QW, thanks for hanging in there attempting to clarify what you mean and understand what I mean.
Physical = energy either as fermions( matter ) or boson( force _--- consider
gravity a boson or just leave it out for now ---and that is the only two fundamenta/basic catagories that science uses to compose our finite or in your case infinite Universe.
Fermions and
bosons = physical/energy seems simple enough to me. You appear to understand that above but not sure if you agree. If we cannot find common agreement on our definitions, then we can never have rational conversation. Know what I mean?
Lol, sure, but we would need to be rational beings to have rational conversation, and the jury is still out as far as me being rational :shrug:. But let's say I am.
First, let me clear up a misunderstanding on my part. I am thinking that bosons are force carriers, but are defined as particles in the Standard Model. Is that correct?
By physical/energy I mean there are two fundamental forms of occupied space that science uses, so I have to repeat fermions and bosons. Both are physical in different forms both are energy in different forms. You seem to have some lingering doubt that physical can be a boson. Consider this QW, photons are bosons and will burn the skin off our body in high enough concentrations. Photons will cut through steel. So fundamentally this electrons( fermionic matter ) is physical, and photons interact with them, so I consider anything that has a physical affect on my physical skin stell, iron rocks, and will kill me, to be physical.
Me too, but ... my views are not constrained by scientific theory, only by observations, and where we have no observations I don't automatically rely on the current generally accepted scientific explanations.
"Particle" is a perfect example. Does your view of fermions and bosons accept them as they are portrayed in the Standard Model of Particle Physics?
If so, you are familiar with the fundamental particles of the standard model, and also you are familiar with the position taken in generally accepted science that the fundamental particles have no internal composition. Is that correct and is that your position?
My so called model has evolved to the point that in order for a big bang to occur out of preconditions and not out of, "God did it" or "something from nothing", there would have to be a way for fundamental particles to come into and go out of existence based on the energy density of the local environment.
Do you know what I mean by energy density?
Let me try to explain: Take any system, call it system A, or any patch of space (patch A) that contains something observable, and that system or patch of space has energy contained in it.
We don't yet agree on the definition of energy because though there are many forms of energy, in my so called model there is one more form, foundational wave energy. Everything physical is composed of this unpopular form of wave energy in quantum increments.
It is the quantization of energy in my so called model that separates particles from the unquantized wave energy that fills the space between particles. Particles in my so called model are composed of wave energy in quantum increments.
So system A contains quantized energy that is contained in the particles, as well as unquantized energy within the confines of system A, separate from the quantized particle space.
QW, use of the word "medium" inherently implies/infers a physical/energy( fermions and/or bosons ). Please set aside your idea "wave" for the moment and please consider how a medium is the physical/energy base that can form the pattern/shape( metaphysical ) we call wave or spiral, square or checkered.
1) Water is a medium, but it can be calm and we see no wave but when it is not calm we have waves.
2) people( the medium ) at sports event stand and sit in a manner to make a pattern/shape( metapohysical ) we call a wave, but once they all sit back in their seats, the wave pattern is gone but the medium/people, still exist
I could go on and on with examples of physical/energy mediums( water, electrons, people, sand etc ) that sometimes move so as to create a visible wave, spiral etc patterns/shapes( metaphysical ). The medium remains even after the wave we had saw no longer exists. The wave pattern/shape still exists in our mind/intelligence as an abstract concept.
If you can follow the above then I can get back to use of the word "medium" in association with the word space. Typically the word space means nothing/empty A space between our teeth is empty space. A space between to houses Is called and empty lot. etc.......
The man who help Steve Jobs invent the mouse also invented the little signs on airplane, trains or other public places that when a person goes into the bathroom, when they latch the door, a note appears outside the door that says 'occupied'. This means the space inside the bathroom is occupied by a human. If no human is in the bathroom, the sign outside says un-occupied/non-occupied.
So, with all that above explanation in mind, I have segwayed into what I call non-occupied space i.e. a true space is non-occupied i.e has no fermions or bosons. That seems simple enough to me yet so many have the most difficult time understanding or being able to acknowledge this concept as an obvious logical conclusion.
Occupied space means there are fermions or bosons occupying this area/volume of space.
So when you say "medium of space" It is logical for me to think that your giving some kind of fermionic or bosonic attributes to space ergo/i.e. that space is occupied by some sort of "medium" some sort of fermions bosons or combinations of both.
We agree on all of that when you describe the medium in terms of the particles that make up the medium, like people, or teeth, or houses.
In that sense, what you call empty space means there are no particles.
Ok, but need to put that aside for now and get the bigger picture first and see if we can find some common agreement of definitions on the larger overall view of your Universe first.
Ok, this is where we fork in the road at the very top of cosmological outline. *You and I both believe in a macr-micro infinite space.
1) your infinite space is occupied by a "medium"( physical/energy ) either fermions or bosons or some combination thereof. Does that sound like a fair assessment?
Given that from my above responses you have a little more to go on about my description of what you call empty space, I would rephrase your statement as follows: My infinite space is occupied by quantized particles like fermions and bosons (as particles that carry forces), and the rest of the medium of space is occupied by unquantized wave energy.
2) my infinite space has two primary aspects, non-occupied, outside of ( beyond ) the finite occupied space, I call Universe or universe with a small "u" If you prefer. I actually use three different labels of "U"niverse to make the distinctions.
#1 & 2 above = "U"niverse is is inclusive of both infinite non-occupied space and occupied space( fermions/medium/physical/energy and bosons/medium/physical/energy ) and includes the mind/intelligence I.e. metaphysically abstract concepts.
