Spacetime vs. QWC gravity

No, random unguided speculation is not a good way to go about things. Educated speculation based on experience and knowledge can be. Once again you paraphrase me to the point of getting it utterly wrong. It's funny how you often said "Quote me when you respond to something I've said!" yet you don't seem to follow your own suggestion.

Let's consider an example close to what you do, speculation about what might, if anything, have come before the big bang. Hawking (and others) have used their knowledge of general relativity and quantum theory to simulate a universe collapsing down into a very very small region before rebounding and expanding outwards in a new big bang. Using the known behaviour of quantum systems and gravity they can make statements about what signatures in the observable universe such a process would leave. Turok has considered the formation of our universe as the result of two large, higher dimensional branes (brane-antibrane pairing) combing and spitting out a bunch of D3 branes upon which our observable universe lives. Such constructions lead to general implications for such things as the CMB and the strength of particular quantum interactions. Once again, implications for the observable universe are constructed by taking what we know about physics and seeing what particular speculative ideas would result in.
So you are saying that I am ignorant of all of that and you just happen to know about it because you learned what other people have added to our body of understanding. I couldn't have learned any of that because ...
Then there's your method. You don't use any physics known to be valid in our universe, you talk about 'arena action' but have not defined it properly or shown its applicable in current physics. As a result you have absolutely no way to derive in a logical manner what a collapsing universe in QWC would imply for our current universe, you simply make up the results.

See the difference? Speculation is fine if you don't speculate about the end results, you speculate about the initial setup. Hawking, Turok etc didn't speculate about the signatures we might see in our universe, they speculated about before the BB and then derived the signatures. You speculate about both before the BB and after it. If there's no connection there's no ability to make predictive or useful statements. There must be a clear logical path from assumption to prediction. You simply do not have that.
But if there was known physics our body of understanding would have encompassed it. That is why I mention the consensus. Once a consensus is reached it defines where we agree and draws the line between what is agreed and what still remains in doubt. You are saying that I am going too far and skipping steps when I go on from where science consensus leaves off.
The fact I criticise your methods doesn't mean I criticise mainstream methods. You need to get your head around the fact you are not doing science so when I say you're wrong or going about things in a bad way I'm referring to your methods alone. You've deluded yourself into thinking you're closely aligned with the scientific method, allowing you to convince yourself that criticism of you is criticism of science.
You have used the phrases, "you need to get your head around the fact", and "you have deluded yourself", and said that I think I am doing science and that I an deluded to think that your criticism of me is a criticism of science. You are wrong. I have my head around what I am doing and you don't, or if you do you don't think I am qualified to do it, or you think that I go too far. Who made you the forum police? I have not deluded myself into thinking that I am doing science. I do not consider your criticism of my posts to be a criticism of science.
Speculation is an essential part of science. Heck, I've even got a section in the work I'm currently writing up which involves me speculating a new symmetry in stringy compact spaces but I give justification for why I think that by spending several pages explaining the different ways a problem can be approached. Conversely, random uninformed speculation which you refuse to accept any negative comment on is not part of science, it's bordering on religion.
:rhetorical humor:I want you to stop your speculation on such trivial things :/rhetorical humor (no need to get you panties all twisted by me saying that: and get busy on what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe.

I asked you if you have any ideas and you didn't because you say we cannot know those things and speculating about them is useless unless there is some justification. How about the justification that there is no known physics to explain it and yet it happened. If we don't speculate about new physics to justify how it happened then we just don't care.

The new physics and the method I used to come up with my speculation about them is not like guessing that the universe is filled with milk and is no where near that fanciful.

It starts with where the consensus leaves of and takes it one step at a time. You are the deluded one if you interpret that as follows, quote=AN: "The fact I criticise your methods doesn't mean I criticise mainstream methods. You need to get your head around the fact you are not doing science so when I say you're wrong or going about things in a bad way I'm referring to your methods alone. You've deluded yourself into thinking you're closely aligned with the scientific method, allowing you to convince yourself that criticism of you is criticism of science."

But never-the-less, let me see if I understand. You will troll my threads until I stop posting about my personal speculation if that speculation does not meet your requirements.
 
So you are saying that I am ignorant of all of that and you just happen to know about it because you learned what other people have added to our body of understanding. I couldn't have learned any of that because ....
Well we're established you have never done any of the quantitative side to any mainstream concepts/models, making you functionally illiterate to the actual models themselves. Further more, we previously discussed the fact that you held the view "If anyone in the academic community answers anything other than "Nothing" to the question of 'What came before the big bang' they hinder their career", which you wouldn't have said if you'd known about the work of Hawking and Turok in this area.

Thus, you couldn't have learned any of that. QED.

