Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 359

Thread: The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle; definitely Against the Mainstream

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    In an article entitled "The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model", in the June 2003 issue of Scientific American, Gordon Kane describes the most favoured extension of the Standard Model (of particle physics), the Mimimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM).

    He then briefly discusses how the MSSM might address one of particle physics' 'top problems' - extrapolation of the strengths of three forces (SM, weak, strong), to high temperature/energy regimes yields forces with identical strengths.

    How does your EEP idea relate to this puzzle?

    In the article, a brief discussion of "Ten Mysteries" follows. Kane makes the point that the Standard Model cannot address even one of these mysteries, but that the MSSM should be able to address all but four.

    The six which the MSSM should be able to address are (in shorthand, same numbering as in the article):

    1. Vacuum energy

    3. Inflation

    4. Matter-antimatter asymmetry

    5. Dark matter

    6. and 7. the Higgs.

    How well does your EEP idea address each of these six?

    The remaining four are (again, in shorthand):

    2. Dark energy

    8. Gravity

    9. The masses of the quarks and leptons

    10. Why are there three generations?

    How well does your EEP idea address each of these four?
    Before I continue with the promised post on the period between the end of the inflationary epoch and the formation of stars, I want to address vacuum energy density.

    VACUUM ENERGY DENSITY

    Space is permeated with EEPs, the elementary energy wave particle. The EEPs are indivisible entities in and of themselves, but they can interact with each other to form massive objects.

    To describe vacuum energy density I will introduce an environment of EEPs that theoretically could exist but in reality will never be found. Let’s refer to a huge patch of space as an arena. The arena that I will use to describe this particular environment of EEPs is the size of space necessary for every EEP in the known universe to be moving independently and freely at the speed of light and disbursed so the density of EEPs per cubic centimeter is in equilibrium with the amount of space in the arena, allowing EEPs to move and interact freely and consistently over the entire arena; evenly distributed throughout the arena in perfect balance with the available space, perfectly homogeneous and isotropic at an infinitesimal level.

    EEPs have a natural tendency to interact with each other and to form groupings with the combined mass of the constituent EEPs. As the mass of the various combined EEP groupings increases, more and more EEPs and EEP groupings are attracted, and there are a growing number of patches that have higher EEP density than the surrounding ground state density. This tendency to interact and form growing masses, and for those masses to combine and attract more similar masses eventually results in various great attractors forming throughout the original arena.

    These great attractors have a very high density of EEPs while the remainder of the arena has a very low EEP density. The relationship between the density of the growing masses and the density of the rest of the arena continues to diverge. The growing mass will eventually become a big crunch (destined to become a big bang) and will include such a high density of EEPs, that relative to the density of the surrounding arena, the crunch is nearly infinitely dense while the surrounding arena is relatively void.

    At this point the surrounding arena is at maximum vacuum energy density and the crunch is at maximum matter energy density.

    When the big bang occurs and the EEPs are freed in their highly excited state, the surrounding vacuum energy density is immediately employed to restore the equilibrium of the ground state by sucking highly excited and rapidly expanding EEPs back into the arena from which the big crunch was formed.

    A crunch that may have taken ten trillion years to form, may expand and refill the arena in only a trillion years.
    Last edited by Bogie; 2006-Sep-04 at 12:03 AM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669

    No detectible edge and ripples in the cosmic microwave background radiation

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    In an article entitled "The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model", in the June 2003 issue of Scientific American, Gordon Kane describes the most favoured extension of the Standard Model (of particle physics), the Mimimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM).

    He then briefly discusses how the MSSM might address one of particle physics' 'top problems' - extrapolation of the strengths of three forces (SM, weak, strong), to high temperature/energy regimes yields forces with identical strengths.

    How does your EEP idea relate to this puzzle?

    In the article, a brief discussion of "Ten Mysteries" follows. Kane makes the point that the Standard Model cannot address even one of these mysteries, but that the MSSM should be able to address all but four.

    The six which the MSSM should be able to address are (in shorthand, same numbering as in the article):

    1. Vacuum energy

    3. Inflation

    4. Matter-antimatter asymmetry

    5. Dark matter

    6. and 7. the Higgs.

    How well does your EEP idea address each of these six?

    The remaining four are (again, in shorthand):

    2. Dark energy

    8. Gravity

    9. The masses of the quarks and leptons

    10. Why are there three generations?

    How well does your EEP idea address each of these four?
    While I'm thinking about it let me toss in:

    No detectible edge and ripples in the cosmic microwave background radiation

    At the instant of the big bang all the EEPs are highly excited as they burst out of confinement and shoot away from the compacted center. Their relative movement is chaotic as they are again traveling at the speed of light and colliding and bumping around in a fight with each other for their own space. Because of the chaos, their interactions are primarily collisions at this point. As the highly excited core breaks through the outer layers of the big crunch, their extreme excitement negates any EEP groups that may still exist in the outer layers, causing all of the matter in the big crunch to be reduced to free EEPs.

    Vacuum energy determines a proclivity as to where the EEP chaos will go. Obviously they won’t tend to return to the center of the crunch, they will tend to go away from the center of the crunch, out to areas where the matter energy density of EEPs is lower and the vacuum energy density is higher.

    The migration from the center will continue until the positive pressure and the negative pressure are equalized a trillion years later and that will correspond with the time that it takes for the arena of vacuum energy to be filled and homogeneity and isotropy of the arena to be restored. Such equilibrium is theory though and not reality, because in the process of refilling the arena of vacuum energy, EEPs will have been interacting and forming groupings and atomic particles, and helium and hydrogen, and gas clouds and stars, and galaxies, all moving within the expanding bubble of EEPs that were casually connected at the instant of the big bang and separated from the greater universe by this arena of vacuum energy. Only when the arena is filled and the vacuum energy is used up does the big bang lose its local identity and become merged and mingled with the greater universe.

    While it retains its local identity, i.e. while the arena of vacuum energy exists and separates the local expansion from the greater universe, there is no identifiable edge of expansion. Everything seems to be moving away from everything else because the vacuum energy is casually connected just like the matter energy is casually connected to the big bang. Particles moving into the vacuum energy are being sucked away from the particles behind them so that they accelerate relative to the particles behind them in the expansion. Groupings of EEPs that are formed in the process are carried along with the expansion and appear to be moving away from other groupings that form behind them in the expanding area of matter energy and out into the contracting area of vacuum energy.

    In fact as the matter energy expands out into the vacuum energy, the matter energy encounters other matter energy that was in the grasp of the big crunch but never quite made it into the crunch by the instant of the bang. These encounters cause ripples in the consistency of the expanding matter energy out into the vacuum energy and appear even today as slight variances in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    In an article entitled "The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model", in the June 2003 issue of Scientific American, Gordon Kane describes the most favoured extension of the Standard Model (of particle physics), the Mimimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM).

    He then briefly discusses how the MSSM might address one of particle physics' 'top problems' - extrapolation of the strengths of three forces (SM, weak, strong), to high temperature/energy regimes yields forces with identical strengths.

    How does your EEP idea relate to this puzzle?

    In the article, a brief discussion of "Ten Mysteries" follows. Kane makes the point that the Standard Model cannot address even one of these mysteries, but that the MSSM should be able to address all but four.

    The six which the MSSM should be able to address are (in shorthand, same numbering as in the article):

    1. Vacuum energy

    3. Inflation

    4. Matter-antimatter asymmetry

    5. Dark matter

    6. and 7. the Higgs.

    How well does your EEP idea address each of these six?

    The remaining four are (again, in shorthand):

    2. Dark energy

    8. Gravity

    9. The masses of the quarks and leptons

    10. Why are there three generations?

    How well does your EEP idea address each of these four?
    While I'm thinking about it let me toss in:

    No detectible edge and ripples in the cosmic microwave background radiation

    At the instant of the big bang all the EEPs are highly excited as they burst out of confinement and shoot away from the compacted center. Their relative movement is chaotic as they are again traveling at the speed of light and colliding and bumping around in a fight with each other for their own space. Because of the chaos, their interactions are primarily collisions at this point. As the highly excited core breaks through the outer layers of the big crunch, their extreme excitement negates any EEP groups that may still exist in the outer layers, causing all of the matter in the big crunch to be reduced to free EEPs.

    Vacuum energy determines a proclivity as to where the EEP chaos will go. Obviously they won’t tend to return to the center of the crunch, they will tend to go away from the center of the crunch, out to areas where the matter energy density of EEPs is lower and the vacuum energy density is higher.

