Man on the Street dialogs about The Infinite Spongy Universe Model

[quantum_wave]

In regard to my Infinite Spongy Universe model, I try to conduct discussions on the topic.

For example, the axioms of the model are the three infinities; space, time, and energy. My position is that the universe as we see it is entirely consistent with those axioms, and if the observables are studied in depth, the non-Supernatural conclusion is that the three infinities are reality.

I conduct "Man on the street" dialogs about my model with friends and acquaintances.
One response I have gotten in regard to the infinities is about the creation of the universe ...

Man on the Street: If God created the universe, time, space, and energy, then they wouldn't necessarily be infinite; in fact that would be a good case for them all being finite, at least in regard to the beginning.

QW: My position is that anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand. Therefore, if God did it, why aren't there evidences of the existence of God aside form the obvious existence of the universe and life? Why no banner headlines from God to say He did it; why are we not being confronted by a voice coming out of a burning bush that appears in our path and says, "I am God, and I created the universe"?

Man on the Street: Well, it seems obvious that God wants us to accept Him on faith, and so He will give us no irrefutable evidence. You must decide for yourself from the words and writings that survive over the ages.

QW: Wouldn't it be irrefutable evidence of the existence of God if there were dead ends in science where there could be no other explanation than God did it. And doesn't that reasoning alone mean that there will be as yet unknown natural explanations for us to find for every observable phenomenon? If not, we would be likely to take the "God did it" explanation as being irrefutable, and wouldn't that defeat your argument? Either there are natural laws for everything, or we have to resort to the "God did it" explanation, and thus God would have tipped His hat that His act of Creation is irrefutable.

Man on the Street: Well sure, but it is still a step of faith to accept that God did it, and stop looking for natural law other than God's law; "God did it" can be a comforting world view.

QW: I'm sure, but science keeps looking, and as a major precept, does not fall back on the God did it explanation. We can individually have faith, but the search for natural explanations goes on, and my faith is that you would be correct to say, "If there is a God He wouldn't have provided irrefutable evidence, but would leave it for us to decide individually". So I have decided that the thee infinities are irrefutable unless you invoke the "God did. It" explanation for the existence of the universe; and that would violate a major precept of science.

Man on the Street: Good talking with you. Have a nice day.

SciForums Membership: ...

 

[Daecon]

Which God?

 

[quantum_wave]

That particular Man on the Street is speaking from the perspective of God the Creator. It could be the God of any religion where the creation of the universe is seen as an act of God.

 

[quantum_wave]

Another Man on the Street (MOS) encounter with a friend who views the thread ...

MOS: The Three Infinities speak to an alternative to the "God did it" version, which, as you have pointed out, can be called the "always existed" explanation for the existence of the universe. As you know, there is also the "something from nothing" explanation too. Just like the "God did it" explanation, both the "always existed", and "something from nothing" require a personal decision, a step in one of the three directions toward deciding for yourself.

QW: Yes, but if we follow science, "God did it" requires the Supernatural, and so as we are science enthusiasts, it is not scientific. We are left to decide on the question of "nothingness" vs. "there never was nothingness", i.e., something "always existed". I have yet to hear a reasonable definition of "nothingness" associated with any premise of "something from nothing", have you?

MOS: No, I agree that every "nothingness" definition has loop holes you could drive a quantum fluctuation through, ha.

QW: I know. It can be reduced to the "God did it" explanation, without the God part, lol. Given the observables as evidence, if we humans are capable of reasoning it out, any science that back tracks to either God did it, or something from nothing, fails on the same basis; where did God come from, and/or how, if there was true nothingness, could something come to exist (without an act of God). The default answer is, the God in question would have to have always existed. I just think we can eliminate the middleman at that point and go right to the axioms that say the three infinities, space, time, and energy, have always existed.

SciForums Membership: ...

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: Well then, let's take your premise that the in-depth study of the observations would ultimately lead to the "always existed" conclusion, instead of simply backtracking to some impossibility that confirms "God did it" and/or "something from nothing".

For example, the redshift that we observe in every direction when we measure the spectral lines in the light from distant galaxies; they shift toward the red end of the spectrum. Scientists take that as a Doppler effect caused by recession of distant galaxies which increases the wave length of light in transit, also described as the cosmological redshift effect due to expansion. The universe is either expanding, or there is some trick of light between us and those distant galaxies, and all of the tricks so far have been found lacking. The observed accelerating expansion is the consensus. Doesn't that automatically track back in time to an infinitely dense, zero volume point; a singularity?

QW: Not to me. It points to the premise that there were preconditions to our Big Bang, and that there was pre existing space, time, energy, and energy density circumstances, that are consistent with a Big Crunch forming and collapse/banging into rapid expansion.