You are saying that I am going too far and skipping steps when I go on from where science consensus leaves off.
You are not 'skipping steps' because you go on from where science consensus leaves off, you are simply skipping steps. Every single person in science is going on from where science consensus leave off because that's what research is, expanding consensus and knowledge beyond its current borders but the vast majority of those people are doing it in a methodical, clear manner. You're just guessing your initial conditions and guessing your end implications.

You have used the phrases, "you need to get your head around the fact", and "you have deluded yourself", and said that I think I am doing science and that I an deluded to think that your criticism of me is a criticism of science. You are wrong.
You believe you're doing which is worthwhile, which is ultimately more than you just telling people what you think the universe is like. Am I wrong in that statement?

I have my head around what I am doing and you don't, or if you do you don't think I am qualified to do it, or you think that I go too far.
Nothing to do with qualifications or how far you go, it's all about your method. Jesus, how many times do I have to say it? If the method is flawed the results are worthless.

Who made you the forum police?
This is a discussion forum, if you didn't want people to respond you'd just be posting on a blog and disabling feedback. Everyone, everyone, is wrong from time to time and particularly so when doing with the limits of human knowledge yet you seem to think that you're above criticism. If people like Ben, Rpenner, Guest, Prom, QuarkHead or CptBork were going about their work in the manner you are I'd make exactly the same criticisms and I'd hope they'd do the same to me if I were making that mistake. What I say about your methodology and approach is nothing to do with you as a person. But the fact you adamantly refuse to consider why every person educated in science whose posted in a thread you've made on QWC has said similar things says something about you as a person. Getting too emotionally invested in your work is a sure way to get it utterly wrong.

I do not consider your criticism of my posts to be a criticism of science.
You said "You are one who believes that science does not include speculation ", yet I'd said nothing in relation to the place of speculation in science, I'd said that random speculation is pointless, which is quite a different thing. You took my comments about your methodology and took them to apply to scientific methodology. Therefore, either you believe you're being scientific/doing science or you utterly failed to realise I was talking about you, not science.

and get busy on what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe.
Funnily enough I have done a little work on inflaton moduli dynamics. In my first year I wrote a bunch of Mathematica routines which would compute the dynamics of 6 dimensional compact spaces in string theory and from that work out the rate of inflation/expansion, the energy density of space and how much of the energy of the universe would be dark energy. It's a bitch to find vacua with the right slow roll parameters though....

I asked you if you have any ideas and you didn't because you say we cannot know those things and speculating about them is useless unless there is some justification. How about the justification that there is no known physics to explain it and yet it happened. If we don't speculate about new physics to justify how it happened then we just don't care.
I'll type slowly so you can keep up :

Speculation based on observational information and knowledge of present understanding is essential to physics. Speculation based on random ignorance is worthless to physics.

That's what separates your work from that of Hawking and Turok. And I didn't put forth any new ideas because it is not an area I'm particularly familiar with, compared to how much I know about GR and QFT, so I think random speculation would be worthless. I've got plenty of speculative ideas about my area of research. Enough to fill 80 pages (and counting) and that's just part of my thesis. If you'd like to help, have a look at the thread of mine over in the maths & physics forum, perhaps with your weighty knowledge of cosmology you could help.

The new physics and the method I used to come up with my speculation about them is not like guessing that the universe is filled with milk and is no where near that fanciful.
No, you replaced 'milk' with 'arena action'. Just like Guest replaced 'arena action' with 'fairy dust'. You just use vague or poorly defined buzz phrases to try to convince others (and yourself) you're not just talking nonsense. Like I said to you in another thread, if someone were to read your initial assumptions for QWC and go away and work on it themselves they would arrive at utterly different conclusions to you, which is a sign there's nothing to your work but guesses.

You will troll my threads until I stop posting about my personal speculation if that speculation does not meet your requirements.
Speculating on before the BB is something I have no problem with. Postulating about founding principles in the uiverse is fine. Randomly picking some founding principles, then randomly picking some end results and claiming they are implied from your founding principles is the issue.
 
...
Speculating on before the BB is something I have no problem with. Postulating about founding principles in the uiverse is fine. Randomly picking some founding principles, then randomly picking some end results and claiming they are implied from your founding principles is the issue.
So your answer to the question is yes, you will troll my threads until I stop posting about my personal speculation if that speculation does not meet your requirements.

As for the rest of your post, it is pure fixation on me and or QWC and completely slanted based on your intuition; devoid of any content that I consider worth commenting on and utterly off base. I know I told you I have posted in other forums and that I am Bogie on BAUT. This post goes back a ways:
http://www.bautforum.com/924520-post3.html
February 2007. So you are utterly wrong as usual because you believe your own bull crap.
 
Last edited:
So you admit you knew about the work of Turok yet you said "If anyone in the academic community answers anything other than "Nothing" to the question of 'What came before the big bang' they hinder their career"

Once again your lies are exposed. Now that I've badgered you enough about your ignorance you've revealed you knew that people could answer something other than 'Nothing' to the question 'What came before the big bang' and not hinder their career yet you said precisely the opposite in this thread.

