The EEMU Hypothesis
- Thread starter wlminex
- Start date
Thank? It read as sarcasm. Perhaps if you constructed your sentences better you'd not be misunderstood.
Why is it that the hacks, ie you, always compare yourself with Copernicus or Galileo. You're the one with no evidence, aka the Catholic Church. You're the one dismissing mountains of carefully developed models and experimental data, tested over and over again and peer reviewed, for your own notions based on ignorance and dishonesty.
Your misrepresentation of the SM is precisely the sort of thing religious nuts in the US do when they misrepresent evolution or the BB.
Do you admit you misrepresented the SM? Yes or no. Do you admit that it's a complete disservice to actual QGP models to compare them with your claims? Yes or no.
You want to stay on topic and be friendly and civil but you are the one who is misrepresenting the mainstream. I personally consider that extremely uncivil and not in the least bit constructive. If you want to have an honest, civil discussion then practice what you preach. Don't LIE and then call people pointing out your dishonesty uncivil.
AN: Please refrain from trolling and remain ON topic. If you have personal comments about SF members, there are appropriate channels, or start your own thread. Quick response to your queries: "I'm not Catholic; no; and no"
I didn't accuse you of being Catholic. You said I'd dismiss Copernicus if I'd been alive in his day but then I explained how you're the one playing the religious zealot role, ala the Catholic Church in its dealings with Galileo. Galileo said "I have evidence against your assertions, which themselves have no evidence or reason behind them". The Catholic Church held to a view based on no evidence and plenty of ignorance. You're here dismissing mainstream physics and putting forth your own ideas, yet you have no evidence and no justification. Do you understand now?
And before you say "Stay on topic!" I'm allowed to retort invalid accusations people level at me.
As for something more on topic, my comment about your take on the SM is on topic. You said the following :
I explained why this was extremely flawed. Firstly you lack sufficient mathematical physics knowledge to have a working understanding of the Standard Model. Secondly you've shown you don't have much of a conceptual/qualitative understanding of physics beyond high school level. Thirdly the validity of the SM has nothing to do with 'pre-Big Bang conditions'. The SM is a description of electroweak and strong nuclear processes. It is relevant to the BB in the sense that when you wind time back far enough the universe gets hotter and more dense, eventually reaching nuclear densities and billions of Kelvin in temperature. Forces the SM describes then become important on a universal level. Processes occurring in the first moments of the universe then imprint themselves on the universe at large, such as the ratio of nucleotides. The SM, combined with cosmology, made predictions as to those ratios and those predictions were tested and verified. The SM doesn't need to make any statement about pre-Big Bang anything. Neither does cosmology. The BB model is that the universe was once (about 13.7 billion years ago) very small and very hot and very dense. It then underwent particular types of expansion and cooling, all of which are quantitatively described by the SM and cosmology and found to bear out with observation. Fourthly, going back to my list of your mistakes, the SM was developed based on collider experiments, such as at SLAC or early CERN experiments. Numerous alternative models were put forth and wittled down as more data came in and more ideas were falsified.
As such your complaints that it was a 'jump on the band wagon' and 'easy out' and failed to 'provide a pre-Big Bang condition' are wrong. So you should have answered "Yes" to my question about whether you admit to misrepresenting it, because you have. You also misrepresented how much you'd looked into it because you demonstrated you didn't even know its history, never mind its details.
Me pointing this out isn't trolling. You said something and I'm pointing out you're mistaken by explaining actual facts to you. You've put forth a position and I'm countering it by explaining why you're mistaken. As such it is also on topic, as I'm replying to something you said with something relevant.
Now let's consider your other comment about QGPs. Quark gluon plasma models are constructed using QCD or other strongly coupled confined gauge theories and typically solved using either massive supercomputers or elaborate mathematical methods like gravity/gauge dualities. There's rigorous constructions of numerous important phenomenological things, such as the aforementioned confinement and strong coupling as well as colour superconduction and colour locking. From these a wealth of predictions have been made, ranging from precise things like transition temperatures and densities, through to more general statements like the universality class of transport coefficients in colour superconductor model. These have been partially tested in experiments at Fermilab and are being tested right now in the LHC. Heck, Prometheus's avatar is a picture of a QGP event.
Now compare that to your claims. You don't define some of the words you use (or you use them in a non-standard way, which is just as bad), you have no models of any kind, no derivations of any kind, no predictions of any kind and don't even seem to think that's a problem.
By every single rational measure your claims fail to be in the slightest bit scientific, while the QGP models of the mainstream are currently experiencing a huge growth in interest as they have new data to be compared with. So again, it's demonstrable that you're doing a disservice to mainstream QGP models by comparing them to your...... well I don't even know what to call it because what you say is so insubstantial, so vague and so vapid it doesn't even meet the criteria to be a guess, never mind an hypothesis or theory.