    The migration from the center will continue until the positive pressure and the negative pressure are equalized a trillion years later and that will correspond with the time that it takes for the arena of vacuum energy to be filled and homogeneity and isotropy of the arena to be restored. Such equilibrium is theory though and not reality, because in the process of refilling the arena of vacuum energy, EEPs will have been interacting and forming groupings and atomic particles, and helium and hydrogen, and gas clouds and stars, and galaxies, all moving within the expanding bubble of EEPs that were casually connected at the instant of the big bang and separated from the greater universe by this arena of vacuum energy. Only when the arena is filled and the vacuum energy is used up does the big bang lose its local identity and become merged and mingled with the greater universe.

    While it retains its local identity, i.e. while the arena of vacuum energy exists and separates the local expansion from the greater universe, there is no identifiable edge of expansion. Everything seems to be moving away from everything else because the vacuum energy is casually connected just like the matter energy is casually connected to the big bang. Particles moving into the vacuum energy are being sucked away from the particles behind them so that they accelerate relative to the particles behind them in the expansion. Groupings of EEPs that are formed in the process are carried along with the expansion and appear to be moving away from other groupings that form behind them in the expanding area of matter energy and out into the contracting area of vacuum energy.

    In fact as the matter energy expands out into the vacuum energy, the matter energy encounters other matter energy that was in the grasp of the big crunch but never quite made it into the crunch by the instant of the bang. These encounters cause ripples in the consistency of the expanding matter energy out into the vacuum energy and appear even today as slight variances in the cosmic microwave background radiation.
    How does any of what you wrote in this post, quoting mine, answer any of the questions I asked?

    Please be as specific as you can.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    How does any of what you wrote in this post, quoting mine, answer any of the questions I asked?

    Please be as specific as you can.
    Inflation, in my limited understanding, has two implications. The exponential expansion that I have heard referred to as the Inflationary Epoch, and the accelerating expansion sometimes mentioned as a push caused by dark energy. These two implications are part of the explanation of why we can't detect the edge of the universe, expansion looks the same in all directions.

    The vacuum energy (negative pressure) working on the expanding universe plays a role in our inability to detect the edge as mentioned in that post and plays the same role as dark energy. Vacuum energy works from beyond and surrounding the expanding universe while dark energy is supposed to be pushing from within the expanding universe. I like the vacuum energy idea better than the dark energy idea. I suggested how vacuum energy might work in my post about vacuum energy density.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    How does any of what you wrote in this post, quoting mine, answer any of the questions I asked?

    Please be as specific as you can.
    This might help clarify the role of the EEP by showing its role in my model vs. the role of “self-repulsive” dark energy from the Steinhardt/Turok model.

    From another forum that I post in:
    Quote Originally Posted by noway
    Yes, I was referring to this link:

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/...11/0111030.pdf
    A Cyclic Model of the Universe
    Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok

    “We propose a cosmological model in which the universe undergoes an endless sequence of cosmic epochs each beginning with a ‘bang’ and ending in a ‘crunch.’ The temperature and density are finite at each transition from crunch to bang. Instead of having an inflationary epoch, each cycle includes a period of slow accelerated expansion (as recently observed) followed by slow contraction. The combination produces a homogeneity, flatness, density fluctuations and energy needed to begin the next cycle.”



    Steinhardt and Turok have proposed a model that address what happened before the Big Bang and have concluded that there was a crunch. They see the universe as finite and in a continual sequence of crunch bangs, and infinite in time, having no beginning and no end. They confidently feel that the acceleration of expansion (as recently observed) is caused by a repulsive dark energy that was not predicted by the standard model.

    Obviously, as you can tell from my OP and posts, I agree with them in part. The universe has always existed, our Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch, and a bang occurs when a crunch reaches sufficient capacity, and the universe is “flat” (in terms of the cosmological principle which defines the universe as either open, closed or flat).

    There are two big differences though between the Steinhardt/Turok model and mine. They model a universe finite in content and attribute accelerated expansion to self-repulsive dark energy. (1) I model a universe infinite in content, and (2) I attribute accelerated expansion to vacuum energy.

    I contend that vacuum energy requires an infinite universe both spatially and in content, and therefore it cannot be part of a model that sees the universe as finite in content. Since Steinhardt/Turok won’t go with infinite in content, they are stuck with coming up with some “self-repulsive” dark energy that somehow grows up as the universe expands and adds a boost to the expansion to explain the acceleration that has been detected.

    Here is how I describe vacuum energy from my recent post in this thread on BAUT with a few small improvements in wording): “Space is permeated with EEPs, the elementary energy wave particle. The EEPs are indivisible entities in and of themselves, but they can interact with each other to form massive objects.

    To describe vacuum energy density I will introduce an environment of EEPs that theoretically could exist but in reality will never be found. Let’s refer to a huge patch of space as an arena. The arena that I will use to describe this particular environment of EEPs is the size of space necessary for every EEP in the known universe to be moving independently and freely at the speed of light and disbursed so the density of EEPs per cubic centimeter is in equilibrium with the amount of space in the arena, allowing EEPs to move and interact freely and consistently over the entire arena; evenly distributed throughout the arena in perfect balance with the available space, perfectly homogeneous and isotropic at an infinitesimal level.

    EEPs have a natural tendency to interact with each other and to form groupings which combine the mass of the constituent EEPs. As the mass of the various combined EEP groupings increases, more and more EEPs and EEP groupings are attracted, and there are a growing number of patches that have higher EEP density than the surrounding ground state density. This tendency to interact and form growing masses, and for those masses to combine and attract more similar masses eventually results in various great attractors forming throughout the original arena.

    These great attractors have a very high density of EEPs while the remainder of the arena has a very low EEP density. The relationship between the density of the growing masses and the density of the rest of the arena continues to diverge. The growing mass will eventually become a big crunch (destined to become a big bang) and will include such a high density of EEPs, that relative to the density of the surrounding arena, the crunch is nearly infinitely dense while the surrounding arena is relatively void.

    At this point the surrounding arena is at maximum vacuum energy density (negative pressure) and the crunch is at maximum matter energy density (fully compressed in the crunch).

    When the big bang occurs and the EEPs are freed in their highly excited state, the surrounding vacuum energy density is immediately employed to restore the equilibrium state by sucking highly excited and rapidly expanding EEPs back into the arena from which the big crunch was formed.

    A crunch that may have taken ten trillion years to form, may expand and refill the arena in only a trillion years.”

    ------

    This description, in plain English, describes how my model accounts for inflation and the accelerated expansion that has been detected. When I read Steinhardt/Turok’s description of “self-repulsive” dark energy I had no idea how or why it works or where it came from.

    If someone understands the dark energy in their model I would appreciate a brief description in common language that a non-scientist can understand. If my hunch is correct, no one will be able to provide such an explanation because there is no explanation; self-repulsive dark energy does not exist.

    Vacuum energy density (the cosmological constant) causes the accelerated expansion that we now observe. The expansion will continue until equilibrium is restored. The content of the known universe will expand on out into the greater universe, and will be incorporated into various future big crunches that are characteristic of the greater universe.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    The biggest advantage of the EEP, if it could be accurately described, is that it would fill in the physics necessary to cause big crunches to become big bangs.
    What is the observational evidence for more than one big bang? for big crunches?
    The scenario of accomplishing this feat traverses the cycle of matter from ending up in the core of a big crunch, destroying the big crunch causing a big bang, and then feeding and fueling the transition of a big bang to the point that we find ourselves in our known universe, and from here to a future big crunch somewhere, someday.

    It is at the heart of the complete story of the big bang, nucleosynthesis, star formation, production of heavy elements in the heart of stars, and the eventual accumulation of matter from vast arenas of space into big crunches; a full cycle of an indestructible but interactive elementary energy wave/particle (EEP).
    Can quantum theory be used to describe EEPs?
    In order to accomplish this cycle the EEP must have some characteristics that set it apart for anything we can actually find and study. If we limit our description to characteristics necessary to accomplish the task, and avoid unnecessary description and characteristics, the required EEP will be a simple “thing”.

    Try to be logical and rational, and evaluate the EEP from a detached perspective, and you should agree that at the instant of the big bang, the particle would be in its most excited state, and the interactions between EEPs that are possible will begin very slowly because of these highly excited and rapidly expanding circumstances.
    Why?

    More particularly, how does the concept of EEPs avoid the mutual incompatibility of quantum theory and GR, in the Planck regime?
    I picture a rapidly expanding and hot chaotic environment of free and independent EEPs, bursting out of the big crunch in an instant, and at the same time being sucked out into space in an exponential expansion by the vacuum energy density that has built up surrounded the big crunch during its formation.
    How rapid?
    How hot?
    Free of what?
    How long is "an instant"?
    What is the geometry of the space into which the EEPs are being sucked?
    The big bang burst occurs, the exponential expansion occurs, the expansion slows and the hot chaotic environment cools. In the cooling environment EEP interactions begin.

