CJWilli1

I believe (w/o evidence) that there is a ultimate underlying cause. That is the quantum flux that I have described. At this point we’re discussing philosophy. I love to discuss philosophy, but let’s not get sidetracked for now. I have one idea. We would have to develop an accurate mathematical model of the quantum flux that I have described. Then we would use that model to predict the “uncertain” position of an electron. Any other suggestions would be appreciated. I gotta head to work. I’ll be back on late tonight or tomorrow.

We are all taught that properties are true. A property is nothing but a figment of our imagination. We assign properties to things because of our lack of understanding of what the true physical causes are. For example, a cactus has a property that is It inflicts pain on you as you touch it. Of course the underlying physical cause of this proprty are the thorns. If the thorns were microscopic and you couldn’t see them, then you would assume that the property, “cactus=pain” would be true and that there is no underlying physical cause. Bad example I know. Well how about pain itself? The feeling of pain is a property of our being. Of course pain has an underlying physical cause involving sensory neurons or whatnot. But if someone never took anatomy 101? then perhaps they would assume that the property of pain doesn’t have a physical cause. The idea of properties are a result of a misunderstanding of the real physical world.

Well we would have to test the effect of vps in deep space compared to here on earth. But perhaps the difference would be hard to detect on small scales with our current tech. We would also have to test whether or not these vps could vary in size. But my speculation fits together way to well for me not to consider it having a possibility of being true. My idea answers many questions that have been long unanswered. Although there is a general lack of evidence, there is still some that supports my theory. That being the increase in antimatter conc as you go back to the BB, and the “acceleration” of distant galaxies. Based on that I think we could still publish this theory. If people other think it makes sense like I do, then perhaps they too will strive to find hard evidence to either prove or disprove it. And thank you Strange. You could’ve ignored my speculative crap that this thread began with. Instead you took the time to educate me. I appreciate it. Same goes to the rest of you.

What is time? Time and gravity are the same thing. Increased gravity/ time dilation are due to the decreased size of vps being formed. Since the vps being formed are smaller in a region of high matter density, time flows slower at your feet. The difference is minute on earth. But as you fall into a black hole, the time at your feet flows much slower than the time at your head. In other words the vps being formed at your feet are much smaller than at your head. This causes spagettification. My name is Collin J. Willis and I'm 21 years old. I am not a physicist. I am a simple problem solver. I don't have a degree, and I couldn't care less. Thank you all for your constructive criticism. It was equally important to understanding the complete theory of the universe as my creative thinking was. But please refrain from publishing my ideas without giving me credit. I have already posted my ideas on a copyrighted page.

Okay, but what is gravity? What is the physical cause of gravity? It isn't just a property of matter. Gravity is caused by the the replication of DE being reduced by the limited empty space that results from high conc. of matter. The reduced size of the vps coming into existence in areas of high gravity is what causes the warping of "spacetime". Now look at the 4 purple circles on my 2d representation. There would be 6 purple circles in 3D (there would be a vp coming into existence towards you and away from you). Now imagine fitting those purple circles into a sphere. Imagine that the entire sphere is dark energy. The virtual particle process inside the sphere create the fabric of spacetime in three dimensions while the size of the DE sphere grows. I'm not sure if my wording or analogy makes sense, but what I'm trying to depict is that the 3D fabric of spacetime arises from the growth DE. In other words, there is no difference between DE and the fabric of spacetime. What is the cosmological constant? It is the rate of division of virtual particles. The rate is constant, but the size of the vps change.

Here we go. All speculation. Empty space does not exist. It is filled with a fluid of energy, known as dark energy. Dark energy divides into two virtual particles, like a cell splitting into two daughter cells. Then the two virtual particles annihilate, leaving behind more DE. I’m don’t think that the positive vp annihilates with the opposite “sister particle” that it was formed with, but rather with the opposite particle with the pair adjacent to it. I’m not certain but this would depict the “repulsion” between the sister vps being the same as the “attraction” to the adjacent vps. So there is not net attraction or repulsion or expansion/ contraction. This process of DE replication is much more efficient in areas of low matter concentration. There is less available space for vps to form in areas of high matter concentration. The vps that are formed in areas of high matter concentration have to be much smaller in order to be formed in the empty space between/within matter. Thus this DE replication process is slowed. The virtual particles may have dark energy/ vps within them that cause them to expand slightly before they begin to contract when they start to annihilate with the adjacent opposite particle. When DE replicates into 2 vps, the vps aren’t initially 100% positive or 100% negative. Their positive/ negative concentration increases as they become a “complete vp.” Once they become complete vps their conc is 100% positive and 100% negative. The process is reversed after this point as the vps contract into the adjacent opposite vp. Our universe is a vp. It’s gradually becoming a complete positive vp. Once it is complete, it will begin to contract into the opposite adjacent vp. This will only occur after all antimatter is gone. (There was much more antimatter at the start of the BB) This is the best idea I could come up with. Does at least some of it make sense? I made a 1d and 2d sketch. You can easily imagine this process in 3D based on the 2D representation. The sketches are rough but they are just meant to roughly visualize what I am talking about.