You have done precisely what Kaneda does. Despite knowing that someone has addressed a particular issue you post threads whining "Why hasn't anyone addressed this issue?!". So can you explain why you did this? If you knew about Turok's work why did you complain that such work hinders an academics career? You lie to further your own agenda, which is to try to convince people you aren't an idiot.
 
So you admit you knew about the work of Turok yet you said "If anyone in the academic community answers anything other than "Nothing" to the question of 'What came before the big bang' they hinder their career"

Once again your lies are exposed. Now that I've badgered you enough about your ignorance you've revealed you knew that people could answer something other than 'Nothing' to the question 'What came before the big bang' and not hinder their career yet you said precisely the opposite in this thread.

You have done precisely what Kaneda does. Despite knowing that someone has addressed a particular issue you post threads whining "Why hasn't anyone addressed this issue?!". So can you explain why you did this? If you knew about Turok's work why did you complain that such work hinders an academics career? You lie to further your own agenda, which is to try to convince people you aren't an idiot.
Excuse me but you are the idiot.

Have you no concept of what the problems are with the theory and how my posts treat existing theory. I have explained that but you are such a jerk that I don't have any interest in proving anything to you. Try to rise up to the level of intelligence that would make someone want to engage with you on cosmology. Stupid.
 
Excuse me but you are the idiot.
Why? Because you can't think of any other come back after I yet again backed you into a corner using things you've explicitly said (I don't need to paraphrase you).

Have you no concept of what the problems are with the theory
Yes. I spent 6 months of my PhD trying to come up with a way to construct generic string vacua which possessed a local minimum and a nearby saddle point whose properties were sufficient for slow roll inflation (not my work but I know and work with 3 of the 4 authors).

that but you are such a jerk that I don't have any interest in proving anything to you.
You have no way to justify your work so even if you wanted to you couldn't. You call me a 'jerk' because I'm pointing out why you're going about things wrong.

Why do you think you're utterly above criticism?

Try to rise up to the level of intelligence that would make someone want to engage with you on cosmology. Stupid.
Everyday I discuss things like AdS space with people I work with because we're all doing research into space-time structures in string theory. The level of discussion is much more detailed than discussing a Wikipedia article (though we do from time to time, no denying that) and because we all know we're not all knowing on the topic we ask one another questions and get answers. It's a two way flow of information between people of rational mind. That isn't going to happen with you. I am more than capable of discussing mainstream cosmology, I have done so on here many times, in varying levels of quantitative detail. Everytime someone pushes you to put your physics where your mouth is you run away.

Remember all those required courses to do cosmology research I listed? I've done them all. Which ones did you do again, I forgot your answer..... or was it you jsut refused to answer on account the answer is 'None'.
 
Why? Because you can't think of any other come back after I yet again backed you into a corner using things you've explicitly said (I don't need to paraphrase you).
No. It is because you have no concept of the issues in cosmology and you think it is somehow about doing the math or bragging about credentials. If someone doesn’t brag themselves up your intuition tells you they have no credentials and you treat them as the lowest common denominator of forum scum. That actually makes you an idiot and you don’t even realize it.
Yes. I spent 6 months of my PhD trying to come up with a way to construct generic string vacua which possessed a local minimum and a nearby saddle point whose properties were sufficient for slow roll inflation (not my work but I know and work with 3 of the 4 authors).
No, I mean the issues in cosmology. You stupidly claim that I and anyone who discusses their ideas are stealing the ideas and making things up. You’re great education has left you with some blind spots. Cosmologies have commonalities and often differ in nuances.
You have no way to justify your work so even if you wanted to you couldn't. You call me a 'jerk' because I'm pointing out why you're going about things wrong.

Why do you think you're utterly above criticism?
You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issues in cosmology and aren’t qualified to evaluate my ideas.
Everyday I discuss things like AdS space with people I work with because we're all doing research into space-time structures in string theory. The level of discussion is much more detailed than discussing a Wikipedia article (though we do from time to time, no denying that) and because we all know we're not all knowing on the topic we ask one another questions and get answers. It's a two way flow of information between people of rational mind. That isn't going to happen with you. I am more than capable of discussing mainstream cosmology, I have done so on here many times, in varying levels of quantitative detail. Everytime someone pushes you to put your physics where your mouth is you run away.

Remember all those required courses to do cosmology research I listed? I've done them all. Which ones did you do again, I forgot your answer..... or was it you jsut refused to answer on account the answer is 'None'.
You are still a fool.

Why, because you are uninformed and unaware of the issues in cosmology and are not able to understand relationships that are common among cosmologies as the consensus is established and advanced.

From steady state to expansion and then inflation there are some really basic underlying issues and I have addressed them and you have missed that. I can only assume you missed it because of your ignorance.