    At this point the characteristics of the EEP that need to be mentioned are its ability to destroy a big crunch and cause it to burst into the chaotic hot expanding environment consisting of a finite but extremely huge number of identical indestructible EEPs, too excited to interact with each other.
    Do EEPs 'feel' the strong force? the electroweak force?
    The burst is caused by the release of pent up energy.

    The energy is pent up by the repression of the pulsing action of the EEPs locked in the core of the big crunch.
    How big is this core?
    What other structures does "the big crunch" have (other than a core)?
    What is doing the locking?
    Are the "pulses" periodic? If so, what is (are) the period(s)?
    So the EEP pulses, and as it pulses it moves at the speed of light.

    The pulse is caused by the fact that though it is of the tiniest possible mass, it is the densest mass possible. This near infinite density makes it contract under its own warped space or gravity. It contracts until it is impossible to contact further. The point of maximum contraction brings it as close to infinite density as it is possible to get. At this point its volume has reached the smallest possible volume short of zero.
    How small is this volume?
    How do EEPs avoid the mutual inconsistency between QM and GR?

    (I think that's enough for now)

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    What is the observational evidence for more than one big bang? for big crunches?
    Assumptions: The universe is infinite both spatially and in energy content. In a universe infinite in energy, is there any reason to believe our big bang is not just a common ordinary big bang? With infinite energy to work with why not an infinite number of such bangs present now throughout the potentially infinite Universe.
    Can quantum theory be used to describe EEPs?
    Yes, to the extent that critical density and the cosmological constant are now used to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe.

    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...l_density.html

    Critical density is the average density of the energy content of a flat universe, i.e. when vacuum energy and matter energy are in balance with each other.

    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo..._constant.html
    Why?
    If you mean why, "In order to accomplish this cycle the EEP must have some characteristics that set it apart for anything we can actually find and study", it is because there is no explanation of what caused the big bang.

    If you mean why, "If we limit our description to characteristics necessary to accomplish the task, and avoid unnecessary description and characteristics, the required EEP will be a simple 'thing'", it is because if we can explain the physics need without extra dimension, that would be better.

    If you mean why, "Try to be logical and rational, and evaluate the EEP from a detached perspective, and you should agree that at the instant of the big bang, the particle would be in its most excited state, and the interactions between EEPs that are possible will begin very slowly because of these highly excited and rapidly expanding circumstances", it is because under extreme pressure, particles as we know them demonstrate an increase in thermal radiation, heat, and it is equated to "excitement" in my description of the EEP.

    More particularly, how does the concept of EEPs avoid the mutual incompatibility of quantum theory and GR, in the Planck regime?
    In the Plank regime, the energy is represented as permeating space, and virtual particles are proposed to transmit or move energy from place to place. The EEP, having mass and being indestructible does not come in and out of existence, and becomes a GR entity having mass and momentum.
    How rapid?
    You mean the expansion? The standard cosmology today, the Big Bang with Inflation, goes as far back in time as the instant after the big bang, and describes the total content of the ‘known’ universe it that instant as being smaller than a pinhead, and hotter that Hades. In the second instant there was exponential expansion when the universe inflated 500,000,000,000 times in size, establishing an isotropic and homogeneous domain within which and from which the known universe evolved.

    http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/essa...yEverTold.html

    How hot?
    Also from the above link,” When the universe was a piping-hot 10^30 degrees and a youthful 10^-43 seconds old"
    Free of what?
    Free of the bonds and forces that are characteristic of atomics and nuclear physics, i.e. the forces that bind the nucleolus of the atom together, and contain electrons to the various rings around the nucleolus, as well as free from physics of the sub-nuclear particles, quarks in particular, since I propose all of the above are composed of the smaller EEP.
    How long is "an instant"?
    10^-43 seconds or so.
    What is the geometry of the space into which the EEPs are being sucked?
    Space is filled with energy, and the energy permeating space takes one of two forms; matter energy or vacuum energy. The two together equal total energy. The values assigned to matter energy (ME) and vacuum energy (VE) are directly related to each other, i.e. they both increase or decrease together.

    "Matter energy" is based on E=mc^2, i.e. matter and energy are proportional to the relationship where the energy contained in matter is equal to the mass of the matter times the speed of light squared. Clearly there is a large amount of energy in even a tiny amount of matter.

    From this relationship, E=mc^2, we can get a good impression of what matter energy is and I will use that formula to define matter energy.

    However E=mc^2 gives us just as good an impression of what vacuum energy is when you consider the direct relationship between matter energy and vacuum energy. Since as ME increases, VE increases; the increase in VE equals the increase in ME. This works if ME comes from VE, and if that is the case, then VE can be defined by e=mc^2 as well.

    This makes sense if VE and ME are taken to mean the physical content of energy in space as defined by E=mc^2, and that as the physical content of energy in space accumulates in one area of space it must decline in another. The area where the content of energy accumulates is an area of ME relative to the area where the content of energy declines. So the content of energy in ME is relative to the content of energy in VE, in an inverse relationship. Since matter energy and vacuum energy are said to have a direct relationship, vacuum energy increases in an area as the content of energy in that area of space decrease and therefore vacuum energy is measured as a negative while matter energy is measured as a positive. The negative amount of vacuum energy increases as the positive amount of matter energy increases, and there is no change in the total amount of energy. Energy is just redistributed from one area of space to another. Vacuum energy grows as energy is removed from the VE space.

    At this point in the description of ME and VE we should go back to the term critical density. ME and VE are in balance at the point of critical density. This means that if the energy content of all space was equally distributed throughout space, there would be no areas of ME or VE, there would just be space containing energy at critical density everywhere. This circumstance would exit if the universe was homogeneous and isotropic at the infinitesimal level.

    Since the space we are talking about is in the vicinity of a big crunch, the ME density of the crunched material is extremely dense with EEPs, and the surrounding arena (the space from which the big crunch was accumulated over maybe ten trillion years) contains an extreme amount of VE, translated to an extremely sparse population of EEPs.

    Reminder: both VE and ME are composed of EEPs, but as the density of ME increases, the EEP density of VE decreases.


    Do EEPs 'feel' the strong force? the electroweak force?
    I am not sure of the relationship of the EEP to the quanta of the Higgs field, i.e. Higgs bosons. I am sticking with the idea the EEPs have mass and am perplexed by certain descriptions of the electroweak force studies where particles with zero mass can be completely left or right handed. I think that time will have to tell when electroweak theory and QCD are unified someday, maybe.
    How big is this core?
    In physical size the core is not large because of the density of locked EEPs; near infinite density.

    If the mass of an electron is about 1/2000th of the mass of a proton, and if the electron consists of ~one million EEPs, then the hydrogen atom contains two billion EEPs. If the average density of the universe is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter (I can't remember the exact estimates but it is a small number, say 3 to 6) , then the average density of the pre-synthesis material is two billion EEPs per cubic meter or 2 EEPs per 10^-10 cubic meters. If you compress all of the EEPs required to make up the matter in the known universe you get ~ *Bogie gets out his calculator and finds he can't figure it out yet*, but more that a teaspoon full.

    What other structures does "the big crunch" have (other than a core)?
    http://filer.case.edu/~sjr16/stars_blackhole.html
    The core represents the singularity in the linked diagram. Other structure in the big crunch could be similar to proposed structure of a massive black hole, i.e. inner and outer event horizons, Ergosphere, and accretion disk.

    What is doing the locking?
    Compression.
    Are the "pulses" periodic?
    Yes.
    If so, what is (are) the period(s)?
    The frequency of the pulses covers the frequencies along the electromagnetic spectrum.

    The size of EEPs is infinitesimal, but they can vary in size from >0 to 1 on a scale I call the "presence scale" of EEPs. The maximum size is determined by the maximum mass that can keep from flying apart at the peak of the expansion phase of the EEP expansion/contraction cycle.

    The mass of the EEPs is measured in “presence”. Presence of an EEP falls in a range from >0 to 1. The frequency of the pulse of an individual EEP is determined by its “mass/presence”, i.e. the relative mass on the presence scale.

    The frequency of the pulse is inversely related to the “mass/presence”.

    Based on electromagnetic radiation being the emission of wave/particle EEPs, the size of the EEP on the 0 to 1 scale determines the frequency of the pulse and the relative placement of that particular EEP on the frequency range along the EMR spectrum.