That statement is correct. But there’s one problem. Properties do not exist. They always have an underlying physical cause. So how could we describe the properties of dark energy on a physical/ quantum level? Space doesn’t like to be empty, and there is a strong possibility that virtual particles “pop into existence” within space. Those are two big clues. I have an idea that could potentially explain the effects of dark matter on a quantum level. I will share it tomorrow.

They aren’t separate universes. It would just be one universe. My approach would be something like this. First I would make some kind of model that represents the particles uniformly accelerating away from each other and expanding simaltaeously. The expansion rate between these particles would be the same and would match the cosmological constants that we can observe. Next I would speculate a property of space, that is “space doesn’t like to be empty.” Whatever that means. As these particles accelerate away from each other in a uniform expansion their contents expand in uniform so that space doesn’t become empty. So there is some property or relationship between matter and space, that causes matter to uniformly disperse within it. We would have to speculate what this uknown property is and test its existence. That is where I could imagine myself starting. Suggestions?

These “universes” all affect each other. They accelerate away from each other in uniform while their contents expand in uniform. Based on that, I cannot think of any reason why these universes could have different constants. I’m guessing that they all have the same amount of matter and the “forces” expanding that matter are the same. Even if slight differences resulted from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, I beleive that the expansion would still be uniform if you were to compare “our universe” to another. Based on the idea that these “universes” are causatively linked, and that they do not have different properties from each other, I believe that they are a part of one universe. Also I’m basing my idea on that spacetime has always existed and that spacetime is shared between these “separate universes.” Another universal system could potentially exist in a different fabric of spacetime elsewhere, but a mathematical model of this truly independent system could not predict observations in our own universe. It would always remain a speculation.

The rate of expansion would start slow and gradually increase. Perhaps the rate of expansion was not very strong enough at first, so matter had a chance to form galaxies once it cooled enough. It’s not the best explanation but that’s all I can think of right now. Even if “our expansion” is caused by particles expanding away from each other, my idea still doesn’t fully explain that “force” underlying the cause of DE. I wonder if it’s possible that space time could be “created” or stretched somehow. All spec

Thanks for all the info guys. I’m going to research inflationary models in the days to come, but my current understanding of them isn’t great. Is there any evidence against inflationary models? Is the evidence for them that strong? Is the accuracy of their predictions considered to be strong evidence? Just because they could support my spec doesn’t mean I should just assume they are true. But I would certainly like to think of an inflationary model as being true if one could lay down a foundation for my spec. Maybe I could tie my model, an inflationary model, and observational data all together. Easier said than done. Of course I still have to consider the possibility of inflation models being wrong. Im not exactly sure if the model that I am speculating would be classified as causally disconnected universe. The acceleration of the particles in a uniform expansion CAUSES a simultaneous uniform expansion of the contents of those particles. So the distance between the “universes” techinaclly effects their contents. So they effect each other so that their expansion, and most likely their cosmological constant, remains uniform. I don’t think these “universes” would be any different for the most part. Perhaps slight differences could arise from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or quantum flux. Is there a model of inflation that could fit with my spec? If the exact conditions of the BB were recreated elsewhere, would the results at our current point in time be exactly the same? Observe the present, Mentally rewind the Big Bang, and then allowed it to expand back to the same present moment. Would both of those “present moments” be the same? I know my wording is bad. I’m very tired, goodnight.

I’m not talking about separate universes. It would all be the same universe. The spacetime would be shared. I like what you said In the second half of your paragraph. I had planned to bring up that same possibility. I also think that I may have evidence that shows a similarity between quantum flux and the observations of our universe. This evidence is still rather weak in my opinion. I’ll discuss my thoughts on this idea and others tomorrow.

The others and our own “universe” would be apart of the same universe. They all would be stemming from one expansion. Would that make any sense?

I’m thinking that the particles expanding and accelerating away from each other are a continuation of the Big Bang, this doesn’t happen before it. Perhaps time 0 doesn’t exist. The BB is a continuous process, and perhaps if you keep going back in time you will never reach time 0. I don’t think it is different from what you’re saying. I wasn’t originally going for a multiverse theory. But that’s what my idea developed into resulted in unfortunately. I recognize this idea fails to fully explain what ultimately drives dark energy. I’ll share some more ideas later after I think them through. If we want to consider the posibilty of things effecting our universe that we cannot observe then we are forced to speculate. The first step would be to discuss the speculation on a conceptual level. If the speculation cannot be disproven on a conceptual level, then the next step would be to make a mathamatical model that accurately describes that speculation. If that mathematical model can predict what we can observe, then we can address that there is a possibility that the speculation is true. It’s a messy approach, but it might be the only one we can take if we want to understand what we cannot see. Even if my speculation is completely false, I don’t believe that the approach I’m suggesting is wrong.

I’m not talking about a flow of matter from a less empty region to a more empty region. I know that is what I was describing earlier, but I’m trying to get away from that idea now. What I am imagining is this. Before the BB there were many particles, or “singularities”, that were clustered together. These particles accelerated away from one another in a uniform expansion. At the same as time that occurred, the matter within those particles expanded in uniform so that there was no empty or more empty space. These expanding particles would all be a part of the same universe. What we consider “our universe” is the matter that expanded from our singularity. What I’m suggesting is that we are not the only uniformly expanding particle in the universe. The space always remains full. The contents from the “singularities” expand in uniform so that the added space remains consistently full. Pure speculation Sorry about the font size it was an accident