Cosmologists are dealing with the issue of a beginning. Whether you know it or not, the concept that the universe has always existed is a major issue in Cosmology. For Prom to flat out declare that it is impossible for the universe to have always existed declared that he knows nothing about the central important issues. For you to support him and to attack QWC when I address the major and important issues in cosmology makes you complicit in his ignorance and credits you with ignorance of your own as well.

I take a stand on the issue of a beginning or lack thereof, and on the issue of entropy and the defeat thereof; they are important aspects of what cosmology is about. They are the center of great debates and for you and Prom to claim that a cosmology that addresses an infinite and eternal universe is stupid and I am an idiot simply reveal your lack of knowledge of the issues.

Let me recommend a book that I have to the forum members that covers the evolution of cosmology and discusses the major issues; Alex Vilenkin’s Many Worlds in One, 2006. It is a hard hitting review of cosmology by a reputable cosmologist who supports the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing. Both of these ideas are contrary to QWC so I am not recommending this particular book because it supports QWC, but because it discusses the problems with existing theories; problems that exist in the standard cosmology too.

I bring up Vilenkin because he addressed Steinhardt and Turok back in 2006. He pointed out that cosmologists viewed their scalar field energy landscape to be contrived and why. The value of the vacuum energy density is said to simply be put in by hand without explanation of why it is so small and without saying why it dominates the universe at the epoch period of galaxy formation. It is all in the book.

So I read it and learned about his views and used that learning along with my extensive other reading and study of cosmology to make relationships. My own view evolved as my understanding of cosmology increased over a period of years and as I made relationships between various views and issues that evolved as QWC. I present QWC and don't try to teach cosmology in general by refuting or supporting existing theory and I have said why.

I never claimed to be a professional but I am not the ignorant dolt you want to have your friends and peers think I am. Your arrogance and ignorance are classic and I am pleased to have had you to unwittingly promote me. Anyone who understands cosmology knows that I am not pushing a theory and can see that I am discussing cutting edge issues and ideas by putting them together in what I have always called my personal view of cosmology. I have always invited interested people to participate and discuss it. Few here have shown an interest and my interest has been to learn and evolve my ideas and put them out to the forum and encourage discussion with knowledgeable people.

So one big issue in cosmology is has the universe always existed or was there a beginning. You are ignorant if you don’t know this is an issue and for Prom to declare it settled and impossible had to be pointed out as I did in the Zeno thread.

The second big issue that I discuss is entropy and can it be defeated and if so how.

And the third big issue is energy density. QWC actually address ideas that are new in the area of energy density and discusses new physics that use energy density in a new way. Limits and thresholds of energy density and the possibility of energy as a raw commodity are introduced in QWC along with ideas about mass and gravity, and matter and energy states that are not part of existing theories that insist that there had to be a beginning.

Vilenkin addresses that issue nicely and says that the conclusion is that there had to be a beginning in all eternal expansion cosmologies and they will all result in complete entropy, i.e. no reverse entropy on a grand scale. The fact that I don't agree doesn't mean that I am giving a professional view, it is a personal view and I explain it and offer to discuss it. If you demand more, go pound sand.

Your insistence on the stupidity of QWC, when I know it addresses the big issues of cosmology makes you ignorant of those issues as well. So pull in your horns and learn something about the big issues, look at how I deal with them and then criticize me on how I deal with the issues and not on how stupid and ignorant you think I am. You haven’t been able to rise to that challenge yet and continue to show your ignorance. I have no problem pointing it out because I know the issues. Savvy?
 
Last edited:
For Prom to flat out declare that it is impossible for the universe to have always existed declared that he knows nothing about the central important issues.

Contrary to what you say in the above, I've never said that a universe that has always existed is impossible. I have said that to me it seems logically absurd (and have provided an argument to that effect). You on the other hand want to make proclamations, godlike, without any dissent. You never want to admit you're wrong and think somehow that what you think is best.

The above quite clearly proves that either you're stupid, in that you can't read and comprehend what other people say, or a liar, in that you do understand but make up what you think will make your proclamations "better" (those quotes are there for a reason). In the light of your dictatorial attitude to your "work" (and again) my money is firmly on the latter.

So for future reference, don't put words in my mouth you filthy liar.
 
Contrary to what you say in the above, I've never said that a universe that has always existed is impossible. I have said that to me it seems logically absurd (and have provided an argument to that effect). You on the other hand want to make proclamations, godlike, without any dissent. You never want to admit you're wrong and think somehow that what you think is best.

The above quite clearly proves that either you're stupid, in that you can't read and comprehend what other people say, or a liar, in that you do understand but make up what you think will make your proclamations "better" (those quotes are there for a reason). In the light of your dictatorial attitude to your "work" (and again) my money is firmly on the latter.

So for future reference, don't put words in my mouth you filthy liar.
Lol, you are a silly troll. Let's let your own words speak for themselves as captured for your reference in the Zeno thread.