#2 above as Universe
3) universe I.e. small "u" the feeling of our individual local sphere of influence
I have come to call the metaphysically abstract concepts "philosophical", and I have a whole raft of philosophy that is derived from my so called model, lol, so don't hesitate to be philosophical. But I
derive the philosophical from my view of the cosmology of the universe. When I say universe, I mean the one and only one cosmological universe that includes everything, the space, the particles and objects composed of them, the life hosting ability of the cosmos, the life generating ability, the life evolving ability, and the life itself. I am philosophical about intelligent self aware free willed living beings that act and interact according to their learning, self image, and consciences, but they certainly are a part of the universe.
Space is macro-micron infinite but space has two fundamental sub-catagories, non-occupied and occupied in my view/belief. Here is simple verfiable quasi/semi rational for that belief. IF the big bang took place, then what is the seemingly finite big bang Universe, expanding into?
There is evidence of a big bang, so I start by accepting the big bang event that the evidence points to. However, you put your finger on the big hurdle that mainstream science does not address, but that a layman like me can. Science must use the scientific method, and the method is fully employed and leaves us with a Big Bang Theory. That theory implies things that it doesn't actually come out and say, so let's state what it does say. It picks up a tiny fraction of a second after some event that it doesn't mention, and it describes the universe as it is thought to exist at the age of a fractional second as being a hot dense ball of energy; I paraphrase
.
There reason I mention the mainstream generally accepted theory about the universe is that it does not mention or speculate, or even hypothesize about preconditions because of the constraints of the scientific method.
So like you, when I ask myself what is the big bang arena expanding into, I research, look at the options, brainstorm ideas on my threads, and then make a personal decision about what I think is the most reasonable and responsible hypothesis. I came up with a big crunch that then collapsed and banged our arena into existence, and that is how I account for the time from right before the big bang and right up to the fraction of a second after the big bang where generally accepted science on the topic begins.
Then you have to ask where the big crunch came from, and I have an hypothesis about that too, and about the general nature of the landscape of a greater universe that hosts all of that action.
You can begin to see what I mean by my so called model being built on hypothesis and speculation. To me it is logical, but to others, with different learning, and different views, it is not as logical as perhaps their views are to them.
Ok, so it has begun to appear to me that you have subcategory of your infinite Universe, as something called and infinite set of arenas in your infinite Universe. *Does that assessment sound correct?
Yes.
When two or more "arenas" converge? Can there be only two "arenas" converging? What sizes do these infinite 'arenas" come in? Do they come in all sizes? If you have a macro-infinite arena then it is beyond the concept of size and that arena is then really your infinite Universe so there would be not subcategory of your Universe into finite arenas. IF you know what I mean. So often people use the word infinite having no idea what it means. I'm not saying that is you, just looking for clarity from the top, as we go along here.
You are beginning to address the fine print of my so called model. It is sometimes convenient to describe things in their simplest terms, and so to say that two "parent" arenas converge is a gross generalization and simplification. This may not be the time to go into the gruesome details, lol.
I have schooled myself on the concept of infinity, and used to like to play mind games with taking an example of something finite, like the number of grains of sand on a beach, and then increasing it exponentially to each grain representing a vast beach of grains of sand, and then exponentially increasing each of those grains to vast beaches, etc. You can see that the conclusion is that anything finite is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never, relative to the infinities of energy, space, and time.
Big Crunch of our know finite Universe the one I called occupied space, or big crunch of you infinite Universe? If you were to mean the crunch of an infinite Universe then I have go back to what your infinite Universe is. If it is infinite "medium"( somethingness physical/energy/fermons/bosons ) and it totally or just goes to a finite size of any size, then what is outside of the infinite crunch to a finite cis again, what I call non-occupied space, i.e. truly empty, truly non-occupied space.
Each arena has its own initial big crunch, but there is no grand big crunch. I use a concept called the critical capacity of a big crunch to define its limits. The operative limit is what I call the maximum wave energy density that can be sustained by the particles in the individual big crunches before those particles fail. When particles fail, I mean that they fail to maintain their individual particle spaces, and are negated into their wave energy composition as they give up their space. That is the cause of a big bang in my so called model. That is the hot dense ball of energy that the mainsteam theory begins with.
I might add, that the critical capacity of a big crunch, the point where it fails and bangs, is the very reason that there is no grand big crunch. They all fail when they reach a certain critical wave energy density, and that is nature's maximum energy density in my so called model.
This seems problematic QW. On the one hand you infer/imply that your infinite Universe has subcatagories of this "arenas" yet here you seem to infer/imply that they not of a finite nature/ Not finite size, even if fluctuating size, their still finite, just fluctuating their associated radius and diameter.
As you can read into the above answer about crunches and critical capacity, all big crunches are quite similar in size because it takes a certain amount of matter and energy to accumulate into a crunch that is big enough to go "bang". And once that critical "size" is achieved, no more accumulation occurs because the crunch goes bang, ending the accumulation.
We can come back to how your waves create all physical/energy ergo all fundamental fermioic and bosonic existence. *And again, since gravity is such and odd-bird out, I'm hoping to set it aside--- for the most part for now ---or just place it into the boson category as that is what science infers/implies if it were to ever quantify or quantize gravity. imho.
Again, hope we can find some common agreement of definitions of our terminologies being used. If two people cannot agree on a definition then there can never be a clear communication. Via Fullers writings I feel I have developed a clear, rational, logical set of words and definitions that very much fit with accepted dictionary definitions and what science states, infers/implies. imho
r6
I hope these answers are helpful toward that common goal, but the thing that will keep coming up is that I use words and hypotheses that go beyond generally accepted science and so my lexicon may differ from yours.
(5068)