The back tracking would then take us to a Big Bang event, up close and personal to a Big Crunch at the moment of collapse/bang. That crunch might itself have been light years in diameter, not a single point.

And note, that in addition to the Doppler effect and the Cosmological redshift, there is a relativistic redshift caused when light moves out of a gravitational field such as would be present in and around distant galaxies, which are, or at least were emitting the starlight.

SciForums Membership ...

 

[quantum_wave]

Happy New Year 2016

 

[quantum_wave]

QW: There now seems to be a growing acceptance, if not a consensus, that instead of the zero volume, infinitely dense point/space, alternative ideas are getting traction within the scientific community. Consider the current thinking, written in layman terms, presented in the current shelf issue of Scientific American (volume 24: number 4), the Collectors edition on Physics at the Limits.

The first article, The Black Hole at the Beginning of Time, presents some current thinking, and addresses the question, "Where did the universe come from". They acknowledge the unknowns, and approach it from the perspective of Einsteins five independent numbers; the five parameters include the densities of ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy, along with amplitude and shape of quantum fluctuations; the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model.

But in the very next sentence the authors point out that the problems are not solved by the A-CDM paradigm, because there are troublesome issues and fundamental questions about the nature of the cosmos.

To list the topics they address from there in the article:
We don't understand the five parameters
We don't understand inflation completely
We don't understand how it all began
We don't understand Extra dimensions
A survey of other cosmological issues

The authors of the article are all from the Perimeter institute, and so they have their own somewhat metaphysical view of things, but I think the point is made that there are still many as yet unknown natural laws, and unexplained events associated with the cosmology of the universe. The "as yet unknown" is a big talking point in my personal ISU model.

MOS: That is a great collectors issue of Scientific American magazine, which I have perused at Barnes and Noble. I'll have to borrow your copy.

QW: That issue covers most of the important topics in cosmology, and is a great read. It also gives me a good point of comparison between the standard Big Bang cosmology, and a popular layman level view of the very latest professional thinking beyond the Big Bang model. I will refer to the articles throughout the thread as such comparisons become appropriate.

SciForums Membership: ...

 

[trevor borocz johnson]

To list the topics they address from there in the article:
We don't understand the five parameters
We don't understand inflation completely
We don't understand how it all began
We don't understand Extra dimensions
A survey of other cosmological issues

I have an idea
space has the four forces built into it like a density,or spongyness , that allows for the atoms and the EMR to move within confined limits i.e. the speed of light, fusion, etc.. Each change in dimension is a dramatic change in the 'density' of space. When a quark leaves the universe wall it expands because of the density of space in the new dimension it is in. The quark then becomes a block of void that creates space in the outside dimensional universe. It takes time to expand and its density adds pressure to the surrounding space, this pressure in empty space is what causes gravity.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/working-model-of-the-universe-dimensions-gravity-and-energy.154081/

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I have an idea
space has the four forces built into it like a density,or spongyness , that allows for the atoms and the EMR to move within confined limits i.e. the speed of light, fusion, etc.. Each change in dimension is a dramatic change in the 'density' of space. When a quark leaves the universe wall it expands because of the density of space in the new dimension it is in. The quark then becomes a block of void that creates space in the outside dimensional universe. It takes time to expand and its density adds pressure to the surrounding space, this pressure in empty space is what causes gravity.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/working-model-of-the-universe-dimensions-gravity-and-energy.154081/

That probably makes for a better read when stoned.

:EDIT:

Or more seriously.

WTF did you just say?

Thanks.

 

[quantum_wave]

I have an idea
space has the four forces built into it like a density,or spongy, that allows for the atoms and the EMR to move within confined limits i.e. the speed of light, fusion, etc.. Each change in dimension is a dramatic change in the 'density' of space. When a quark leaves the universe wall it expands because of the density of space in the new dimension it is in. The quark then becomes a block of void that creates space in the outside dimensional universe. It takes time to expand and its density adds pressure to the surrounding space, this pressure in empty space is what causes gravity.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/working-model-of-the-universe-dimensions-gravity-and-energy.154081/

Thanks Trevor. I have looked at your thread and couldn't relate it to my way of thinking, which by the way, I am trying to build from the bottom up on this thread. I will take another look though, and post a response over there.

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: To be practical, whether the universe has always existed, or not, is not just unknown, it is really unknowable, so why did you feel you had to "decide" on the three infinities, and the "always existed" explanation?

QW: It is a compulsion, lol. And It is because the mechanics and thermodynamics of the greater universe would be different depending on if the universe is open (infinite), or closed (finite). The three infinities are characteristics of an open universe, where there is no limit to the total space, time, or energy. It applies directly to the defeat of the progress of entropy.

MOS: So how does entropy come into play?