Now, to clear things up, what is your position on the topic of whether or not it is possible that the universe has always existed?

BTW, if finished the Ludlum book, The Prometheus Deception, and I said I would report on how it was. It was predictable after the first few surprises but action packed. Worth the read if you like action thrillers which I do. It was just a coincidence that a friend who had been staying with us left it for me. It did make for an interesting post or two but I wasn't making it up to pick on you, it was serendipitous.
 
Lol, you are a silly troll. Let's let your own words speak for themselves as captured for your reference in the Zeno thread.

Now, to clear things up, what is your position on the topic of whether or not it is possible that the universe has always existed?

Wow, I'm amazed how stupid you are. Can you link to a post where I said it was impossible for the universe to be eternal, or are you just going to link to a thread and claim I said something I didn't? My position on whether the universe has always existed or not is well known, if you've been reading my postings. Apparently you're too stupid or too dishonest. Which is it?
 
Wow, I'm amazed how stupid you are. Can you link to a post where I said it was impossible for the universe to be eternal, or are you just going to link to a thread and claim I said something I didn't? My position on whether the universe has always existed or not is well known, if you've been reading my postings. Apparently you're too stupid or too dishonest. Which is it?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2376177&postcount=49

Foolish troll. Can't even say it is possible that the universe has always existed. It might help for you to know that you are not alone. Just ignorant of the possibilities addressed by cosmology. Read up and stop making a fool of your self by petty name calling. Stupid ignorant fool. Oops.
 
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2376177&postcount=49

Foolish troll. Can't even say it is possible that the universe has always existed. It might help for you to know that you are not alone. Just ignorant of the possibilities addressed by cosmology. Read up and stop making a fool of your self by petty name calling. Stupid ignorant fool. Oops.

What is wrong with you? Have the odd people in white coats changed your medication again?
 
OK, aside from AN and Prom there might be one other person following the content part and ignoring the off topic chatter between me, AN, and Prom. I will call you the lone lurker.

This is a content post and to start with I want to edit something I said at the end of the post where I discussed Alex Vilenkin’s references to Steinhardt and Turok. They were known by 2002 to be working on a cosmology that depicts a universe that had no beginning and were suggesting that the history of the universe consisted of an endlessly repeating cycle of expansion and contraction.

In my threads years ago I rejected that cyclical view because their universe contained a finite amount of energy and their view of how entropy was defeated would fail and so the cosmology amounted to eternal inflation. Sure they had cycles where expansion and collapse served to recycle the energy over and over, but I didn’t believe that all of the expansion energy could be gathered back at the end of a collapse before the next bounce into expansion began. One view was that it didn’t matter because the spatial size of the universe just got larger with each cycle thus introducing the eternal expansion aspect of the spatial volume at the cyclical point where expansion reversed into contraction; the volume just keeps getting greater and greater, i.e. eternal cosmic inflation.

But as Vilenkin points out, the consensus soon formed that this view of cosmology, i.e. eternal inflation needed a beginning. Entropy would eventually reach the point in the Steinhardt and Turok cycles where the energy necessary to cause the bounce from collapse to expansion would decline with each cycle. The expansion and collapse process would not be eternal and the energy that escaped the final collapse would expand eternally. The final collapse would leave a big crunch in the center of an eternally inflating finite universe and other theories address the fate of an inert big crunch.

What I want to edit in my previous post is the statement that I made at the end where I said, “Vilenkin addresses that issue nicely and says that the conclusion is that there had to be a beginning in all eternal expansion cosmologies and they will all result in complete entropy, i.e. no reverse entropy on a grand scale. The fact that I don't agree doesn't mean that I am giving a professional view, it is a personal view and I explain it and offer to discuss it.”

Where I said I don’t agree is amended to say I don’t agree that eternal inflation is a characteristic of all cosmologies, but I do agree that all eternal expansion cosmologies will result in complete entropy (Big Rip), i.e. no reverse entropy on a grand scale.

For the record, QWC is not an eternal cosmic inflation cosmology.

In Quantum Wave Cosmology there was no beginning and all space has always existed and has always contained energy density.

The average energy density of the QWC universe is high enough to cause matter to exist and so matter has always exited.

The average energy density of the universe is fixed and the ratio of matter to energy throughout the greater universe is essentially fixed on a grand scale.

In arenas within the greater universe the ratio of matter to energy is variable and changes as the forces of expansion and gravity interplay between arenas that intersect and overlap as a result of their expansion.

The intersecting and overlapping of arenas lead to big crunches in the overlap spaces because expansion momentum is interrupted by the overlap, and gravity causes the galactic material in the overlap to collapse into a big crunch.

