and explained with the mechanics that they operate by."

To be able to make that disclaimer, my model has to abandon a lot of science theory that just doesn't explain HOW things work the way they do. We know the universe works, but all the theories don't work together, so some are wrong, and my hobby-model is a bottom up, step by step attempt to suppose how things could work together. If I can't imagine, speculate, or hypothesize some way for something to physically occur, i.e. the mechanics of it, I don't include it.

The fact the I can get almost no one to discuss my version of how things might work together just tells me that no one who is spending their time wondering is anywhere near as far along in their wondering as I am. Otherwise they would share their thinking and refute mine. The art of argument and discussion means there are always going to be disagreements, and challenges to arguments. Just suggest better ideas if you don't like mine, and we can enjoy a discussion, while we wait.

 

[quantum_wave]

I describe my hobby-model as a Steady State Model (SSM)

In my lexicon, steady state means that the universe as a whole is not changing in any of the following ways:

1) Space is not expanding or contracting
2) Total energy is constant
3) The ratio of matter to energy as a whole is constant
4) The action processes transform matter to energy and back while the ratio is maintained
5) The arena landscape is homogenous and isotropic on a large scale
6) The local quantum landscape is consistent with the energy density environment
7) Time passes at the same rate at all points
8) Clocks tick at predictably different rates depending on the local energy density of the environment

Open for discussion.

 

[quantum_wave]

My model is called a multiple big bang arena model (MBBA Model)

Here's why:

In the earlier steps, something that I consider axiomatic or at least a given for my hobby-model, ISU step #4) which states. "My view is that space and energy are potentially infinite".

Given that, these are the steps of speculation leading to the MBB:

1) I speculate that if there could be one Big Bang, why not others.

2) Given the infinities of space, energy, and time, I speculate that there could be a potentially infinite number of active big bang arenas at all times.

3) I stipulate that the MBBA Model is intended to be consistent with all steps mentioned leading up to and including the speculations of it being a steady state model.

 

[quantum_wave]

Continuing the series of posts started in post #413, a contribution to keeping The Fringe alive :

My stated description of the hobby-model goes on to say that the universe defeats entropy via the process of Arena Action. That action takes place on the large scale level, which features a potentially infinite number of those expanding big bang arenas making up the landscape of the greater universe.

Defeating entropy of course would be a big deal. It is especially important in a universe that is posited to have always existed and still provides useful energy to support life.

Some may be familiar with the Cosmological Argument which states that if the universe was finite in space, energy, and time, i.e. it had a beginning and contained a fixed amount of energy with no mechanism to reverse entropy, then the second law of thermodynamics will eventually lead to a point where no life can exist. In that model we would be living on borrowed time.

In my model there is a way to recycle old cold dead matter. The used residual matter and energy of an aging big bang arena that has expanded, cooled, and radiated for all it was worth, over billions and billions of years, would reach a point where there were no longer any habitable environments; all life would be doomed. But wait ...

The expansion of such an arena is not yet over though. It would carry that old cold useless matter and energy along with its expansion, and it is destined to intersect and overlap with other expanding arenas, perhaps in the same cold dead state.

At the center of gravity of that overlap of two or more parent big bang arenas, the used up, cold dead matter will begin to accumulate in a gradually growing big crunch. The crunch reaches critical capacity, collapses and bangs into a new big bang arena, full of hot dense low entropy wave energy. Entropy is thus defeated in my hobby-model.

The methodology of step by step speculations calls for steps to achieve the defeat of entropy:

1) I speculate that in a multiple big bang arena universe, expanding arenas will mature into galaxy filled expanding arenas that host life in habitable environments throughout.
2) Expansion and cooling of the initial useful energy will increase the entropy of the arena as it expands.
3) The ability of an expanding arena to support life will decline as entropy increases.
4) In a multiple big bang arena universe expanding arenas will intersect.
5) Intersecting arenas, full of galactic material and energy will overlap, and the combined galactic material in the overlap space will converge under the influence of gravity.
6) A big crunch will form at the center of gravity of such a convergence.
7) The big crunch will grow as it accumulates galactic material and energy contributed to the overlap space by the "parent" arenas, reducing galaxies, black holes, and all forms of matter and energy into the pre-collapse dense state consisting of particles and energy trapped in an increasing compression under the growing influence of gravity.
8) In my model there is a natural limit, critical capacity I call it, that marks the point where the crunch collapses, and the particles give up their individual space, leaving only a hot dense ball of wave energy compressed by the collapse into natures limit of energy density.
9) The collapsing crunch bounces off of that limit of maximum possible wave energy density, and bursts into expansion.
10) A new low entropy big bang arena has formed, and they form like that all across the arena landscape, and the increasing entropy of the parent arenas is thus defeated.