If you disagree with this then it would be entirely on topic for you to expound on how you arrive at any claims you have about how such things behave. Now's your chance to provide derivation of your conclusions from your base assumptions/postulates and to make some quantitative predictions. After all, that's what science is about and if you want to be taken seriously and now just look like you're wasting your time making up gibberish then you're going to have to step up at some point.
If you didn't want to be challenged at all on whatever EEMU is then you should have made a blog post. You posting a discussion thread to have a discussion. You can't expect everyone to mindlessly accept what you say, that wouldn't be very 'outside of the box thinking', now would it? You complain when people swallow the mainstream too much, when they 'jump on the band wagon' so why are you now having such an issue with that critical thinking for oneself you seem to want people to exercise being applied to your claims? You call it uncivil that I challenge your claims. That isn't very scientific. Saying "It's not right to challenge these claims!" would be something the Church would say to Galileo, right? It isn't uncivil for me to explain how you're wrong, in multiple ways, on several topics. If our places were reversed I'd want people to correct me when I'm wrong, else I'd not learn something new. Nor is it trolling, it's trying to engage you in discussion so you can elaborate on assertions you've made. If you're only willing to talk about your claims if the person is sucking up to you then you're not being very scientific or honest.
Now that I've corrected your misconception about the Big Bang and 'pre conditions' I don't expect to see you say such a thing again. If you do then I'll know you're deliberately dishonest. Keep that in mind.
And before you say "Stay on topic!" I'm allowed to retort invalid accusations people level at me.
As for something more on topic, my comment about your take on the SM is on topic. You said the following :
I explained why this was extremely flawed. Firstly you lack sufficient mathematical physics knowledge to have a working understanding of the Standard Model. Secondly you've shown you don't have much of a conceptual/qualitative understanding of physics beyond high school level. Thirdly the validity of the SM has nothing to do with 'pre-Big Bang conditions'. The SM is a description of electroweak and strong nuclear processes. It is relevant to the BB in the sense that when you wind time back far enough the universe gets hotter and more dense, eventually reaching nuclear densities and billions of Kelvin in temperature. Forces the SM describes then become important on a universal level. Processes occurring in the first moments of the universe then imprint themselves on the universe at large, such as the ratio of nucleotides. The SM, combined with cosmology, made predictions as to those ratios and those predictions were tested and verified. The SM doesn't need to make any statement about pre-Big Bang anything. Neither does cosmology. The BB model is that the universe was once (about 13.7 billion years ago) very small and very hot and very dense. It then underwent particular types of expansion and cooling, all of which are quantitatively described by the SM and cosmology and found to bear out with observation. Fourthly, going back to my list of your mistakes, the SM was developed based on collider experiments, such as at SLAC or early CERN experiments. Numerous alternative models were put forth and wittled down as more data came in and more ideas were falsified.
As such your complaints that it was a 'jump on the band wagon' and 'easy out' and failed to 'provide a pre-Big Bang condition' are wrong. So you should have answered "Yes" to my question about whether you admit to misrepresenting it, because you have. You also misrepresented how much you'd looked into it because you demonstrated you didn't even know its history, never mind its details.
Me pointing this out isn't trolling. You said something and I'm pointing out you're mistaken by explaining actual facts to you. You've put forth a position and I'm countering it by explaining why you're mistaken. As such it is also on topic, as I'm replying to something you said with something relevant.
Now let's consider your other comment about QGPs. Quark gluon plasma models are constructed using QCD or other strongly coupled confined gauge theories and typically solved using either massive supercomputers or elaborate mathematical methods like gravity/gauge dualities. There's rigorous constructions of numerous important phenomenological things, such as the aforementioned confinement and strong coupling as well as colour superconduction and colour locking. From these a wealth of predictions have been made, ranging from precise things like transition temperatures and densities, through to more general statements like the universality class of transport coefficients in colour superconductor model. These have been partially tested in experiments at Fermilab and are being tested right now in the LHC. Heck, Prometheus's avatar is a picture of a QGP event.
Now compare that to your claims. You don't define some of the words you use (or you use them in a non-standard way, which is just as bad), you have no models of any kind, no derivations of any kind, no predictions of any kind and don't even seem to think that's a problem.
By every single rational measure your claims fail to be in the slightest bit scientific, while the QGP models of the mainstream are currently experiencing a huge growth in interest as they have new data to be compared with. So again, it's demonstrable that you're doing a disservice to mainstream QGP models by comparing them to your...... well I don't even know what to call it because what you say is so insubstantial, so vague and so vapid it doesn't even meet the criteria to be a guess, never mind an hypothesis or theory.