QW: It is in the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy of a closed system gradually brings about a state of equilibrium, where all of the useful energy is used up. Though the total energy of the closed system stays the same, when there is no more useful energy left, all life and all meaningful action ceases; on a universal scale, a finite universe dies in what is called a heat death of completed entropy via declining temperature. There are no mechanics to save it.

 

[trevor borocz johnson]

That probably makes for a better read when stoned.

I bet, it's the hobby of every stoner. Where does that direction ever end man? Carl Sagan was a smoker. Wanna know my secret ingredient? lithium orotate I bought off of amazon. It basically cleared the haze out and left me with fun questions to answer while I was smoking. The philosophy of drugs and there social stigma's is a good topic though. after almost five years since I started taking lithium OTC I feel like I'm so beyond those norms of society that drugs don't really effect me just life. That may have always been true anyways. unless they're hard drugs. those have shitty long term effects though. any idiot knows that.

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: Yes, but how do you ever know if the universe can defeat entropy or if we are doomed to reach heat death somewhere in the future?

QW: We don't for sure, but if one must decide, as I feel compelled to do, that decision would have to be based on what we know and what we can reason out from that.

We know that If the duration of the universe is finite with a beginning and an end, then no matter how much time it takes from the beginning of the universe to the end (if there is to be an end), there would be a period where life existed, followed by a lifeless later period as the physical matter decays into energy equilibrium. A normal ratio could be calculated to compare the duration of the existence of life, relative to total duration, if we knew the values. It would be a tiny fraction most likely.

On the other hand, If life has and always will exist because of the entropy defeating mechanics at play in an open universe filled with matter and energy, then given the infinities of space, time, and energy, both the numerator and the denominator of the ratio would be infinite durations; like saying 1 over 1 = 100%.

I'm saying that in an eternal and infinite life hosting universe, there is a 100% chance that life exists in the universe at any point in time, while in a finite universe that only hosts life during a given window of time, the chance that life exists at any given point in the total duration is far below 100%, and in my estimation, is even far below just 1% at the end.

MOS: Ok, possibly true, but very weak. It sounds a little like the Anthropic principle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle.

QW: What I meant to imply is not the Anthropic principle, which some use philosophically to point to the "God did it" explanation by making a reference to the narrow range of parameters that could support life and evolution as we see it. What I am saying is that the probability that life exists at any given point in time is much lower in a universe with a beginning and an ending, than it is in an infinite universe that defeats entropy.

I agree with you, that is weak reasoning, but it is a tiny truth in a decision process where there is an enormous lack of any evidence at all, like you said. In the absence of falsification of that tiny truth, it stands as a lonely reference in my decision making process, and it tips the scale toward my decision to invoke the "always existed" explanation.

SciForums Membership: ...

 

[Daecon]

Are you just talking to yourself?

 

[quantum_wave]

Are you just talking to yourself?

A fair question, but the Man on the Street (Men on the Street includes other friends and family as well) is a real person and a science enthusiast like me, that I have meet with regularly for a couple of years, and who keeps informed on the progress of my threads (though he flatly refuses to participate on the forum). Over the past couple of years we have discussed all of these issues and I am quite faithful in regard to the content of our discussions. However, the dialog approach to my thread is just a way to present the material in an orderly flow.

It would help a lot if some member would participate in the role of Man on the Street, and that is the reason I have been ending my posts with "SciForums Membership ...", assuming anyone with any interest might pop in with an on-topic question or comment now and then. That rarely happens at SciForums, but as you can see, I am compelled, lol.

 

[trevor borocz johnson]

so what is the infinite spongy model of the universe anyways? is it a real theory or just an interesting title? If you say you're reffering to raisin bread expanding as it cooks I'll just go ask my dog for answers.

 

[quantum_wave]

so what is the infinite spongy model of the universe anyways? is it a real theory ...

It is more of a layman level personal view of the cosmology of the universe, starting where my layman level understanding of generally accepted cosmological theory leaves off, and featuring what I call "reasonable and responsible" speculations to fill the gaps where existing theory is incomplete or incompatible with other mainstream theories, like Quantum Mechanics.

 

[quantum_wave]

...
QW: ... I agree with you, that is weak reasoning, but it is a tiny truth in a decision process where there is an enormous lack of any evidence at all, like you said. In the absence of falsification of that tiny truth, it stands as a lonely reference in my decision making process, and it tips the scale toward my decision to invoke the "always existed" explanation.
...

MOS: But how does the issue of the universe being open or closed come into play there?

QW: An open universe has limitless energy in boundless space, which allows for the transfer of energy from the greater universe into any finite system within it. It means that there is always an outside source of renewable energy for any finite system that uses energy; for example, a finite Big Bang arena within a greater universe. It plays out and dies in a finite universe, but if the mechanics make sense, a dying arena is refreshed with energy from beyond it as arenas intersect, as they do in my model. The process that defeats entropy is called Arena Action.