    How small is this volume?
    The volume of an EEP varies between >zero and 1, 1 being the maximum size that can exist and still not be blown apart by the expansion phase of the EEP pulse cycle. I have estimated the size above in effect. "If the mass of an electron is about 1/2000th of the mass of a proton, and if the electron consists of ~one million EEPs, then the hydrogen atom contains two billion EEPs. If the average density of the universe is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, then the average density of the pre-synthesis material is two billion EEPs per cubic meter or 2 EEPs per 10^-10 cubic meters. If you compress all of the EEPs required to make up the matter in the known universe you get ~ *Bogie gets out his calculator and finds he can't figure it out yet*, but more that a teaspoon full."

    How do EEPs avoid the mutual inconsistency between QM and GR?
    In QM as in the Planck regime, the energy is represented as permeating space, and virtual particles are proposed to transmit or move energy from place to place. The EEP, having mass and being indestructible does not come in and out of existence, and becomes a GR entity having mass and momentum.


    (I think that's enough for now)
    If this is not responsive in various parts please let me know, because as I said in the OP, this is a work in progress.

    Thank you for taking the time to evaluate my post and bring up such thoughtful questions.
    Last edited by Bogie; 2006-Sep-11 at 03:25 PM. Reason: phrasing, spelling

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    [snip]
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    Can quantum theory be used to describe EEPs?
    Yes, to the extent that critical density and the cosmological constant are now used to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe.
    [snip]
    More particularly, how does the concept of EEPs avoid the mutual incompatibility of quantum theory and GR, in the Planck regime?
    In the Plank regime, the energy is represented as permeating space, and virtual particles are proposed to transmit or move energy from place to place. The EEP, having mass and being indestructible does not come in and out of existence, and becomes a GR entity having mass and momentum.
    [snip]
    Just so that I don't misunderstand ... are you claiming that there is a fundamental limit to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

    In particular, that ΔE cannot be greater than some limiting value, no matter how small Δt is?

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Just so that I don't misunderstand ... are you claiming that there is a fundamental limit to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

    In particular, that ΔE cannot be greater than some limiting value, no matter how small Δt is?
    Does ΔE refer to an electron? And so the uncertainty principle says if we know where an electron is at any point in time means we can't know its momentum, and to know its momentum we can't know its position?

    And further does this apply to smaller particles in QM? Is ΔE a change in position, and Δt a change in time, i.e. are you saying that as a particle moves its position changes by ΔE (distance) in the period of time Δt?

    Which ever it is, the EEP is undetectable for a similar reason. There is nothing small enough to indicate the presence of an EEP so the uncertainty principle remains in tact.

    But the EEP does define the shortest possible length of time that can be measured. It has physical presence and momentum, and its pulses are theoretically the shortest measurable length of time.

    If this is a fundamental limit that applies to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle I do not know. If so, it seems to me we would have to be able to detect either the position or the momentum of the EEP itself. What is there that small if the EEP itself is the smallest elementary particle and therefore seemingly undetectable?

    Let me add a thought that is related. The EEP is an entity in space-time. There is no rest state like with an electron. The EEPs that make up an electron are in constant movement at the speed of light inside the electron's dimensions.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    Does ΔE refer to an electron? And so the uncertainty principle says if we know where an electron is at any point in time means we can't know its momentum, and to know its momentum we can't know its position?

    And further does this apply to smaller particles in QM? Is ΔE a change in position, and Δt a change in time, i.e. are you saying that as a particle moves its position changes by ΔE (distance) in the period of time Δt?

    Which ever it is, the EEP is undetectable for a similar reason. There is nothing small enough to indicate the presence of an EEP so the uncertainty principle remains in tact.

    But the EEP does define the shortest possible length of time that can be measured. It has physical presence and momentum, and its pulses are theoretically the shortest measurable length of time.

    If this is a fundamental limit that applies to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle I do not know. If so, it seems to me we would have to be able to detect either the position or the momentum of the EEP itself. What is there that small if the EEP itself is the smallest elementary particle and therefore seemingly undetectable?

    Let me add a thought that is related. The EEP is an entity in space-time. There is no rest state like with an electron. The EEPs that make up an electron are in constant movement at the speed of light inside the electron's dimensions.
    What I'm trying - poorly, so far - to do is probe your claims wrt QM and GR.

    In particular, though you state, in effect, that "QM Rules, OK?", I want to explore whether your EEPs do, in fact, behave according to Dirac, Heisenberg, etc.

    Let me try again.

    GR is a theory about the geometry of space(-time). That geometry is determined by the mass-energy of the region under discussion (and outside the region too, but we'll ignore that, for now).

    An inextricable part of quantum theory is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. One conjugate pair is energy and time.

    In an interval of time Δt, the energy of our region can be uncertain up to ΔE, where Δt ΔE ≥ ħ/2.

    When ΔE gets large enough, the geometry of space(-time) becomes seriously different from 'flat'.

    When Δt is ~ Planck time, the geometry of space(-time) becomes mush/nonsense.

    In our everyday existence, who cares what shape space-time has, in time intervals of ~ Planck time?! There is no observable consequence of this mutual QM/GR inconsistency.

    However, if we run the clock back, on the whole universe, we find that the question of what went on in its first Planck second of existence appears to make sense (as a question), but is also impossible to answer, as long as we try to answer using both QM and GR.

    Along comes the Bogie idea, full of EEPs.

    If EEPs are thoroughly quantum particles, then how tightly can we constrain their energy, within a Planck time? If EEPs are thoroughly quantum particles, then how tightly can we constrain their momentum, within a Planck length?

    If EEPs are thoroughly quantum particles, how do they make the geometry of space(-time) sensible, within the first Planck second? When the universe was the size of a Planck length?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    37
    Is there a simple version? I'm curious as to what makes the EEPs move in the first place. Not sure I cought on to that part.

    Also, it sounds like your talking about frequency modulation or FM in some of it. How more than one wave interacts and modulates another, but whats the source of the original movement I guess I'm wondering.

    Thanks!

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    If EEPs are thoroughly quantum particles, how do they make the geometry of space(-time) sensible, within the first Planck second? When the universe was the size of a Planck length?
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RussT
    Nereid and Ken G already explained why this wont work in a BB universe in your other thread in ATM.

    ...
    Orginally Posted by Bogie here
    http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...3&postcount=27
    Just because BB is the standard cosmology does not prelude the possibility that it is just wrong as to what happened before 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. BB can say anything it wants about after the BB, but as far a I know, it takes no position about t=0. end.

    [When the universe was the size of a Planck length?]

    So, Bogie, here is an example of what I have been trying to show you (in several other threads as well at several different times...months)

    Go ahead, and try to show how your EEP's can be 'all' of 'space' getting here at T=0 or T= 10 ^-43 or T= 10 ^-35 Inflation.

    Well, don't feel bad, neither can mainstream, which is what Nereid meant when she said this.
    http://www.bautforum.com/report.php?p=824490
    I prefer a different way of describing the GR/QM incompatibility - there is a regime (the Planck) within which application of both GR and QM produces wild inconsistencies ("a confusion of infinites", if you will). However, the inconsistency is considerably deeper than the infinities - the very structures (of GR and QM) are incompatible. Or, if you prefer, there is no way to unite the two theories - we must abandon one, or both, and create a new theory (or theories) that have completely different structures (but which 'reduce to' GR and QM, respectively, in their limits).

    [at T=0 or T= 10 ^-43 ot T= 10 ^-35 Inflation.]

    So all I am suggesting is that you consider that GR is correct but that this is the real problem, and String/"M" theory can't do it here either.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    ... However, the inconsistency is considerably deeper than the infinities - the very structures (of GR and QM) are incompatible. Or, if you prefer, there is no way to unite the two theories - we must abandon one, or both, and create a new theory (or theories) that have completely different structures (but which 'reduce to' GR and QM, respectively, in their limits).

    [at T=0 or T= 10 ^-43 ot T= 10 ^-35 Inflation.]

    So all I am suggesting is that you consider that GR is correct but that this is the real problem, and String/"M" theory can't do it here either.
    Everyone has been kind and seems to want to understand me and to have me understand them. There is a better chance that you will understand me than that I will understand the science you are confronting me with. Much of science seems to be intended to back engineer the nature of the infinitesimal universe. I am coming at the nature of our universe from the perspective of my best guess of the nature of the elementary building block of our universe; a building block that has not yet been discovered.

    My approach, and the approach of others like me, is to engineer our universe from that imaginative perspective. What would it take to make it work the way it does.

    Science is busy at the task of the back engineering what we can observe by using the technology we can develop and apply to research into the nature of things.

    These are two different approaches from different perspectives. There may someday be a merger of the two endeavors into one unified understand of the nature of things. What remains of either endeavor in the final product will be the reward for time spent on our particular side of the endeavor.