If you disagree with this then it would be entirely on topic for you to expound on how you arrive at any claims you have about how such things behave. Now's your chance to provide derivation of your conclusions from your base assumptions/postulates and to make some quantitative predictions. After all, that's what science is about and if you want to be taken seriously and now just look like you're wasting your time making up gibberish then you're going to have to step up at some point.
If you didn't want to be challenged at all on whatever EEMU is then you should have made a blog post. You posting a discussion thread to have a discussion. You can't expect everyone to mindlessly accept what you say, that wouldn't be very 'outside of the box thinking', now would it? You complain when people swallow the mainstream too much, when they 'jump on the band wagon' so why are you now having such an issue with that critical thinking for oneself you seem to want people to exercise being applied to your claims? You call it uncivil that I challenge your claims. That isn't very scientific. Saying "It's not right to challenge these claims!" would be something the Church would say to Galileo, right? It isn't uncivil for me to explain how you're wrong, in multiple ways, on several topics. If our places were reversed I'd want people to correct me when I'm wrong, else I'd not learn something new. Nor is it trolling, it's trying to engage you in discussion so you can elaborate on assertions you've made. If you're only willing to talk about your claims if the person is sucking up to you then you're not being very scientific or honest.
Now that I've corrected your misconception about the Big Bang and 'pre conditions' I don't expect to see you say such a thing again. If you do then I'll know you're deliberately dishonest. Keep that in mind.
AN: "Thanks for your comments . . . again! . . . ." (No sarcasm intended, BTW . . . as in my previous response!). Please note that I NEVER called the EEMU "Hypothesis" a "theory" . . . it's JUST an "IDEA" . . . . an alternative (from my POV!) "INTERPRETATION" . . . . . . . My intention is NOT to challenge YOU or the SM . . . .because the TRUTH will eventually be known . . . regardless of what the truth IS. Also, such proselytizing (your posts) is OK with me, and I don't really mind your attempting to re-direct my thinking. I'd suggest, however, that you 'open-your-mind' to new ideas on occasion . . . Regards . . .
wlminex
wlminex
In the example below, I am attempting to convey the energy levels expected for the SQR component of the EEMU Hypothesis, which I suspect (first guess) operates at Planck scale (quantum) wavelengths. I would appreciate someone checking my math for accuracy. Thanks!
Since such energy densities (and frequencies) are beyond our current ‘detector’ capabilities (i.e., LHC will only ‘see’ a few tens of THz), it is worth considering innovative detector designs that will interact with lower-harmonics of these frequencies.
The example intimates, that at these scales, the quantum (SQR, virtual vacuum perhaps?) condition infers tremendous energy densities. Under such conditions, the Standard Model fails and we must consider alternative models (such as EEMU, and others) that may more accurately depict and predict interactions occurring at the quantum (Planck scale) level.
Summary: The EEMU Hypothesis simply describes, by inference, that quantum and subquantum scale interactions within such high-energy density conditions are responsible (via E/c^2=m, or similar relationships) for creation of the observable (mass+gravity+energy) universe. The EEMU process describes a continuous, hypothetical ‘mechanism’ by which the observable universe, and its expansion, occur. A Big Bang is not required, but is allowed. The hypothesis also allows (and intimates) a pre-existant and now coeval ‘energy-only’ pre-universe that, via energy conversion to mass, provides the observable constituents (see above) for the material universe.
Assumption: E=hf
h = Planck constant = 663x10^-36 J s
f = frequency = c/(wavelength) C/s
c = speed of light = 300x10^6 m/s
Let:
wavelength = Planck Length (pl) = 1.616199×10^-35 m
fpl = 1.86x10^43 Hz = 1.86x10^34 GHz = 1.86x10^31 THz
Derivation:
Epl= h * 300x10^6/1.616199x10^ -35
Epl = (663x10^-36 * 300x10^6)/1.616x10^ -35
Epl = (6.63x10^-34 x 3x10^8)/1.616x10^-35
Epl = 19.89x10^-26/1.616x10^-35
Epl = 12.31x10^10 J
Epl = 1.23x10^11 J
[Conversion factors:
1 J = 10,000,000 ergs = 1x10^7 ergs
1 erg = 6.2415 ×10^11 eV]
Therefore:
Epl = 1.23x10^11 x 1x10^7 = 1.23x10^18 ergs
Epl = 1.23x10^18 x 6.24x10^11 = 7.68x10^29 eV
Since such energy densities (and frequencies) are beyond our current ‘detector’ capabilities (i.e., LHC will only ‘see’ a few tens of THz), it is worth considering innovative detector designs that will interact with lower-harmonics of these frequencies.