The energy density threshold below which matter functions and above which matter ceases to function is exceed inside the crunch. Gravity is a function of mass so the crunch leads to the failure of gravity. As mass is compressed beyond the functioning threshold it is negated into dense state energy whose main characteristic is expansion potential. The decline in gravity within the crunch leads to the point that the expansion potential of the dense state energy exceeds the containment capability of the outer crunch and the crunch bursts into expansion of dense state energy.

Once expansion begins the dense state energy becomes dark energy that drives expansion due to the fact that energy wants to equalize its density across its environment. Of course the environment is the ball of dense state energy expanding into extremely low energy density space that surrounded the crunch. Energy density equalization fuels the expansion.

Expansion leads to the threshold of abundant matter formation and dark matter forms almost simultaneously across the expanding dense dark energy. The particles that form from the dense dark energy have expansion momentum, and they feel and exert gravity since the process that causes mass also causes gravity (quantum action causes mass and QWC gravity).

With the newly formed dark matter in the arena the environment has changed. The expansion energy continues to drive expansion and the momentum of the particles of dark matter reflects the expansion momentum imparted to them as they form, but now gravity enters the picture. At this point the force of gravity is stronger than the expansion momentum and the particles of dark matter are attracted to each other.

A common stable particle forms across the arena as the dark matter clumps but the clumping is patchy and the common stable particles have the momentum of the dark matter particles from which they formed. So the environment now consists of stable particles with expansion momentum being influenced by both expansion and gravity. Gravity is still stronger at short distances and hydrogen atoms become prevalent.

These hydrogen atoms are attracted to each other and they clump into bigger and bigger masses until huge hydrogen stars take shape across the entire expanding arena. This first round of huge fast burning stars is short lived and they burn up their fuel and collapse and burst into galactic sized cosmic dust clouds from which the galaxies form.

The galaxies still have the expansion momentum that was imparted to the dark matter and that has been conserved throughout the process of galaxy formation and so the galaxies are all moving away from each other.

Now the environment has matured and the expansion momentum exceeds the gravitational attraction between galaxies and the arena is mature. The rate of separation between galaxy groups accelerates as the inverse square law causes gravity to yield to expansion momentum throughout the arena.

The next huge event for the arena will be the interruption of expansion caused by the intersection and overlap with other arenas.

That process is called arena action in QWC.

QWC in a nutshell is that the universe has always existed which deals with the first of the three main cosmological issues, i.e. there was no beginning. The arena action causes a continual process of reverse entropy in arenas which amount to tiny patches of the greater universes. Entropy of the greater universe is defeated at the arena level by expansion and collapse of these finite tiny arenas within an infinite greater universe. Energy density plays several roles, one of which being the average ratio of matter to energy across the greater universe. In addition, during arena collapse a limit to the maximum energy density within which matter and gravity can function keeps the entire universe from falling into big crunches. Energy density also controls the threshold at which matter forms abundantly during expansion to allow the young arena to mature into an array of galaxy groups that all are moving away from each other at an accelerating rate.

That is all QWC is. It is a cosmology (my own personal view) characterized by an endless interplay between expansion and collapse over an ever changing arena landscape across the greater universe. It deals with the three big cosmological issues: Was there a beginning, how does entropy play out or can it be defeated, and what is the role of energy density.

In my opinion there is nothing about QWC that couldn’t be put into mathematical terms that would make it a theory but right now it is a set of speculative ideas that I offer for discussion. My latest speculation is that there is a lone lurker.

I wish that AN and Prom could accept what I do. But I know that the lone lurker can ;).
 
Last edited:
Let’s talk about the scale of quantization in QWC. That means we are talking about the scale of arena action vs. quantum action because in QWC, quantization takes place at two levels, one at each end of the energy scale. I refer to arena action as the higher level of order where quantization, the arena quantum, causes big crunches, big bursts, and expanding arenas that characterize the landscape of the greater universe. The amount of energy in an arena quantum is the amount of energy that has to accumulate in a big crunch before that crunch bursts into a big expanding spherical ball of energy equivalent to our whole observable Big Bang universe. Actually our “universe” is only an arena in the landscape of the greater universe. Our arena is expanding into the low energy density space that surrounds it. That demotes our observable universe to a mere arena in the landscape of the greater universe which is composed of multiple arenas that expand and overlap.

I refer to quantum action at the lower level of order where quantization, the tiny quantum, causes the presence of mass and gravity.

Because I mention that quantization takes place at both levels, there is some room for confusion about what I call a quantum of energy in QWC. First, it has nothing to do with photons and the energy packets or quanta that enter the picture with electromagnetic radiation. There is no EM produced by quantization at either level of order in QWC. Quantization simply accounts for mass, gravity, and the defeat of entropy.

In QWC, when talking about mass and gravity we are talking about the tiny quantum, the lower level of order, the level where mass is composed of tiny quantized energy increments. On the other hand, when talking about our observable expanding universe (arena) we are talking about the large quantum, the higher level of order, and the level where the landscape of the greater universe is characterized by large quantized energy increments called arenas responsible for defeating entropy on a grand scale.

