At Rest with our Hubble view

[quantum_wave]

The questions that I was asking five years ago when I came upon SciForums were what caused the Big Bang, what causes the presence of matter, and what causes gravity.

To sum it up in a single sentence: If an apparently uncredentialled layman science enthusiast and hobbyist can stick it out in the understandably critical and argumentative science forum environment to the point that he can answer those questions for himself to his own satisfaction, and has, in the process of doing so, presented those answers in his own threads, conducted in a civil manner, containing content that he describes as his so called nonscientific, internally consistent model of his personal views of the cosmology of the universe, that is not inconsistent with the observational evidence and data of the scientific community on a layman level, he not only has answers he can understand and argue, but he has stick-to-it-iveness.

The few along the way who have a clue as to what my answers are to those basic layman level questions, to which the final piece feel into place yesterday when I realized what observational evidence it would take to satisfy my own sensibilities, will probably be glad for me on some level without feeling I expect any agreement. The many antagonists, now and along the way, who have no clue as to what my answers are to those basic questions, and don't care, would certainly flame me even if I were to be the last one out as I close the door and shut off the lights.

(22341)

 

[Farsight]

All that I know is that standard physics is not taught using aether. So that makes your ideas alternative. I have read all that you have written here about Einstein and his aether quotes. But I have not studied the situation. It does seem at least possible that early on he was just using the physics jargon of the times. He certainly was not referring to the 19th century version of aether. I think that there is a good chance that he was just talking about space. The same space that physics talks about today.

I'm sure he was talking about space. This section of the wiki "Aether theories" page contains a relevant quote from Einstein along with a very informative quote from Robert B Loughlin which ends with this: "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo". Only it isn't all that taboo amongst people in the know. Take a look at arXiv. It's a pity that people like Markus are overly hostile to this because it's at odds with what they've been taught.

But if you go a good portion of the diameter of our (as QW calls it) arena away from our neighborhood, you would find that region's "absolute frame" to be different than ours. So what ever it is, it is not very absolute.

It's absolute enough to gauge your motion with respect to the universe. That's as absolute as you can get. The galactic redshift of the expanding universe is on top of that.

Those two frames are in motion with respect to each other. How reference frames many arenas away compares is anybodies guess. We will never know. ignoring the expansion, it all seems to be about whether the early universe had any turbulence. All the matter in our arena all came from the same patch of universe. I guess many physicists prefer to call it comoving. To me that seems a reasonable attitude.

We may know more in time Cheezle. We hope to. If we didn't, we'd give up.

As I said, I don't put your ideas and his in the same category. And I find it telling that you have rejected his theory, while he seems to be amenable to to yours.

It isn't my theory. You might say it's my interpretation or my understanding, but it's still general relativity.

QW is pretty open to anybody that bucks the system. Which means it isn't the alternative theories he likes, it is the status quo that he hates. If current theory was exactly what he has proposed, he would disagree with it and come up with something else. If everybody today thought there was an aether, then QW would be against it. It is just who he is.

He is rather more "alternative" than I'd like. Perhaps I can persuade him to be less so.

 

[PhysBang]

It's absolute enough to gauge your motion with respect to the universe. That's as absolute as you can get.

No, that's not as absolute as one can get as one learns when one takes the time to study relativity thoery instead of pronounce it first and then cherry-pick quotations later. There is a sense of an absolute frame of reference in which the laws of physics pay special attention to this frame. For example, if the frame of reference were such that the faster you moved relative to this frame, the hotter you got, then this would be a special, absolute frame of reference. The reference frame that we identify with the CMB is not such a frame. It is merely a frame in which things are distributed rather nicely, though not perfectly. No laws of nature pay attention to this frame. No measurements tell us that physical events pay any attention to this frame; on a cosmological scale, the dynamics of galaxy clusters pays attention to the distribution of galaxy clusters and that can be described in any system of coordinates.