The example intimates, that at these scales, the quantum (SQR, virtual vacuum perhaps?) condition infers tremendous energy densities. Under such conditions, the Standard Model fails and we must consider alternative models (such as EEMU, and others) that may more accurately depict and predict interactions occurring at the quantum (Planck scale) level.
Summary: The EEMU Hypothesis simply describes, by inference, that quantum and subquantum scale interactions within such high-energy density conditions are responsible (via E/c^2=m, or similar relationships) for creation of the observable (mass+gravity+energy) universe. The EEMU process describes a continuous, hypothetical ‘mechanism’ by which the observable universe, and its expansion, occur. A Big Bang is not required, but is allowed. The hypothesis also allows (and intimates) a pre-existant and now coeval ‘energy-only’ pre-universe that, via energy conversion to mass, provides the observable constituents (see above) for the material universe.
Assumption: E=hf
h = Planck constant = 663x10^-36 J s
f = frequency = c/(wavelength) C/s
c = speed of light = 300x10^6 m/s
Let:
wavelength = Planck Length (pl) = 1.616199×10^-35 m
fpl = 1.86x10^43 Hz = 1.86x10^34 GHz = 1.86x10^31 THz
Derivation:
Epl= h * 300x10^6/1.616199x10^ -35
Epl = (663x10^-36 * 300x10^6)/1.616x10^ -35
Epl = (6.63x10^-34 x 3x10^8)/1.616x10^-35
Epl = 19.89x10^-26/1.616x10^-35
Epl = 12.31x10^10 J
Epl = 1.23x10^11 J
[Conversion factors:
1 J = 10,000,000 ergs = 1x10^7 ergs
1 erg = 6.2415 ×10^11 eV]
Therefore:
Epl = 1.23x10^11 x 1x10^7 = 1.23x10^18 ergs
Epl = 1.23x10^18 x 6.24x10^11 = 7.68x10^29 eV
Last edited:
discusfish99
Registered Member
Okay, this theory is pretty awesome. WLimex, this is actually what I was pretty much talking about in the new theory about big bang thread, I am just not smart enough to express my ideas like the EEMU Hypothesis!
. . . .duh . . . . YES!!
What? :shrug:
In answer to your query AlexG . . . . (note elipsis) Origin is somewhat correct . . . it is a 'simple' calculation of EM energy for the Planck wavelength. It is important (IMPO) in that 1) it yields a minimum energy for the SQR component of the EEMU Hypothesis; 2) it applies current math relationships to scales on the order of Planck length; 3) if the energy levels calculated in the example are unrealistic, then the example illustrates the need for more innovative math relationships and detector designs that are applicable or operable at the quantum and subquantum scales.
BTW . . . Do you want Ranch or French with this serving?
not 'anything special' to you, perhaps . . . . . Whatever . . . . . its all relatively special . . . or is that SR . . .(<--note humor here)
I am completely correct.
unsupported baseless conjecture.
That absurd; you did a trivial bit of algebra that any highschool student could and there is no physics involved.
The energy levels are unrealistic because photons do no have that much energy. It has nothing to do with the detectors, we could certainly detect photons at that energy level with the detectors we have.
Haven't you ever taken a physics course?
Qrigin: We're probably not talking 'photons', as such, that have the same c characteristics as those we normally detect . . . do we normally detect gravitons? gluons? etc.? or do we infer them from the behavior of more-easily detectible constituents?
Yes, I have had physics courses (graduate and postgraduate-levels)
BTW . . . . . E=mc^2 is even-simpler algebra. . . . so is m=E/c^2
Yes, I have had physics courses (graduate and postgraduate-levels)
BTW . . . . . E=mc^2 is even-simpler algebra. . . . so is m=E/c^2
Geophysics or 'proper' physics? Given your complete lack of understanding of even the scientific method, never mind the specific details of particular models/theories I find it hard to believe you have done anything close to this sort of physics in structured education. Unless there's some reason you have forgotten all you learnt?
Well then we probably shouldn't use and equation that is specifically for photons, should we...
I agree . . . . . WE should establish actual relationships that operate at the indicated scale - subquantum, if there are indeed 'no specific photons' at that same scale. From THAT we can derive proper equations to describe those relationships factually. You are welcome to 'give-it-a-try'.
BTW . . . IMPO, E = hf may not be specifically applicable, because the relationship E = mc^2 may also not be applicable. I suspect that at the scale indicated the "constant" c in not operable, since c applies to photons, primarily, and we're not talking (acc/you) about photons (or mass, for that matter).
Put down the bong and pick up a physics book.