Generally when I speak of a quantum increment I am referring to the lower level and when I speak of an arena quantum it is the higher level.

When characterizing quantum action I define the tiny quantum as the energy equivalent of a tiny crunch called a high density spot that bounces into an expanding quantum wave of energy.

So the purpose of this post is to put the relative scale of quantum action and arena action into perspective in preparation to discuss QWC gravity. The amount of energy in a quantum at the quantum level of order is tiny and we don’t know how tiny but it is discussed from the perspective that there might be billions of them in the smallest particle at its lowest energy (they are not strings though, they are quantum energy increments). For perspective maybe there are a trillion of them in a single proton. In QWC any particle with mass is composed of these tiny quantum energy increments that are produced by quantum action.

In QWC mass and gravity are two sides of the same coin, i.e. both are produced by quantum action. So having a perspective on the size of a quantum is a starting point to discuss QWC gravity and mass. That perspective is that the cause of mass and gravity lies deep within the tiniest known particle of mass where quantum action is continually taking place.
 
Last edited:
Quantization of energy into quantum increments allows for the accumulation of energy quanta because they have mass and gravity and therefore they clump together to from stable particles that we can observe. Particle formation is one of the effects of quantum action. Quantum action then is the “continual process” that is going on within particles that “maintains the physical presence of mass”, “causes gravity”, and “produces quantum waves” that “expand spherically”.

Therefore quantum action involves “a continual process”.
It “maintains the physical presence” of mass during the ongoing process.
The process produces both “mass and gravity” at the same time.
The process produces “spherically expanding quantum waves”.

I’ll discuss quantum action from the perspective of the “continual process” in this post.

The “continual process” means that it is a perpetual process of self replication of energy quanta, but there is a caution. Don’t picture an energy quantum sitting inside a particle just continually pulsing between mass and gravity. That is not the case. The continual process involves a continual energy sharing between quanta during quantum-action events.

The scale perspective is that the energy quantum is so tiny that perhaps billions of them are at work participating in the ongoing process within a particle of mass to maintain that particles presence at all times. Picture the energy quanta participating in a jostling vibrant effect where tiny crunches form high density spots within mass and “burst” into expanding spherical energy waves only to immediately have their individual expansion event interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with their neighboring energy quanta that are also bursting out of tiny high density spots into spherical expansion.

The sharing of energy that I mentioned above occurs as a result of that intersection and overlap of spherically expanding quantum waves. As the waves overlap, the space that encompasses the overlap of the intersecting spherical quantum waves is special. What makes it special is that the energy density in the overlap is higher than the energy density of the two individual quantum waves that are converging. They share their energy in the overlap space. In the very immediate future, that sharing will result in a new quantum-action event.

That space is also special because the energy caught up in the overlap has expansion momentum that was imparted to it by the initial expansion event (the bounce as described below) and equalization potential that is a characteristic of energy. The burst (or bounce as I will call it below) imparts expansion momentum to the spherical wave. The energy in the wave would expand forever if it wasn't interrupted but due to the close proximity of billions of these events within a particle the expansion is continually interrupted by intersection and overlap.

With expansion momentum interrupted, the tendency of energy to equalize its density across its environment takes effect. The thing that makes the overlap space special is that its density is a multiple of the number of intersecting and overlapping waves. The energy density is twice as high in the overlap space as it is in any two individual intersecting waves and is continually equalized across the overlap space. As the overlap proceeds the amount of energy in the overlap space increases but always remains equalized across the entire overlap.

Definition of an energy density environment: It is worth noting here that the overlap space is a tiny individual energy density environment. An energy density environment is any patch of space where equalization potential of energy is in effect across the entire contiguous space. This space has a boundary that is marked out by the intersection and the advance of the overlap. The high density space inside the overlap is bounded by (surrounded by) lower energy density environments that are also equalized across the particular space that they occupy.

Definition of bounce: “Burst” was used above to describe what happens during the process of quantum action immediately following the stage where the quantum of energy collapses into a tiny crunch. The tiny crunch becomes a high density spot at the moment that the maximum energy density of the tiny crunch is achieved. I used the word “burst” instead of “bounce” because I recently have described “arena action” that takes place at the opposite end of the scale and perpetuates arenas throughout the landscape of the greater universe. Arenas burst into expansion but tiny crunches “bounce” into expansion. Aside from scale, that is one of the major distinctions between quantum action and arena action. The bounce occurs during quantum action because there is a maximum limit to which energy density can be compressed during collapse. During quantum action, that limit is reached at the moment that the collapse produces the high density spot. The energy cannot be further compressed but the “collapse momentum” of the energy in the overlap space is dissipated by the collapse switching to a bounce off of the limit of maximum energy density. The spherically expanding quantum wave is the result of the bounce off of the natural limit of energy density.