It isn't my theory. You might say it's my interpretation or my understanding, but it's still general relativity.

This is not true: you claim, on the basis of your understanding, that dark matter does not exist and that scientists make gross mistakes in calculating galaxy rotation curves. So you disagree with GR as practiced, even if you have never given evidence to support your claims.

 

[Farsight]

Someone predicted this but I don't know who ...

This post is for you, Farsight. Not that you will like it because it is as far out as I have yet gone, but as a result we can expect the Cheezles of the forum to get their britches in a swivet.

I'm listening.

The prediction is that our sweet spot is dependent on various aspects of the sweet spots of our "parent" arenas.

That sounds like "turtles all the way down". That's where you explain something in terms of something you don't explain, and the end result is not useful.

To explain, following on from my post to Grumpy, my version of events is that two big bang arenas, filled with galaxies that were moving away from each other just like what we observe today in our arena, expanded until they converged.

The convergence began at the point in space where the two expanding galaxy filled big bang arenas first touched. That point marks the intersection between two spheres, and as the spheres continue to expand, that point is engulfed within a lens shaped overlap space that contains galaxies from both parent arenas.

Within the lens shaped space there is a new center of gravity that forms, i.e. the center of the big crunch that preceded our big bang. The location of that center of gravity is not expected to be in the center of the lens unless by coincidence the two parent arenas are dimensionally the same and are expanding at the same rate. Some details of that event are something we have a chance to detect. The prediction is that the center of gravity around which the new big crunch accumulated is off center in the lens, which has ramifications that might be observable.

I don't like it at all I'm afraid. Galaxies do merge, and there are no spectacular big bangs that result. And if space somehow collided with space, I don't see how that would result in a newly-expanding arena at all. If one "ball of expanding space" somehow intersected with another, I can imagine that we might expect to see some inhomogeneity in one or more directions, but I cannot conceive how this would result in a new "ball of expanding space".

Both parent arenas would have their own centers of gravity, and their own sweet spots. The expansion motion of their respective galaxies would help define the location of each, but alas we will never see those remnant galaxies drifting off, as Grumpy points out. But the differences in the size and rate of expansion of the two arenas that lead to our big crunch, and subsequent big bang, would determine just how off-center our center of gravity would have been in the lens.

What big crunch? The galaxies in the two parent arenas would surely just go through one another rather than somehow collapsing and bouncing.

The new sweet spot, the center of our big bang arena, will be determined by the location of the parent arenas sweet spots, the parent arenas ages and maturity, i.e. relative density, and the parent arenas rates of expansion. It would be off center by an amount that could be generally calculated if we knew those values, but we don't.

The remnants of the two parent arenas are still out there and aside from the effect of having perhaps half of there combined galactic material collapsed into our own big crunch, the geography of other half of their respective galaxies would show them speeding out into the greater universe away from us, completely undetectable by us as far as their light emissions.

But though we will not see their light as such, the gravitational profile of the parent arenas has overlapped and been imprinted into our arena. The prediction is, those overlapping gravitational profiles will cause an anomaly at large angular scales in our reading of the cosmic microwave background of our visible arena.

Sorry quantum_wave, I don't like it at all. This sounds like a retrofit that lacks any real explanatory power because it's turtles all the way down. How did the parent arenas get started? And why isn't there just one of them? Why isn't that arena our arena?

 

[quantum_wave]

I'm listening.

That sounds like "turtles all the way down". That's where you explain something in terms of something you don't explain, and the end result is not useful.

I don't like it at all I'm afraid. Galaxies do merge, and there are no spectacular big bangs that result. And if space somehow collided with space, I don't see how that would result in a newly-expanding arena at all. If one "ball of expanding space" somehow intersected with another, I can imagine that we might expect to see some inhomogeneity in one or more directions, but I cannot conceive how this would result in a new "ball of expanding space".

What big crunch? The galaxies in the two parent arenas would surely just go through one another rather than somehow collapsing and bouncing.

Sorry quantum_wave, I don't like it at all. This sounds like a retrofit that lacks any real explanatory power because it's turtles all the way down. How did the parent arenas get started? And why isn't there just one of them? Why isn't that arena our arena?

If I may, my first question is, does your view of the cosmology have an explanation for what caused the big bang? If so, what are the mechanics of it? The answer can't be a one liner.

The second question is what causes the presence of matter, with mechanics that are consistent with what causes a big bang, and that can't be a one liner either.

And the third question is, what causes gravity with mechanics that are consistent with the mechanics that caused the big bang and that causes the presence of matter. It has to be a quantum answer.

All three answers have to have mechanics that are internally consistent and not inconsistent with observations and data. Can you present that without hypothesizing about as yet undiscovered physics? I couldn't, but I'm a simple layman without any motivation to accept existing theory beyond what has observational evidence IF it isn't internally consistent. To me, GR and QM are not.

The questions that I was asking five years ago when I came upon SciForums were what caused the Big Bang, what causes the presence of matter, and what causes gravity.

...

The few along the way who have a clue as to what my answers are ... will probably be glad for me on some level without feeling I expect any agreement. ...

I'll take my time and address each point individually and not expect to drag you into a lengthy discussion; just acknowledge my responses if you will, so I know you have seen them.

 

[Cheezle]

I'm sure he was talking about space. This section of the wiki "Aether theories" page contains a relevant quote from Einstein along with a very informative quote from Robert B Loughlin which ends with this: "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo". Only it isn't all that taboo amongst people in the know. Take a look at arXiv. It's a pity that people like Markus are overly hostile to this because it's at odds with what they've been taught.

I looked at a few random arxiv aether papers from your link and found that not all of them were pro-aether. In fact, of the ones I looked at that I could read and understand all were negative on aether. I only looked at a few though. For instance, Fizeau’s “aether-drag” experiment in the undergraduate laboratory by Thierry Lahaye,1,2 Pierre Labastie,1,2 and Renaud Mathevet1,2,3 (3rd to last paragraph of Historical Background):

History then accelerated. In the late 1880’s, George Fitzger- ald proposed the length contraction. In 1895, Hendrick Lorentz published his theory of electromagnetic media, in which he derived Fresnel’s formula from first principles. At the beginning of the 20th century, it became evident that time dilation was also necessary to account for all electro- magnetic phenomena. After Albert Einstein published the theory of special relativity in 1905, Max Laue, in 1907, de- rived Fresnel drag coefficient from the relativistic addition of velocities.14 All experiments, being either of first (Fizeau) or second (Michelson-Morley) order in v/c, were then explained by a single theory with no need for an aether with such special properties.​

So just because a paper mentions aether, even as a primary concept, it does not mean it is a pro-aether paper. You would have to read each paper and keep a running tally. The paper I mentioned was very interesting from the historical aspect.

There were other examples. Is the Aether Entrained by the Motion of Celestial Bodies? What do the Experiments Tell Us? by Joseph Levy

IV. Conclusion
1. Our analysis shows that entrained aether theory cannot account for the differences existing in rarefied gas and in gas at atmospheric pressure, which are observed experimentally whatever the assumptions made. Moreover it is proved defective by modern Michelson-Morley experiments, and it is incompatible with the aether drift highlighted by Smoot’s experiments, even if this drift has been observed at a distance form the Earth (see appendix 2). Thus, a dragging of the aether by gravity is excluded.​

I could go on.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The questions that I was asking five years ago when I came upon SciForums were what caused the Big Bang, what causes the presence of matter, and what causes gravity.

Why? Are you working for the Creation Science boards? Why else deny science?

To sum it up in a single sentence: If an apparently uncredentialled layman science enthusiast and hobbyist can stick it out in the understandably critical and argumentative science forum environment to the point that he can answer those questions for himself to his own satisfaction, and has, in the process of doing so, presented those answers in his own threads, conducted in a civil manner, containing content that he describes as his so called nonscientific, internally consistent model of his personal views of the cosmology of the universe, that is not inconsistent with the observational evidence and data of the scientific community on a layman level, he not only has answers he can understand and argue, but he has stick-to-it-iveness.

120 words to say "denial".

The few along the way who have a clue as to what my answers are to those basic layman level questions, to which the final piece feel into place yesterday when I realized what observational evidence it would take to satisfy my own sensibilities, will probably be glad for me on some level without feeling I expect any agreement. The many antagonists, now and along the way, who have no clue as to what my answers are to those basic questions, and don't care, would certainly flame me even if I were to be the last one out as I close the door and shut off the lights.

108 more. That's a total of 228.

(22341)

But who's counting?

 

[quantum_wave]

I looked at a few random arxiv aether papers from your link and found that not all of them were pro-aether. In fact, of the ones I looked at that I could read and understand all were negative on aether. I only looked at a few though. For instance, Fizeau’s “aether-drag” experiment in the undergraduate laboratory by Thierry Lahaye,1,2 Pierre Labastie,1,2 and Renaud Mathevet1,2,3 (3rd to last paragraph of Historical Background):

History then accelerated. In the late 1880’s, George Fitzger- ald proposed the length contraction. In 1895, Hendrick Lorentz published his theory of electromagnetic media, in which he derived Fresnel’s formula from first principles. At the beginning of the 20th century, it became evident that time dilation was also necessary to account for all electro- magnetic phenomena. After Albert Einstein published the theory of special relativity in 1905, Max Laue, in 1907, de- rived Fresnel drag coefficient from the relativistic addition of velocities.14 All experiments, being either of first (Fizeau) or second (Michelson-Morley) order in v/c, were then explained by a single theory with no need for an aether with such special properties.​

So just because a paper mentions aether, even as a primary concept, it does not mean it is a pro-aether paper. You would have to read each paper and keep a running tally. The paper I mentioned was very interesting from the historical aspect.

There were other examples. Is the Aether Entrained by the Motion of Celestial Bodies? What do the Experiments Tell Us? by Joseph Levy

IV. Conclusion
1. Our analysis shows that entrained aether theory cannot account for the differences existing in rarefied gas and in gas at atmospheric pressure, which are observed experimentally whatever the assumptions made. Moreover it is proved defective by modern Michelson-Morley experiments, and it is incompatible with the aether drift highlighted by Smoot’s experiments, even if this drift has been observed at a distance form the Earth (see appendix 2). Thus, a dragging of the aether by gravity is excluded.​

I could go on.

Don't bother.

 

[quantum_wave]

Why? Are you working for the Creation Science boards? Why else deny science?


120 words to say "denial".


108 more. That's a total of 228.


But who's counting?

You are apparently. But you forgot to answer the questions, which is my point. You can't answer them to my satisfaction.

 

[Tach]

Don't bother.

Why? Because he's calling your BS?

 

[quantum_wave]

Why? Because he's calling your BS?

He was responding to Farsight, not my so called BS.

 

[Tach]

He was responding to Farsight, not my so called BS.

What you post is BS. Not "so-called".

 

[quantum_wave]

What you post is BS. Not "so-called".

That is more like it.

 

[quantum_wave]

That sounds like "turtles all the way down". That's where you explain something in terms of something you don't explain, and the end result is not useful.

Lol, I know the story, and have included it in various of my threads over the years. I had to Google "Turtles all the way down quantum_wave" to find them since our thread history is gone.

Rather than do that I'll just address it here: It is infinite regression you are referring to. If there was a big bang, what came before it, and I say two parent big bangs, and you say what came before of them, and I say it would take four, then eight ..., and so you would call that turtles all the way down back in time eternally.

You must agree though, that you have no answer to which I can't ask, what came before that. The solution in my so called model to "turtles" as far as going back in time is concerned is that the universe has always existed; no beginning. And if you think that through and say that the exponential equation soon would have you running out of previous big bangs if there wasn't a potentially infinite amount of space and energy, you would be right. Therefore, in my so called model, the unverse is potentially infinite in time, space and energy.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

I am posting alternative ideas, and have presented the concept of the big bang arena sweet spot. The only objection so far that was comprehensible was the straw man about WMAP and my use of the 360 degree monople temperature of approximately 2.7K. As near as I can tell, the intention of that straw man was to claim I am ignorant of the science related to the CMB. I'm not, though my understanding is at a layman level from popular media, posted papers, Internet searches, books on my shelf or at the library, and decades of following related topics.

To recap, while the thread was conducted as a Physics and Math thread, the topics of at rest relative to the CMB and the generalized redshift were discussed. No consensus was reached but my view is that it is theoretically possible to be at a point in space that is for talking purposes "generally" at rest to both. That can occur at any point in the observable Hubble view.

I went on to hypothesize the presence of a gravitational sweet spot. It is based an my concept of the arena that encompasses the space that contains the matter and energy associated with the big bang. Within the arena is the content of the hypothesized big crunch that collapsed/banged to initiate the expansion that we observe today via the raw red shift data, as well as all of the matter/energy that the expanding arena has encountered and encompassed since the very instant after the big bang event.

The sweet spot hypothesizes that there are two aspects to the gravity profile in the arena. One is that as particles form in the expanding early environment they have separation momentum imparted to them as they form. That momentum is conserved as particles clump into gas clouds, as stars form and as galaxies form. Because particles have mass and both feel and emit gravity waves from the instant that they form, the gravity profile includes the gravity waves related to their mere existence, as well as the gravity waves associated with their interactions, i.e. the two components of the gravity profile of the arena.

In my post about "Relative to the Sweet Spot", I hypothesized that if there is a finite amount of matter/energy in the expanding big bang arena, then there is center of gravity, the same center of gravity that caused the preceding big crunch to form in the middle of the overlap space where two parent expanding arenas converged.

The sweet spot concept was used to help distinguish between the gravity waves associated with the mere existence of an object, and the waves associated with its relative motion to all other objects. I said that if it was "at rest" in the sweet spot at the center of gravity of our arena, it would feel and emit gravity waves. And I said that it also feels and emits gravity waves associated with the fact that it is not at the sweet spot, i.e. any object not in the sweet spot emits gravity waves that are both proportional to their individual contained energy, and to their motion relative to all other objects.

(21603 tot. views)

Quite typically, two or three of you ridiculed me for referring to what I called the monopole ~2.7K temperature in all directions, invoking a straw man that I am ignorant of the details of the CMB that has been revealed by some of the best known science in the popular media.

I defended myself in the above post, and I have not seen any one man up. If there is any sincerity in the criticism, they could acknowledge that my phrasing about the background temperature monopole was very appropriate for the context.

I'm just a layman, with a layman understanding, and am as interested as they are about the implications of what we know and are still learning from the CMB data.

To that point, I mentioned a possible cause for the anomaly at the bipole and wide angular scales and not one of the detractors showed interest in an idea that is at the forefront of "real" science. Go figure.

The following is from the new part of my so called model which I just posted. I know I turn you off, but does that turn off your mind?

Someone predicted this but I don't know who ...

The prediction is that our sweet spot is dependent on various aspects of the sweet spots of our "parent" arenas.

To explain, following on from my post to Grumpy, my version of events is that two big bang arenas, filled with galaxies that were moving away from each other just like what we observe today in our arena, expanded until they converged.

The convergence began at the point in space where the two expanding galaxy filled big bang arenas first touched. That point marks the intersection between two spheres, and as the spheres continue to expand, that point is engulfed within a lens shaped overlap space that contains galaxies from both parent arenas.

Within the lens shaped space there is a new center of gravity that forms, i.e. the center of the big crunch that preceded our big bang. The location of that center of gravity is not expected to be in the center of the lens unless by coincidence the two parent arenas are dimensionally the same and are expanding at the same rate. Some details of that event are something we have a chance to detect. The prediction is that the center of gravity around which the new big crunch accumulated is off center in the lens, which has ramifications that might be observable.

Both parent arenas would have their own centers of gravity, and their own sweet spots. The expansion motion of their respective galaxies would help define the location of each, but alas we will never see those remnant galaxies drifting off, as Grumpy points out. But the differences in the size and rate of expansion of the two arenas that lead to our big crunch, and subsequent big bang, would determine just how off-center our center of gravity would have been in the lens.

The new sweet spot, the center of our big bang arena, will be determined by the location of the parent arenas sweet spots, the parent arenas ages and maturity, i.e. relative density, and the parent arenas rates of expansion. It would be off center by an amount that could be generally calculated if we knew those values, but we don't.

The remnants of the two parent arenas are still out there and aside from the effect of having perhaps half of there combined galactic material collapsed into our own big crunch, the geography of other half of their respective galaxies would show them speeding out into the greater universe away from us, completely undetectable by us as far as their light emissions.

But though we will not see their light as such, the gravitational profile of the parent arenas has overlapped and been imprinted into our arena. The prediction is, those overlapping gravitational profiles will cause an anomaly at large angular scales in our reading of the cosmic microwave background of our visible arena.

(21968 tot. views)

Why wouldn't the "parent arena" preconditions of our big bang cause such an anomaly at wide angels

http://www.helsinki.fi/~lavinto/workshop/talks/SchwarzCPPP2013.pdf
Page 18 and 19 mention the large scale anomalies above >60 degree angle.

If you are really a professional, do me a favor and look into that and help me understand why it isn't consistent with my "parent" arena scenario, as described in my post on the anomaly.

(22755)

 

[Farsight]

If I may, my first question is, does your view of the cosmology have an explanation for what caused the big bang? If so, what are the mechanics of it? The answer can't be a one liner.

No. I just don't know what caused the big bang. I have a concept of an early universe that was something like a "frozen star" black hole with no point-singularity in the middle, and no space outside it. But I don't know how that got there, or what caused it to start expanding. Like I said, I prefer to focus on the "easy" stuff like gravity and dark matter and particles etc.

The second question is what causes the presence of matter, with mechanics that are consistent with what causes a big bang, and that can't be a one liner either.

You start with a great big lump of confined high-pressure space, then you do something so that it isn't confined any more. It somehow goes BANG, and you now have space expanding rapidly, and "ringing like a bell". It's full of waves. Light waves. Once you have this, gamma-gamma pair production creates matter in the usual fashion.

And the third question is, what causes gravity with mechanics that are consistent with the mechanics that caused the big bang and that causes the presence of matter. It has to be a quantum answer.

I can't give an answer consistent with the mechanics of the big bang, because I just don't know how it came about. However I have previously given an outline description of how I think quantum gravity generally works.

All three answers have to have mechanics that are internally consistent and not inconsistent with observations and data. Can you present that without hypothesizing about as yet undiscovered physics? I couldn't, but I'm a simple layman without any motivation to accept existing theory beyond what has observational evidence IF it isn't internally consistent. To me, GR and QM are not.

See above. I can't give you much. But for what it's worth, here's that description of how I think quantum gravity generally works:

Take a look at Einstein’s history of field theory where he says this: ”It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds, and it is natural to suspect that this only appears to be so because the structure of the physical continuum is not completely described by the Riemannian metric”. Then take a look at the wiki derivation from electromagnetic field theory: "the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time". Then see The Role of Potentials in Electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and look at the sentence near the end-note: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction".

So electromagnetic potential involves curvature, and field is the derivative of potential. So draw a curved-space integral of the photon's sinusoidal electromagnetic waveform, like this. The photon is where there's curvature, hence many-paths. Any cell that's a skewed instead of square is a field quantum, a virtual photon. It's spin1 because it isn't a perfect parallelogram, and you need to rotate it by 360 degrees to look the same. Then you redraw but this time for a whole lot of photons across the bottom, all overlapping one another, so much so that the curved space is gone. Keep the cell heights the same, like this. Any cell that's a rectangle rather than a square is a field quantum, a virtual graviton. It's spin2 because it looks the same when you rotate by 180 degrees. But it isn't a messenger particle literally flying around, just a field quantum, a "chunk" of a field, see Matt Strassler’s article about virtual particles. The virtual graviton is the same thing as a virtual photon, in the same field but with a different disposition. Space isn’t curved in a gravitational field, instead motion through space over time is curved, so spacetime is curved. Google on “inhomogeneous vacuum” and you’ll appreciate that this is essentially the same thing as curved spacetime.

 

[Farsight]

I looked at a few random arxiv aether papers from your link and found that not all of them were pro-aether....

I could go on.

The point is that physicists talk seriously about aether, and many of the papers refer to Einstein-aether, acknowledging Einstein's view that space was a something rather than a nothing, and as such, was "the aether of general relativity".

Note that you will read that "light doesn't need a medium in which to travel, because the sinusoidal electric field variation generates a magnetic field variation, which generates an electric field variation, and so on". That's wrong. The field concerned is the electromagnetic field, and potential is more fundamental than field. Because of the latter, the photon is best thought of as a "pulse" of four-potential rather than a wave per se. See the last section of my previous post for an outline description.

 

[Tach]

Note that you will read that "light doesn't need a medium in which to travel, because the sinusoidal electric field variation generates a magnetic field variation, which generates an electric field variation, and so on". That's wrong.

Give it a rest , Duffield, no one takes your crackpottery seriously.

 

[Farsight]

...Rather than do that I'll just address it here: It is infinite regression you are referring to. If there was a big bang, what came before it, and I say two parent big bangs, and you say what came before of them, and I say it would take four, then eight ..., and so you would call that turtles all the way down back in time eternally.

Yes, turtles all the way down. But worse. Your turtle is sitting on the back of two turtles, each of which is sitting on the back of two turtles, and it's lots and lots of turtles all the way down. Sorry quantum_wave, but think of the chessboard and the rice grains. You put one grain on the first square, two on the next square, four on the next, and so on. You end up with enough rice to cover China a mile deep or something.

You must agree though, that you have no answer

That's right. I don't know how the big bang came about. As far as I'm aware, nobody does. There are people who say "God did it", but that's no answer. And there are people who say "a quantum fluctuation did it", but that's no answer either.

to which I can't ask, what came before that. The solution in my so called model to "turtles" as far as going back in time is concerned is that the universe has always existed; no beginning. And if you think that through and say that the exponential equation soon would have you running out of previous big bangs if there wasn't a potentially infinite amount of space and energy, you would be right. Therefore, in my so called model, the unverse is potentially infinite in time, space and energy.

I don't like the idea of the universe being infinite in terms of space and energy. We just don't have any evidence for that. As for it having no beginning, like I've said before I cannot see how you can get something from nothing, so I'm left with a universe that must have always been there in some shape or form. That's essentially a universe that's "infinite in time".

Sheesh, do you appreciate why I prefer the "easy" stuff?

 

[quantum_wave]

No. I just don't know what caused the big bang. I have a concept of an early universe that was something like a "frozen star" black hole with no point-singularity in the middle, and no space outside it. But I don't know how that got there, or what caused it to start expanding. Like I said, I prefer to focus on the "easy" stuff like gravity and dark matter and particles etc.

You start with a great big lump of confined high-pressure space, then you do something so that it isn't confined any more. It somehow goes BANG, and you now have space expanding rapidly, and "ringing like a bell". It's full of waves. Light waves. Once you have this, gamma-gamma pair production creates matter in the usual fashion.

I can't give an answer consistent with the mechanics of the big bang, because I just don't know how it came about. However I have previously given an outline description of how I think quantum gravity generally works.

See above. I can't give you much. But for what it's worth, here's that description of how I think quantum gravity generally works:

Take a look at Einstein’s history of field theory where he says this: ”It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds, and it is natural to suspect that this only appears to be so because the structure of the physical continuum is not completely described by the Riemannian metric”. Then take a look at the wiki derivation from electromagnetic field theory: "the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time". Then see The Role of Potentials in Electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and look at the sentence near the end-note: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction".

So electromagnetic potential involves curvature, and field is the derivative of potential. So draw a curved-space integral of the photon's sinusoidal electromagnetic waveform, like this. The photon is where there's curvature, hence many-paths. Any cell that's a skewed instead of square is a field quantum, a virtual photon. It's spin1 because it isn't a perfect parallelogram, and you need to rotate it by 360 degrees to look the same. Then you redraw but this time for a whole lot of photons across the bottom, all overlapping one another, so much so that the curved space is gone. Keep the cell heights the same, like this. Any cell that's a rectangle rather than a square is a field quantum, a virtual graviton. It's spin2 because it looks the same when you rotate by 180 degrees. But it isn't a messenger particle literally flying around, just a field quantum, a "chunk" of a field, see Matt Strassler’s article about virtual particles. The virtual graviton is the same thing as a virtual photon, in the same field but with a different disposition. Space isn’t curved in a gravitational field, instead motion through space over time is curved, so spacetime is curved. Google on “inhomogeneous vacuum” and you’ll appreciate that this is essentially the same thing as curved spacetime.

I'll address the rest of your previous post and this one too, but let me say first:

My primary interest in science started with cosmology and thus my focus on origins and outcomes. Certainly, once you start to build a cosmology that is internally consistent, you have to go beyond the standard models which are at best inconsistent.

What you are seeing in my so called model isn't criticism of the standard model, it is personal reconciliation of the incompatible models via quantum gravity. Not the quantum gravity that you have found interesting and have discussed above, but based on the cosmological opinion that the big bang had to be driven by quantum events, if in fact there is a quantum reality that underpins the macro scene.

It is my view that you can't understand what we observe about the universe if you don't get down to the quantum action at the foundational level. If you can visualize action at that level in the medium of space, and describe the physical mechanics of those visualizations, the descriptions then lead to the math, not the other way around.

My introductory posts to the thread Quantifying Gravity's Mechanism included a good simple equation that addresses the limits of quantum action to show when the convergence of wave energy quanta will produce a new quantum at the foundational level. Thus supporting my view that matter can and is composed of wave energy quanta in quantum increments. That same trivial equation addresses the convergence of two parent arenas by defining when the limits of matter/energy accumulation will be reached, given the accumulated value of the energy quanta in the supposed crunch that forms in the lens shaped overlap space as describe recently above. That reasoning is based in the idea that big bangs can accumulate only a certain finite amount of energy/matter before they collapse/bang.

Not much actual discussion on the content occurred, but the off topic business lead me to have that thread moved to Alternative Theories. That thread and attempts to get a discussion on quantum mechanics as it relates to quantum action, see my "Two Swarms of Gnats" (lol) thread that got little attention. SciForums is not manned for discussions like mine, except for the ready disdain generally for alternative ideas. Until now, I have posted here as a record of where I have been and where I am going on my personal views, for my own use. The comments I get are all helpful, either in regard to the content, or to help me understand the minds of those who won't address alternative ideas.

Your approach seems to be cognizant of that, and though my crude layman approach can be of little or no help in advancing your own well prepared positions and understanding, you have and are a help to me in inching mine along. Thanks for that.

(22814)