    I have no funding, no staff, and no formal training that qualifies me to do this. A high speed internet connection and the library are my main resources, aside from my own imaginative nature, great intelligence and humility .

    Imaginative Speculation on the Nature of Things

    I define the universe as a level of order marked off by the limits of the energy quanta on that level. There are an infinite number of levels. The energy quanta on our level of order are the elementary energy wave/particles (EEPs). EEPs are considered the smallest building block on this level of order, i.e. in our universe, and like the quanta at each level, EEPs are self contained perpetual energy machines.

    The energy quanta on the next lower universal level of order are the “lower-order elementary energy wave/particles” (LEEPs). At the universal level of order below that is the “sub lower-order elementary energy wave/particle” (SLEEPs).

    Starting with the level of order below our universe, LEEPs compress due to their own extreme density until their own little compressed parts (SLEEPs) are squeezed together very tightly. The SLEEPs get compression locked in the core of the LEEP and quickly build up potential energy until they can’t be contained by the pressure and they burst out of the compression, ending the collapse of the LEEP, and sending it into its own expansion. The LEEP will expand again until its own extreme density takes back over and starts to compress the SLEEPs again, marking the end of the expansion of the LEEP and defining one complete LEEP pulse. I conclude that the same process goes on at the lower SLEEP level of order and at the higher EEP level of order which is our own universal level.

    Our bang-crunch cycle defines the energy quanta at the next higher level of order above us, the HEEP level. I'm saying this with a straight face.

    But back on the LEEP level (the level below ours), as the LEEP bursts and expands it sends its SLEEPs which were just freed from compression lock, out into the surrounding SLEEP universe which is then permeated with free SLEEPs. The free SLEEPs quickly recombine and collapse again, fueling the LEEP universe with repetitive crunch/bang action. The free SLEEPs are the energy quanta of the SLEEP universe just like the free LEEPs are the energy quanta at the level below us and the EEPs are the energy quanta at our level.

    There is a reason for referring to the permeated space of the SLEEP level after the SLEEPs burst out of compression lock. The reason for referring to space permeated with SLEEPs at that level, two levels removed for our EEP level, is because space itself contains energy of every level of order, and the space of any level of order is permeated at a much finer level by the energy quanta of the lower levels of order. No place can be empty space. The concept of empty space in between elementary particles at any level of order is mistaken. All space is permeated with energy quanta from an infinite regression of levels of order.

    You see, the EEP is a simple concept.

    At our universal level of order we can say that EEPs have always existed and are indestructible. We can ignore the lower levels of order because their quanta work exactly like our quanta and our quanta is made up of an infinite regression of levels of order.

    When we say space is permeated with EEPs, we mean that space is permeated with energy in such fineness that it can be considered a continuum of energy. The EEP is the quantum that can describe everything about our level because it is the smallest meaningful common denominator of matter at our level.

    Our universe is made of EEPs that have always existed. The universe has always existed. The universe is infinite and contains infinite energy. Our observable big bang universe is one quantum of the HEEP level, the turtle above us. The HEEP level is filled infinitely with HEEPs, and our expanding big bang is one phase of one quantum in the universal level above us. We never have to speak of the universal level above us because is works just like our level works, and we have plenty to do to define how our level works.

    Matter is composed of energy. Matter is composed of EEPs. EEPs are energy. EEPs are matter.

    EEPs have mass.

    The speed of light at our level fits the quanta at our level. EEPs are in constant movement at the speed of light. The path that an EEP takes can vary from a tight orbit around another EEP, or a curved path influenced by the curvature of space through which it passes.

    If I am correct I have just defined the energy field at our level of order.

    Let’s pause here to let this settle and to let other posters make their comments, and allow for the orderly exodus of posters and passers bye who find this line of reasoning intolerable. A parting comment is not considered out of line.

    If this subject is not fit for BAUT, at the discretion of the moderators, I will understand and not pursue it and will harbor no regrets. There are many other topics here that are interesting and informative and I’m sure I can find reward at BAUT without this EEP thread.

    If the thread continues, and based on it being a continuing work-in-progress, I will try to try to describe what I think is the nature and importance of EEP environments, and enlist help at every point along the way.

    If this seems like we are recovering ground already covered, that is the nature of a work-in-progress. Learn, recap, and push on.
    Last edited by Bogie; 2006-Sep-14 at 06:50 PM. Reason: spelling

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    Everyone has been kind and seems to want to understand me and to have me understand them. There is a better chance that you will understand me than that I will understand the science you are confronting me with. Much of science seems to be intended to back engineer the nature of the infinitesimal universe. I am coming at the nature of our universe from the perspective of my best guess of the nature of the elementary building block of our universe; a building block that has not yet been discovered.

    My approach, and the approach of others like me, is to engineer our universe from that imaginative perspective. What would it take to make it work the way it does.

    Science is busy at the task of the back engineering what we can observe by using the technology we can develop and apply to research into the nature of things.

    These are two different approaches from different perspectives. There may someday be a merger of the two endeavors into one unified understand of the nature of things. What remains of either endeavor in the final product will be the reward for time spent on our particular side of the endeavor.

    I have no funding, no staff, and no formal training that qualifies me to do this. A high speed internet connection and the library are my main resources, aside from my own imaginative nature, great intelligence and humility .

    Imaginative Speculation on the Nature of Things

    I define the universe as a level of order marked off by the limits of the energy quanta on that level. There are an infinite number of levels. The energy quanta on our level of order are the elementary energy wave/particles (EEPs). EEPs are considered the smallest building block on this level of order, i.e. in our universe, and like the quanta at each level, EEPs are self contained perpetual energy machines.

    The energy quanta on the next lower universal level of order are the “lower-order elementary energy wave/particles” (LEEPs). At the universal level of order below that is the “sub lower-order elementary energy wave/particle” (SLEEPs).

    Starting with the level of order below our universe, LEEPs compress due to their own extreme density until their own little compressed parts (SLEEPs) are squeezed together very tightly. The SLEEPs get compression locked in the core of the LEEP and quickly build up potential energy until they can’t be contained by the pressure and they burst out of the compression, ending the collapse of the LEEP, and sending it into its own expansion. The LEEP will expand again until its own extreme density takes back over and starts to compress the SLEEPs again, marking the end of the expansion of the LEEP and defining one complete LEEP pulse. I conclude that the same process goes on at the lower SLEEP level of order and at the higher EEP level of order which is our own universal level.

    Our bang-crunch cycle defines the energy quanta at the next higher level of order above us, the HEEP level. I'm saying this with a straight face.

    But back on the LEEP level (the level below ours), as the LEEP bursts and expands it sends its SLEEPs which were just freed from compression lock, out into the surrounding SLEEP universe which is then permeated with free SLEEPs. The free SLEEPs quickly recombine and collapse again, fueling the LEEP universe with repetitive crunch/bang action. The free SLEEPs are the energy quanta of the SLEEP universe just like the free LEEPs are the energy quanta at the level below us and the EEPs are the energy quanta at our level.

    There is a reason for referring to the permeated space of the SLEEP level after the SLEEPs burst out of compression lock. The reason for referring to space permeated with SLEEPs at that level, two levels removed for our EEP level, is because space itself contains energy of every level of order, and the space of any level of order is permeated at a much finer level by the energy quanta of the lower levels of order. No place can be empty space. The concept of empty space in between elementary particles at any level of order is mistaken. All space is permeated with energy quanta from an infinite regression of levels of order.

    You see, the EEP is a simple concept.

    At our universal level of order we can say that EEPs have always existed and are indestructible. We can ignore the lower levels of order because their quanta work exactly like our quanta and our quanta is made up of an infinite regression of levels of order.

    When we say space is permeated with EEPs, we mean that space is permeated with energy in such fineness that it can be considered a continuum of energy. The EEP is the quantum that can describe everything about our level because it is the smallest meaningful common denominator of matter at our level.

    Our universe is made of EEPs that have always existed. The universe has always existed. The universe is infinite and contains infinite energy. Our observable big bang universe is one quantum of the HEEP level, the turtle above us. The HEEP level is filled infinitely with HEEPs, and our expanding big bang is one phase of one quantum in the universal level above us. We never have to speak of the universal level above us because is works just like our level works, and we have plenty to do to define how our level works.

    Matter is composed of energy. Matter is composed of EEPs. EEPs are energy. EEPs are matter.

    EEPs have mass.

    The speed of light at our level fits the quanta at our level. EEPs are in constant movement at the speed of light. The path that an EEP takes can vary from a tight orbit around another EEP, or a curved path influenced by the curvature of space through which it passes.

    If I am correct I have just defined the energy field at our level of order.