MOS: I see. You are saying that there was a Big Bang and we are in an expanding universe, but you say, "don't fear the heat death", because somehow entropy will be defeated by an arena action process that refreshes useful energy that has been lost as the arena expands for billions of years. How?

QW: It is all in the repercussions of the preconditions, lol. The "repercussions of the preconditions" is a phrase I coined that means that if the cosmology of the universe is not the standard Big Bang model with its predicted heat death, but instead is an eternal life generating, life evolving, and perpetually life supporting place, then there are definite grand scale processes at play, i.e., arena action according to my model. That makes for significant differences in the way the future of the cosmos will unfold relative to Big Bang theory. Those differences are the "repercussions of the preconditions" to our Big Bang that my model proposes. The cosmology of my model will be quite different from the current standard model of cosmology, as a result of the preconditions that are not even mentioned in Big Bang Theory (BBT).

Also note that I did not say we are in an expanding universe. I said the universe features the three infinities. I call it a dynamic steady state of infinite volume featuring perpetual and self-perpetuating multiple Big Bang arena action. You might be referring to the redshift discussion earlier, where I said that Big Bangs individually expand, but instead of a finite universe consisting of just one Big Bang, my model is of a multiple Big Bang universe in infinite space; not expanding in total.

Individually, Big Bang arenas don't expand forever because their expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with adjacent expanding Big Bang arenas. The defeat of entropy lies in the processes of arena action. It is a greater universe characterized by a landscape filled with active Big Bang arenas that expand, overlap, and share their old cold galactic material within the arena overlap spaces to form big crunches at the center of gravity of that overlap space.

SciForums Membership: ...

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: I stand corrected.

So in your ISU multiple Big Bang universe, just how does an intersection/overlap between arenas refresh the old cold dead galactic material of the aging and expanding arenas and provide new useful energy in the process?

QW: It will help to explain if you look at these old drawings I made. The first one depicts two parent Big Bang arenas overlapping as they individually expand into each other, and shows the convergence of galaxies from each parent arena in the overlap space.

The second image depicts a large patch of space containing multiple arenas in various stages of maturing and of overlapping. I mean for that image to represent a typical large scale section of the landscape of the greater universe.

You might be able to imagine the formation of big crunches, and the collapse/bang of big crunches into new expanding arenas out there in the landscape.

The collapse/bang is the event that refreshes the useful energy by converting the surviving particles in the galactic remnants from the parent arenas into a hot dense ball of energy that emerges from the center of gravity of the collapsing crunch, and bounces into rapid expansion.

The particles in the old cold galactic material are negated into their constituent wave energy, and the excess space that the particles were individually protecting is given up in the process. The result is that the wave energy of the particles in the crunch gets compressed down to a density that reaches nature's maximum allowed energy density. At that point, the collapsing crunch "bounces" off of that maximum density limit and immediately begins to expand back into the space that was relinquished by the collapsing crunch and by the expanded parent arenas as they converged to produce the Big Crunch.

Let me know if you can visualize the overlap, the formation of a Big Crunch from such an overlap, and subsequent collapse/"burst"; the "birth" of a new expanding arena? You might also be able to envision the infinite Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe which is perpetuated by said arena action.

In my model, each crunch is quite similar because of nature's limit on the energy density that can exist within a given space. The crunch grows, fueled by inflowing galactic material from the rendezvous of the parent arenas, and when an energy density limit is reached, called the Critical Capacity of a Big Crunch, the crunch collapse/bangs into a new expanding arena.

That is an overview of the process of arena action.

SciForums Membership: ...

 

[quantum_wave]

MOS: I can visualize all of that but I have to ask about the phrase, "constituent wave energy" when you refer to the particles in the galactic material contributed by the "parent" arenas. What are you talking about, given that the Standard Model of Particle Physics implies that the fundamental particles have no internal composition.

QW: Constituent wave energy is a reference to the hypothesis in my model that all particles (and therefore all objects) are composed of complex standing wave patterns, and therefore do have internal composition, consisting of waves converging, and waves produced out of those converging waves.

MOS: Interestingly, that sounds a lot like how I was beginning to envision how arena action in the landscape of the greater universe might look, where spherically expanding Big Bang arena waves converge as arena action takes place.

QW: Exactly. Arena action at the macro level is quite similar to quantum action at the micro level. They are the two major wave action processes in the ISU model, and they operate at the opposite ends of the size scale.

Note that the convergence of two (or more) parent Big Bang arenas can be visualized as a simple single standing wave convergence that has two components, inflowing wave energy from each parent arena, and spherically out flowing wave energy in the form of the hot dense energy ball that emerges and rapidly expands spherically from the collapse/bang of the Big Crunch.