So the continual process of quantum action has a start point. Any stage in the process can be thought of as a start point but for this post the start point is the collapse of energy in the overlap space. The collapse occurs when the differential between the energy density in the overlap and the energy density of the surrounding environment reaches a threshold. The expansion momentum of the portion of the converging waves caught up in the overlap has been interrupted, the energy density in the overlap space remains equalized as the overlap grows, and the differential between the energy density in the overlap environment and the surrounding environment has reached a threshold.

That threshold occurs when a quantum of energy is finally accumulated within the overlap space. The source of that particular quantum of energy is the various quantum waves that are overlapping and feeding energy to the overlap space. So they share their energy as they feed the overlap space and when a quantum of shared energy accumulates the threshold of energy density differential is reached and the collapse begins.

What causes the collapse? It is in the differential between the energy density of the overlap and the energy density surrounding the overlap. As I said, quantum action is based on energy density of the environment. I just described the overlap as an energy density environment, but now I am talking about the next larger energy density environment, the particle environment. The energy quanta that make up the particle became clumped together until stability was achieved. A stable particle perpetuates itself because a stable configuration of energy quanta is limited to a finite number of quanta and not one more or one less quantum can achieve that stability. Different stable particles exist because different configurations of quanta are possible depending on the energy density of the environment in which they form. When particles form from quantum energy increments they create a new and larger energy environment where the density of the quanta within that particle is equalized across the entire particle.

QWC addresses the formation of particles of dark matter during arena expansion when an energy density threshold is reached. Dark matter amounts to energy quanta that are formed at the energy density threshold. The threshold is the quantization threshold of energy density that is reached at a point during arena expansion as the energy density decreases. As stated in previous QWC posts, when the energy density of the arena declines to the quantization threshold, dark matter, quantized energy increments form simultaneously across the entire expanse of the arena.

Those quanta proceed to clump into stable configurations to form particles with mass that are the subject of the standard particle model of particle physics.

At the quantum level, stable particles form and the types of particles that form are determined by the energy density of the environment in which they form. Within the particles that form the continual process of quantum action is ongoing. The stable configurations of energy quanta persist while unstable configurations either combine to form stable particles or they can’t maintain their own presence and the quanta are captured elsewhere in the particle formation process as the energy density continues to decrease evenly across the arena.
 
In that last post do you think I am talking about quantum foam or what is sometimes referred to as spacetime foam? I’m not. In Quantum Mechanics the quantum foam is the point of uncertainty at the foundation of the fabric of spacetime. It is a view of what spacetime looks like at the Planck Scale of 10^-33 centimeters and 10^-43 seconds as proposed by Nobel physicist John Wheeler. “Einstein's general theory of relativity requires that gravitational fields and space-time be one and the same mathematical objects, this means that space-time itself is also subject to the kinds of uncertainty required by quantum systems.”

In QWC, in place of the uncertainty at the point of correspondence between the gravitational field and the mathematical fabric of spacetime we employ the process of quantum action. Quantum action establishes the correspondence between QWC mass and gravity.

In quantum action there is no random “popping” in and out of virtual particles at the foamy fundamental level of spacetime as you would expect from spacetime quantum foam. In place of those uncertain virtual particles there are tiny quantized crunches that bounce into spherically expanding quantum waves that then intersect and collapse into tiny crunches again, over and over to maintain the presence of mass and to exert gravity.

I don’t call those events tiny black holes, but I call them the high density spot phase in the process of quantization. The energy density of these tiny crunches never reaches infinity due to the natural maximum limit that energy density can achieve and it is that limit that triggers the bounce of quantum action before infinite density is reached.

Quantum action is occurring at the place where spacetime foam or quantum foam would be if we were talking about Quantum Mechanics and the correspondence between mass, gravity and the spacetime continuum. But there is no foam or probability function and no spacetime to contend with mathematically at the quantum level in QWC.
 
Wow, I can barely find your posts between all of the many many replies you've had. Seriously, get a blog.
 
Maybe what we need is a little poetry:

If you know your stuff when it comes to spacetime,
You know quantum foam is the end of the line.
To know beyond that you must push back the curtain,
Problem is what you’ll find will be much more uncertain.

But knowing Quantum Wave Cosmology,
You don’t need to make an apology.
The waves overlap at every new junction,
Replacing the probability function.
 
Good idea, although your attempt doesn't scan very well.

Upon your behind you do sit,
Keys on the keyboard you do hit,
On cosmology,
but most will agree,
Really you produce only ****
 
Good idea, although your attempt doesn't scan very well.

Upon your behind you do sit,
Keys on the keyboard you do hit,
On cosmology,
but most will agree,
Really you produce only ****
Cute and clever. I would actually like it if I wasn't the butt of the joke.

Now I might put it this way:

Upon my butt I do rest,
While Upon my keyboard I confess,
I type about cosmology,
Beyond the standard model. See?
 
Back
Top