    Let’s pause here to let this settle and to let other posters make their comments, and allow for the orderly exodus of posters and passers bye who find this line of reasoning intolerable. A parting comment is not considered out of line.

    If this subject is not fit for BAUT, at the discretion of the moderators, I will understand and not pursue it and will harbor no regrets. There are many other topics here that are interesting and informative and I’m sure I can find reward at BAUT without this EEP thread.

    If the thread continues, and based on it being a continuing work-in-progress, I will try to try to describe what I think is the nature and importance of EEP environments, and enlist help at every point along the way.

    If this seems like we are recovering ground already covered, that is the nature of a work-in-progress. Learn, recap, and push on.
    If I may summarise one (important!) aspect of this post, as follows:

    The Bogie idea is incompatible with either QM or GR (or possibly both).

    Or perhaps:

    As presently formulated, the extent to which the Bogie idea may be compatible with either QM or GR has not been examined, by Bogie, at least. Further, in its present state of development, Bogie is unable to answer questions about the extent to which the Bogie idea is compatible with either QM or GR.

    I would like to know if either of these summaries is essentially correct, before moving on to challenging other aspects of the Bogie idea*.

    *Note that if the extent to which the Bogie idea is incompatible with either QM or GR cannot be ascertained, then it would seem the only further challenges that could be made would be wrt observations.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    If I may summarise one (important!) aspect of this post, as follows:

    The Bogie idea is incompatible with either QM or GR (or possibly both).

    Or perhaps:

    As presently formulated, the extent to which the Bogie idea may be compatible with either QM or GR has not been examined, by Bogie, at least. Further, in its present state of development, Bogie is unable to answer questions about the extent to which the Bogie idea is compatible with either QM or GR.

    I would like to know if either of these summaries is essentially correct, before moving on to challenging other aspects of the Bogie idea*.

    *Note that if the extent to which the Bogie idea is incompatible with either QM or GR cannot be ascertained, then it would seem the only further challenges that could be made would be wrt observations.
    This may not be comforting but the EEP has relativistic mass. This may not be a problem if its rest mass is zero.

    Given the nature of the EEP, traveling at the speed of light, and pulsing as it expands and contracts, giving it a frequency and relativistic mass, but given that it may have zero invariant mass, do you think this idea has any play?
    Last edited by Bogie; 2006-Sep-17 at 01:34 AM.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    This may not be comforting but the EEP has relativistic mass. This may not be a problem if its rest mass is zero.

    Given the nature of the EEP, traveling at the speed of light, and pulsing as it expands and contracts, giving it a frequency and relativistic mass, but given that it may have zero invariant mass, do you think this idea has any play?
    Which force(s) does the EEP 'feel'? Electromagnetic? Weak? Strong? Some combination? Something else?? None???
    Last edited by Nereid; 2006-Sep-17 at 02:27 AM. Reason: Post quoted was edited (intrinsic -> invariant)

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Which force(s) does the EEP 'feel'? Electromagnetic? Weak? Strong? Some combination? Something else?? None???
    I was hoping to get some input based on my post and my question.

    To answer your question, traveling at the speed of light it has mass and is influenced by gravity.

    Are the terms weak, strong, electromagnetic a part of the science to back engineer what we observe to try to understand elementary particles?

    Is my approach of building from the ground up out of line with BAUT?

    Is it wrong for me to explain my idea, and ask for feed back before you bring forward your questions?

    Do you have any opinion about my last post besides your questions?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    I was hoping to get some input based on my post and my question.

    To answer your question, traveling at the speed of light it has mass and is influenced by gravity.
    It's very simple, Bogie.

    If the EEPs 'feel' either the electroweak or strong force (or both), then they must be compatible with QM (and so the Bogie idea cannot account for any phenomena in the Planck regime ... without a re-write of either QM or GR).

    If the EEPs 'feel' neither the electroweak or strong force, but 'feel' gravity, then they must be somehow accountable (or describable) in GR (and so the Bogie idea cannot account for any phenomena in the Planck regime ... without a re-write of either QM or GR).

    Further, if they "travel[...] at the speed of light it [have] mass and [are] influenced by gravity", then they are a constituent of the universe's mass-energy, just like Dark Matter, Dark Energy, baryonic mass, photons, neutrinos, ... and we can ask "what is the footprint of EEPs in the CMB?" (for example).

    In any case, if the Bogie idea claims to have applicability in the Planck regime, then it must contain a replacement for either QM or GR (or both) - whether that is stated explicitly or not.
    Are the terms weak, strong, electromagnetic a part of the science to back engineer what we observe to try to understand elementary particles?
    To some extent, that's a personal preference.

    Some would say that 'elementary particles' are necessary to understand the observational data wrt the forces ... and that neither 'elementary particles' nor forces, as concepts, have any significant meaning outside quantum theory.
    Is my approach of building from the ground up out of line with BAUT?
    The ATM section of BAUT has only one special rule - a requirement to answer, in a timely fashion, direct, pertinent questions asked of the ATM idea, as presented (and not hijack other threads to promote your idea).
    Is it wrong for me to explain my idea, and ask for feed back before you bring forward your questions?

    Do you have any opinion about my last post besides your questions?
    FWIW, my opinion is that the ideas you have presented have been shown to be inconsistent with what we already know of the universe ... in the sense that they are a tiny, tiny subset of a general class of solutions (or, if you prefer, approaches) that have, a long time ago, been shown to be subject to the deep incompatibility between quantum theory and GR. So far, essentially every relevant post you've made, explaining your idea, has only served to reinforce my opinion.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    It's very simple, Bogie.

    ... and we can ask "what is the footprint of EEPs in the CMB?" (for example).
    I suggested that there was space outside the big bang and at the instant of the big bang that space came right up to the pin head sized big bang event (or right up to the big crunch if I have my way). That space as I see it is an energy continuum made up of homogeneous and isotropic remnants of infinite big bang particle horizons into which our big bang is expanding. Space is not being created, the big bang is being pulled, by a relative vacuum in addition to the momentum from the big bang, right out into this energy continuum, and so where ever you look you see it, isotropic ~2.7 degrees Kelvin. I think you dissallowed a question because it was based on this thinking.

    The ATM section of BAUT has only one special rule - a requirement to answer, in a timely fashion, direct, pertinent questions asked of the ATM idea, as presented (and not hijack other threads to promote your idea). FWIW, my opinion is that the ideas you have presented have been shown to be inconsistent with what we already know of the universe ... in the sense that they are a tiny, tiny subset of a general class of solutions (or, if you prefer, approaches) that have, a long time ago, been shown to be subject to the deep incompatibility between quantum theory and GR. So far, essentially every relevant post you've made, explaining your idea, has only served to reinforce my opinion.
    You can't build from scratch when you have to comply with QM or GR. If aspects of the idea seem to fit one or the other, that can't be all bad can it?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    4,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    [Snip!] You can't build from scratch when you have to comply with QM or GR. If aspects of the idea seem to fit one or the other, that can't be all bad can it?
    No, but somewhere along the line you must arrive at QM and GR in some appropriate limit. At what point does QM and GR emerge from your theory? Does your idea result in QM and GR with slight differences from mainstream QM and GR that are testable?

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic View Post
    No, but somewhere along the line you must arrive at QM and GR in some appropriate limit. At what point does QM and GR emerge from your theory? Does your idea result in QM and GR with slight differences from mainstream QM and GR that are testable?
    From post #73 I predicted:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    My approach, and the approach of others like me, is to engineer our universe from that imaginative perspective. What would it take to make it work the way it does.

    Science is busy at the task of the back engineering what we can observe by using the technology we can develop and apply to research into the nature of things.

    These are two different approaches from different perspectives. There may someday be a merger of the two endeavors into one unified understand of the nature of things. What remains of either endeavor in the final product will be the reward for time spent on our particular side of the endeavor.
    I went on in that post with my idea that described the energy quanta of our universe and described how I think that space can be considered an energy continuum. I admit that infinite regression is an unfortunate way to make my point, but it serves the purpose by showing that finer and finer renditions of the EEP can effectively and completely fill all space with energy, no holes .

    From that perspective I described the EEP with relativistic mass due to is velocity, and frequency due to its expansions and contractions (pulsing).

    I would think that would be a fresh way to look at the nature of things, and that if I am correct, then space-time is not created by the big bang, and the CMBR was out there all time, with us expanding out into it.
    Last edited by Bogie; 2006-Sep-17 at 12:54 PM.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    From post #73 I predicted:
    I went on in that post with my idea that described the energy quanta of our universe and described how I think that space can be considered an energy continuum. I admit that infinite regression is an unfortunate way to make my point, but it serves the purpose by showing that finer and finer renditions of the EEP can effectively and completely fill all space with energy, no holes .

