How simple it really is . . . .

wlminex said:
QW: I agree. I too believe that the universe is infinite and eternal and operates via natural laws - into which are embedded emergent quantum energetic patterns. I like your Eternal Intent notion.
Click to expand...
Do you agree that the natural laws are invariant, i.e. have always been in place and never change. If so, consider theses views:

That premise leads me to consider a steady state universe on a grand scale. What I mean by that is that the landscape of the greater universe complies with the Perfect Cosmological Principle. That makes for a steady state "model' of a potentially infinite and eternal universe. Given the redshift data and the consensus that the observable galaxies are moving away from each other, within the steady state greater universe there could be a big bang arena substructure. We would then be in one of a potentially infinite number of expanding arenas across infinite space. If so, expanding arenas would eventually overlap causing the galactic matter to collapse together in the overlap space to form big crunches. The big crunches would be what I consider the preconditions to big bangs, including our own big bang ~14 billion years ago.

So I guess on a grand scale the big bang arena action across the potentially infinite landscape would equate to an emergent quantum energetic pattern. If the micro scale of particle formation has scaled down similarities to the macro grand scale landscape then that would equate to the emergent quantum energetic pattern at the micro level, i.e. matter being composed of wave energy in quantum increments?
 
Last edited:
QW: "Do you agree that the natural laws are invariant, i.e. have always been in place and never change." I guess so . . . . at least within the time scale of proton decay (humor here)

"That premise leads me to consider a steady state universe on a grand scale." Me too! . . . "steady state" on a much grander scale than our current theories and hypotheses can envision . . . . lots of smaller-scale mechanism/process thingies (that we CAN observe) are NOT steady-state.


BTW#1: Are we also willing to hypothesize that strings may represent subatomic 'stuff' (e.g., particles) (Ref: B. Greene and others) . . . if so, then we may also speculate that the underlying 'quantum' from whence this (i.e., strings, etc.) occur might also have qualities of 'order', thence emergent patterns that interact (albeit, weakly and subtley) with matter.

BTW #2: I recently read on the net that some 'mainstream' physicists are spectulating that "we" (our observable universe) may exist within a grand black hole environment. I have spectulated this also on Sciforums in past postings . . . . . explains much of our observations . . . . guess my posts were too OOB at the time . . . .(sigh!)
 
Last edited:
I recently read on the net that some 'mainstream' physicists are spectulating that "we" (our observable universe) may exist within a grand black hole environment.
Click to expand...

Do you have a reference or citation for that? Of course, since you put mainstream in quotes, it's not quite clear what you're referring to.
 
wlminex said:
QW: "Do you agree that the natural laws are invariant, i.e. have always been in place and never change." I guess so . . . . at least within the time scale of proton decay (humor here).

"That premise leads me to consider a steady state universe on a grand scale." Me too! . . . "steady state" on a much grander scale than our current theories and hypotheses can envision . . . . lots of smaller-scale mechanism/process thingies (that we CAN observe) are NOT steady-state.
Click to expand...
Humor noted, but if we science forum outcasts have one thing going for us, it is that we can speculate where the professionals need evidence, tests, and math. So lacking that, but using one man's logic (mine), the universe either had a beginning or it did not. No professional with any pride would stake their career on a theory that postulates eternity; professionals would have to opt for the, "we just don't know". Of course they would also reproach anyone who wants to speculate that, the punks. But my point is that even if protons decay, that does not mean that entropy becomes complete, so there is no humor in my view that the natural laws are invariant and eternal. If they are not, I don't want to know; said proudly because the critics love when we mention "I" or "me" because they can't stand to think we have any standing as science enthusiasts and have to point that out to us, usually with disparagement, I bet, lol. Of course, I have the lowest regard for those few professionals who do that, all of whom seem to frequent SciForums.
BTW#1: Are we also willing to hypothesize that strings may represent subatomic 'stuff' (e.g., particles) (Ref: B. Greene and others) . . . if so, then we may also speculate that the underlying 'quantum' from whence this (i.e., strings, etc.) occur might also have qualities of 'order', thence emergent patterns that interact (albeit, weakly and subtley) with matter.

BTW #2: I recently read on the net that some 'mainstream' physicists are spectulating that "we" (our observable universe) may exist within a grand black hole environment. I have spectulated this also on Sciforums in past postings . . . . . explains much of our observations . . . . guess my posts were too OOB at the time . . . .(sigh!)
Click to expand...
String theory and now M Theory are way beyond my skill level and I leave that the professionals, but any good professional who is aware of the popular science take on them knows that they can be discussed by laymen without those laymen doing harm to science. No professional worth paying attention to would ever frequent, let along participate in a sub-forum like this. Those who do have never shown to be intent upon anything but low class antagonism, but maybe that could change, who knows?
 
AlexG said:
Do you have a reference or citation for that? Of course, since you put mainstream in quotes, it's not quite clear what you're referring to.
Click to expand...

It is mainstream to think of the universe as more of a Grey Hole, not a Black Hole. A Grey hole has a boundry like a Black Hole, but a Grey Hole does not have a singularity at the center. It is explained this way in just about any layman physics book.
 
Layman: I can go with that (Grey Hole Universe) . . . . care to speculate on the qualities of a Grey Hole? . . . . wlminex
 
Prof.Layman said:
It is mainstream to think of the universe as more of a Grey Hole, not a Black Hole. A Grey hole has a boundry like a Black Hole, but a Grey Hole does not have a singularity at the center. It is explained this way in just about any layman physics book.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're reading, but in 50 years of reading on cosmology and physics, I've never come across the term 'Grey hole', nor the concept.

So again, do you have a referene for that, other than 'just about any'?
 
AlexG said:
I'm not sure what you're reading, but in 50 years of reading on cosmology and physics, I've never come across the term 'Grey hole', nor the concept.

So again, do you have a referene for that, other than 'just about any'?
Click to expand...

Grey is a blend of black and white. You don't have to look for a black hole, its everywhere.
 
AlexG said:
I'm not sure what you're reading, but in 50 years of reading on cosmology and physics, I've never come across the term 'Grey hole', nor the concept.

So again, do you have a referene for that, other than 'just about any'?
Click to expand...

I am not sure where I read about it from. I have read about 60 books directed towards laymen from the public library. You should find the mention of it there that deal with the subject of black holes and white holes. I think there is one called Black Holes, White Holes, and something blah blah blah. Most of which are written by professors in theoretical physics, the goal of which is to try and account for all the possiblities in theoretical physics, many tell of the valadity of many such theories. I think a lot of them hint at more advanced concepts, but they are mostly the same material just written over and over. Wish they had something that dealt with the mathmatics, or at least introduced some of it...

The event horizon of the grey hole is just explained in much the same way as the inability to leave the observable universe. A grey hole would be just another term for a light cone. No light can escape the light cone so then it would be a grey hole, but it is more often just used as another way to describe the universe itself and how the universe can act in the same way as a black hole but it actually doesn't and is more like said "grey hole". I think the work on white holes took a big nose dive, and as a result so did the grey hole. But, the oscillating universe theory didn't even though no white holes where ever discovered. But people tend to believe in oscillating universe theory, but then blow off white holes as nonsense, but after what I have heard about them it makes oscillating universe theory like beleiving in God.
 
To refresh this thread, I'm posting an email to an institute that has expressed interest in the CE phenomenon. It is a reasonable summary of CE interaction with matter.

Dear xxxxx:

The concept is an outgrowth of my other 'speculation' (hypothesis) developed over the last 20-25 years, called the EEMU Hypothesis (Link: https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/). I've been trying to visualize some mechanisms by which the subquantum (SQR in the hypothesis) could interact with, or evolve, the observable universe (MR in the hypothesis) . . . mainly focused on methods one might utilize to 'detect' subquantum attributes.

Since CE was originally 'discovered' some 70 years ago (by Casimir) and more recently substantiated at the Los Alamos National Lab (by Lamoreaux) . . . it is an intriguing mechanism. Mostly internet research has led me to a speculative conclusion that CE operates within the subquantum realm, and until Casimir's (et. al.) discovery, we simply had no means of detecting it.

Expanding my internet searches to explore possible CE interactions with inorganic and organic matter, I found numerous references to subquantum interactions with neural networks and Hameroff's (Univ of Arizona) work (also with Roger Penrose) on quantum consciousness.

It seems obvious (speculating again) to me that a key to CE interactions with matter is an issue of scale. Casimir's work indicates that CE operates within the submicron-to-a few microns range . . . approximately the scale of neural (nerves, neurons, etc) and genetic material (organic), and clay inter-plate interstitia (inorganic).

CE has also been recognized to interfere with nanotechnology designs and may interact with the developing science of quantum computing.

Other than personal writings, numerous notes, and posting on Sciforums.com (Alternative Theories threads: How simple it really is, and The EEMU Hypothesis, and a few other threads), I have not peer-published any supporting materials. Needless to say, and not unexpectedly, the mainstream Sciforums moderators think I post 'gibberish and nonsense' . But, I subscribe to the old adage (anon) that "Those who THINK they know it all make it really difficult for those of us who DO!" (<<humor here).

Thanks for your interest . . . . the areas for future research in this area are numerous . . . . and I've not yet really touched on the theological implications of 'directed or intelligent' design operating at the subquantum (CE) level.

Kindest regards,

Bill Mansker, Ph.D.
 
. . . . another interesting read . . . .

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/...on trivial role in life' BioSystems paper.pdf

Does quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in life?

P.C.W. Davies
Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie University, New South Wales, 2109, Australia

A wlminex-selected text clip:

. . . . “Quantum nanostructures. The living cell is a collection
of nanomachines that approach the quantum
limit. Quantum electrodynamical effects such as the
Casimir effect, and quantum vacuum distortion near
surfaces such as cell membranes, could become significant.”
 
Some more links to better visualize the Casimir Effect:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Vacuums

An important example of the "presence" of virtual particles in a vacuum is the Casimir effect. Here, the explanation of the effect requires that the total energy of all of the virtual particles in a vacuum can be added together. Thus, although the virtual particles themselves are not directly observable in the laboratory, they do leave an observable effect: Their zero-point energy results in forces acting on suitably arranged metal plates or dielectrics.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Overview
The Casimir effect can be understood by the idea that the presence of conducting metals and dielectrics alters the vacuum expectation value of the energy of the second quantized electromagnetic field. Since the value of this energy depends on the shapes and positions of the conductors and dielectrics, the Casimir effect manifests itself as a force between such objects.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top