    From that perspective I described the EEP with relativistic mass due to is velocity, and frequency due to its expansions and contractions (pulsing).

    I would think that would be a fresh way to look at the nature of things, and that if I am correct, then space-time is not created by the big bang, and the CMBR was out there all time, with us expanding out into it.
    How does your idea account for the primordial abundance of light elements?

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic View Post
    No, but somewhere along the line you must arrive at QM and GR in some appropriate limit. At what point do QM and GR emerge from your theory? Does your idea result in QM and GR with slight differences from mainstream QM and GR that are testable?
    Hi CM, thanks of taking the time to comment.

    My knowledge of QM and GR are limited and I am not intending to refute them in part, or in any way. However, my idea is not compatible with one or both according to Nereid whom I respect.

    So the case is as you describe:

    Quote Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic View Post
    No, but somewhere along the line you must arrive at QM and GR in some appropriate limit.
    And I think that will be the case. My problem is that as I describe my idea I don't know when any of it arrives at something that agrees with QM or GR except at the really amateur levels.

    I hope that as I convey my thoughts, when I say something intolerable I will get flack. I also hope that if I can convey that I am starting from scratch. Nothing is sacred, not BB, not QM, and not GR. But all of them have nailed parts of reality and on the other hand have some sticking points from what I can tell.

    I see it as a joint effort, a work-in-progress engineering project to look at how things might be in order for us to observe what we observe. I offer non-Bib Bang, non-QM, and non-GR ideas, and hope that they not be rejected off hand. It is a bottoms up approach, open to brainstorming and what ifs, not bound by the book.

    Some good might come out of an approach like that or maybe not. If some good does come out of it, eventually aspects of QM and GR will be recognizable, but I won't know that necessarily unless someone points it out.

    Right now, I am trying to describe space as energy, infinite spatially and in content, and that energy has a quanta, the EEP, which has relativistic mass, pulses, and travels at the speed of light at all times.

    If that doesn't work, why doesn't it?

    If it works, the BB was not the beginning; it took place in energy filled space. It might have been an energy fluctuation (I don't know how) or it might have been a big crunch (my guess).

    If it was a big crunch, the material that got crunched had formed up into great mass, stars, black holes, and various particles in gas, clouds, and plasmas in the greater universe before our big bang. These forms would have "grown" from the remnants of the infinite history of other big bang events.

    The permeated space moves into big bang expansions just as the big bang expands out into permeated space, so the CMB is not caused by the big bang, it was already out there. If that is true we don't need a period of exponential inflation where the tiny new BB had to expand at faster that the speed of light, we just need the BB to have occurred within a greater universe with an energy field like I propose.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    How does your idea account for the primordial abundance of light elements?
    “The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). During the first three minutes of the universe, most of the deuterium combined to make helium. Trace amounts of lithium were also produced at this time. This process of light element formation in the early universe is called “Big Bang nucleosynthesis” (BBN).”

    This would seem to be compatible with my idea. Everything included in the big crunch would be reduced to EEPs at billions of degrees (a hot place) and forced out into the permeated space where a broth of particles existed. The cooling and the Big Bang nucleosynthesis is reasonable to me.

    The universe in my idea is cosmologically flat, and the average density of space is equal to the vacuum energy density, the cosmological constant, on a large scale where a balance exists between vacuum energy and matter energy.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    How does your idea account for the primordial abundance of light elements?
    “The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). During the first three minutes of the universe, most of the deuterium combined to make helium. Trace amounts of lithium were also produced at this time. This process of light element formation in the early universe is called “Big Bang nucleosynthesis” (BBN).”

    This would seem to be compatible with my idea. Everything included in the big crunch would be reduced to EEPs at billions of degrees (a hot place) and forced out into the permeated space where a broth of particles existed. The cooling and the Big Bang nucleosynthesis is reasonable to me.

    The universe in my idea is cosmologically flat, and the average density of space is equal to the vacuum energy density, the cosmological constant, on a large scale where a balance exists between vacuum energy and matter energy.
    There's a piece in your earlier post, which I quoted, which is very relevant:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie
    I would think that would be a fresh way to look at the nature of things, and that if I am correct, then space-time is not created by the big bang, and the CMBR was out there all time, with us expanding out into it.
    You may have noticed, by now, that one approach I take to challenging ATM ideas is to look for, highlight, and seek clarification of, apparent inconsistencies.

    The consistency aspect of mainstream cosmology is, I feel, overlooked or downplayed, by those attacking it ... until it comes time to developing an alternative. Then it becomes clear (I hope) just how difficult it is to achieve consistency, whether internal, with well-established theories with overlapping domains, or (above all) relevant observational and experimental results.

    So it is with my question about primordial light element abundances, posed as a question wrt your claim re the CMB.

    IF, as you claim, the CMB "was out there all time, with us expanding out into it" THEN it cannot be the surface of last scattering, when radiation and (baryonic) matter ('H + He') decoupled. Going further, the question of when, and how, the light elements were formed (in the Bogie idea) becomes wide open.

    IF, as you also state, the light elements were created in a (the 'most recent') Big Bang, THEN the CMB is accounted for (and there's nothing 'left over'; particularly, there's nothing that we could possibly be 'expanding out into').

    So, which is it - the CMB is the last footprint, in photons, of nucleosynthesis? or the detritus of earlier Bang-Crunch cycles? If, in the Bogie idea, the answer is "both", then how much of each?

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    There's a piece in your earlier post, which I quoted, which is very relevant:You may have noticed, by now, that one approach I take to challenging ATM ideas is to look for, highlight, and seek clarification of, apparent inconsistencies.

    The consistency aspect of mainstream cosmology is, I feel, overlooked or downplayed, by those attacking it ... until it comes time to developing an alternative. Then it becomes clear (I hope) just how difficult it is to achieve consistency, whether internal, with well-established theories with overlapping domains, or (above all) relevant observational and experimental results.

    So it is with my question about primordial light element abundances, posed as a question wrt your claim re the CMB.

    IF, as you claim, the CMB "was out there all time, with us expanding out into it" THEN it cannot be the surface of last scattering, when radiation and (baryonic) matter ('H + He') decoupled. Going further, the question of when, and how, the light elements were formed (in the Bogie idea) becomes wide open.
    You are drawing conclusions of great import from very little if any evidence. When I say it was already out there, see my rethinking of the cosmological principle below.


    IF, as you also state, the light elements were created in a (the 'most recent') Big Bang, THEN the CMB is accounted for (and there's nothing 'left over'; particularly, there's nothing that we could possibly be 'expanding out into').
    You may have some logic in mind to conclude this from my post, but I do not see it.

    So, which is it - the CMB is the last footprint, in photons, of nucleosynthesis? or the detritus of earlier Bang-Crunch cycles? If, in the Bogie idea, the answer is "both", then how much of each?
    Since you posed the question I will answer the best I can:

    Rethinking the Cosmological Principle

    The Earth has no preferred location in the universe. It is logical to think that Earth is not the center universe, and neither is the Sun, nor the Milky Way, nor any other particular place we can name.

    The isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation is strong evidence that space is identical in fine structure everywhere.

    The expansion of the universe is strong evidence that there was a time when the entire content of the known universe was very compacted in size.

    Let’s go back in time to where the known universe was compacted. What do we know about that time? We know that it is reasonable to believe that about 14 billion years ago the universe was as compacted as it could possibly have ever been. We know that the size of the universe now is the result of expansion over 14 billion years.

    We know that the isotropy of the CMB in the universe that we observe today could not be linked to the compact universe of 14 billion years ago unless there was exponential expansion of the universe from the compacted size back then to its present size. We know this because 14 billion years is not enough time for the compact sized universe to expand to its present size and to have such an isotropic background. Large temperature differences would still exist as you look in different directions unless there had been exponential expansion in the very early instant after the big bang.

    The fact that at least some aspect of that early universe would have had to expand faster than the speed of light to achieve the isotropy is explained away by saying that it was the fabric of space-time that was expanding, not the matter in the space.

    "Cosmic inflation is the idea, first proposed by Alan Guth in 1981, that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion (the inflationary epoch) that was driven by a negative pressure vacuum energy density", (the cause of the inflationary epoch).

    Guth viewed vacuum energy as an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter.

    The way that Guth used the concept of VE to drive the superluminal expansion of the fabric of space-time is central to my idea of the EEP, and the fact that the density difference (negative pressure) of EEPs in space was an existing circumstance at the time of the big bang.

    If there was a huge difference in density between the matter in the infant universe and the vacuum energy that drove the exponential expansion (that not just allowed space-time to expand faster than the speed of light, but drove the expansion at a superluminal rate) then it is safe to conclude that this negative pressure existed at the time of the big bang and surrounded the tiny compact content of the known universe at the very beginning.

    The extreme heat, 10 billion degrees by some estimates, was hot enough, and the extreme pressure of compression, almost infinite density by some accounts, caused the physical content of the infant universe to be reduced to the elementary indestructible particles, the EEPs.

    The big bang EEPs expanded into the surrounding negative pressure of the surrounding low energy density space (lower density of EEPs) which represents the portion of the greater universe from which the infant big bang originated prior to the big bang (big crunch if I have my way).

    This surrounding environment had cooled (maybe to about 2.7 degrees Kelvin) and had already undergone nucleosynthesis so that it contained the necessary ingredients for the light elements to form, if in fact it didn't already include such star forming light elements.

    That is my best answer right now.

    Why not think with me instead of challenging me for a moment. Suppose a big crunch preceded the big bang within a greater universe. Suppose the big crunch took place over ten trillion years of accumulation, and attracted much of the matter energy from a great arena of space over those ten trillion years. The difference in density of the arena, relative to the density of the crunch would be of the greatest possible variance.

    What would the arena in the vicinity of the crunch contain? What would its characteristics be? Do you have any thoughts form my perspective?
    Last edited by Bogie; 2006-Sep-18 at 12:32 AM.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Focussing on the observables:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
    [snip]

    This surrounding environment had cooled (maybe to about 2.7 degrees Kelvin) and had already undergone nucleosynthesis so that it contained the necessary ingredients for the light elements to form, if in fact it didn't already include such star forming light elements.

    That is my best answer right now.
    How did this 'surrounding environment' survive the Big Bang which gave rise, ~370k years later, to what we see today as the CMB?

    More fundamentally, what description of space/energy/matter/whatever can you provide that is consistent, wrt the equation of state of the universe (or anything else), incorporating these two/three components: prior Bang/Crunch ashes, the bits which became what radiated the CMB, and the EEPs?

    In particular, where does the Bogie idea replace GR (or QM)?

    Back on primordial abundance of light elements - what are the expected abundances of these, as observed today, here, in the Bogie idea? How do these predicted abundances differ from those from concordance cosmological models?
    Why not think with me instead of challenging me for a moment. Suppose a big crunch preceded the big bang within a greater universe. Suppose the big crunch took place over ten trillion years of accumulation, and attracted much of the matter energy from a great arena of space over those ten trillion years. The difference in density of the arena, relative to the density of the crunch would be of the greatest possible variance.

    What would the arena in the vicinity of the crunch contain? What would its characteristics be? Do you have any thoughts form my perspective?
    Yep - FWIW, my thoughts are that this is word salad speculation unconstrained by anything quantitative, anything testable, and (as I have pointed out several times) riddled with inconsistencies at many levels. On top of which, I continue to be surprised at the apparent reluctance to do even the most basic of 'back of the envelope' calculations, to test even the most basic of consistencies. My thoughts are that, if I were Bogie, I wouldn't have even posted in BAUT's ATM section without having the main OOM calculations done (and could show no major inconsistencies).

    But perhaps that is just a statement of a difference in approach, and, in any case, my thoughts and opinions have zero value ... BAUT's ATM section provides those with ATM ideas an opportunity to present them, and for other BAUT members to attack those ideas, as presented, with glee and fervour. I intend to continue, as best I can, to attack the Bogie ideas, as presented, with glee and fervour.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    RussT attempts to help Bogie as he valiently trys to 'add' 'space' (all of the darkness) to the Big Bang Theory.

    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest2.html

    From the link Nereid posted above.

    [One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos.]

    Uh, notice that all the elements come right out of the 10 billion degrees with their EEPs already imbedded.

    So, just keeping this on the micro (and not explaining anything else about what this means for 'space' on the macro), the Big Bang is 'assuming' neutron, protons, and electrons instantaneously and at recombination that Hydrogen was everywhere in the universe to 100,000 parts to 1.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Focussing on the observables:How did this 'surrounding environment' survive the Big Bang which gave rise, ~370k years later, to what we see today as the CMB?
    The space-time accelerated into the surrounding environment at an exponential rate. To answer you, how much damage can expanding space-time do to the surrounding low density EEPs? Very little I would say. So survival of the surrounding environment was no big deal.

    More fundamentally, what description of space/energy/matter/whatever can you provide that is consistent, wrt the equation of state of the universe (or anything else), incorporating these two/three components: prior Bang/Crunch ashes, the bits which became what radiated the CMB, and the EEPs?
    Sometime I have trouble seeing how your questions differ from my answers re. word salad, but you are the boss. I described space as a continuum of energy in an earlier post. It is composed of EEPs, the elementary building block of matter as we know it. The cosmic microwave background is thermal radiation for the low temperature protons (mostly) in the far reaching space beyond the lit up material universe. The observable universe exists within the space that produces the CMBR. The protons in the CMB that radiate thermal energy are in an energy field of EEPs. EEPs are indestructible and represent energy that has always existed.

    In particular, where does the Bogie idea replace GR (or QM)?
    I don't know. What aspect of QM or GR are you feeling needs to be replaced. I just sent an hour trying to convey ideas about the cosmological principle with no comment except the "word salad" referral. Be specific and convey the evidence that supports your QM or GR aspect, and show how my idea cannot be compatible with the evidence.

    Back on primordial abundance of light elements - what are the expected abundances of these, as observed today, here, in the Bogie idea?
    My idea does not expect any difference from what is observed in that regard.
    How do these predicted abundances differ from those from concordance cosmological models?
    My idea doesn't predict a differing abundance.
    Yep - FWIW, my thoughts are that this is word salad speculation unconstrained by anything quantitative, anything testable, and (as I have pointed out several times) riddled with inconsistencies at many levels.
    I have always referred to this as a work-in-progress and have stated that I hoped for constructive assistance. I never said that I have the same ability to develop my idea as the entire science community who has contributed to current mainstream thinking has had. I have asked for help from people who are good enough brainstormers to know that there are no bad ideas.
    On top of which, I continue to be surprised at the apparent reluctance to do even the most basic of 'back of the envelope' calculations, to test even the most basic of consistencies. My thoughts are that, if I were Bogie, I wouldn't have even posted in BAUT's ATM section without having the main OOM calculations done (and could show no major inconsistencies).
    Didn't mean to rub you the wrong way. Sorry we don't think in the same patterns and sorry that we don't develop ideas in the same way. You have to try harder to see the possibility that mainstream is wrong. If people see that possibility, their contribution to real science might take a different tact. Instead of belittling the bogie idea, they might take a moment to say to themselves that bogie isn’t the only one thinking of alternatives. He may not be presenting his idea very professionally, but he has asked of others who could see a hint of merit in the ideas to be constructive.

    But perhaps that is just a statement of a difference in approach, and, in any case, my thoughts and opinions have zero value ... BAUT's ATM section provides those with ATM ideas an opportunity to present them, and for other BAUT members to attack those ideas, as presented, with glee and fervour. I intend to continue, as best I can, to attack the Bogie ideas, as presented, with glee and fervour.
    I think I have answered your questions.

    I must unfortunately acknowledge that there is no recent interest in my ideas or contributions forthcoming that are helpful in developing them. I say unfortunately because I see some sense in the ideas, and I say “unfortunately” because moderator agitation with me may itself be an obstacle to others who might have similar ideas or who might otherwise want to contribute.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    RussT attempts to help Bogie as he valiently trys to 'add' 'space' (all of the darkness) to the Big Bang Theory.

    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest2.html

    From the link Nereid posted above.

    [One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos.]

    Uh, notice that all the elements come right out of the 10 billion degrees with their EEPs already imbedded.

    So, just keeping this on the micro (and not explaining anything else about what this means for 'space' on the macro), the Big Bang is 'assuming' neutron, protons, and electrons instantaneously and at recombination that Hydrogen was everywhere in the universe to 100,000 parts to 1.
    Gee, I didn't see this post before I acknowledged that there was no interest or contributions.

    You are right.

    Pointing this out is helpful and consistent with the idea I have been promoting. Excellent observations.

Similar Threads

  1. Wave/Particle Duality
    By MattHatton in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2013-Feb-12, 09:33 PM
  2. Particle wave duality - was there ever a particle?
    By eric_marsh in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2008-Aug-06, 03:07 AM
  3. Wave-Particle Duality
    By Fazor in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-23, 10:02 PM
  4. Wave Particle Duality
    By TravisM in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Jan-01, 03:43 AM
  5. Wave Particle experiment
    By electromagneticpulse in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2004-Sep-20, 12:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •