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

I’m not seeing how my idea contradicts the fact that the universe has always been uniformly full of matter. Also when I talk about the outside, I’m referring to the space that our universe is expanding into, or the space that existed before the BB, assuming that that space exists. The matter that existed before the BB, including the matter that made up the “singularity” of our BB, all expanded away from each other in uniform. Due to the increased distance between these pre BB particles, their contents expanded in uniform to fill that space so it would not become empty. Of course matter in our universe cannot go outside our universe or the BB. I read this, but I’m not going to admit that I completely understand it just yet. I will before I make speculations in the future. Couldnt the pre BB particles that I speak of expand away from each other like distant galaxies do? As they expanded away from one another there wouldn’t initially be any background radiation between these particles. As they expanded the radiation that these particles uniformly released would fill space, otherwise it would become empty. If there was no background radiation between our galaxies, and the space between them was nearly empty, I wonder if the galaxies would rip apart.

Perhaps I worded it wrong. I don’t think the universe can be empty. Perhaps as matter accelerates away from our universe, the matter in our universe expands so that there is no empty space. What I’m speculating is that space has some relationship with matter, that is space doesn’t like to be empty and will cause matter to expand to fill it. So as matter accelerates away from our universe, the expansion of the matter in our universe accelerates so that there is no empty space. Can you explain where I’m wrong? can you also explain why this wouldn’t produce the effects of DE that we see? I know that making speculations or guesses about what existed before the BB is not scientific. But if we want to understand what happened before the BB we are forced to speculate. If we assign/ imagine properties to the space that existed before the BB, then we can make predictions based on those imaginary properties. If those imaginary properties predict what we observe then we can assume that there is a probability that those properties are real, even if that probability is less than 1%. As time goes on and our technology develops in the far future, perhaps we could find evidence that either increases or decreases the probability that these imaginary properties are real.

Lets take two guesses. Guess #1 Space is created during the BB. Nothing existed before the Big Bang. The cause of Dark Energy is currently unknown. Guess #2 (my guess) Space is not created in our universe, but has always existed. Before the BB there was matter in space that expands at an accelerating rate. As all this matter expanded away from the matter that formed our universe, there was unoccupied space that the matter that formed our universe expanded to fill. The acceleration of the expansion or DE in our universe is caused by the accelerated expansion of matter in its surroundings. My guess has the potential to help explain DE and what happened before the BB. The other guesses cannot do the same. If my guess were backed by mathematical evidence, and it helped to solve the mystery of DE and what occurred prior to the BB, then my guess would certainly stand out above the rest. My guess could bring us closer to developing a complete theory of the universe. But of course it is still just a guess.

If according to quantum physics true nothing cannot exist, then we cannot assume that there was nothing before the BB. We have to assume there is something. That something must have an effect on our universe. If we cannot explain our accelerated expansion based on what we observe within our universe, we must consider the properties of what our universe is expanding into. Dark energy could be explained by our universes matter filling the empty space that is left behind by particles accelerating away from us.

Based on that statement, If I were to assume that the “nothing” or the pseudo space that existed before the Big Bang had properties, then it would have to contain real particles. The quantum flux or anihalation of virtual particles alone would not be enough to give that “nothing” or pseudo space properties that influence our expanding universe. Perhaps the pseudo space that existed before the BB contains expanding particles that are so spread so far apart that they have little gravity or energy. Perhaps as pseudo space is converted into real space (in which that the matter in our universe expands uniformly to occupy) these particles accelerate away, leaving an empty volume for the matter in our universe to occupy. If the “nothing” before the BB contains expanding particles, then the “nothing” that existed before the BB may have properties than can correlate with our universe and our understanding of DE. If nothing existed before the BB, then why can’t we assume that nothingness works similarly to our universe. Even though the “nothing” that existed before and the “something” that exists now appear vastly different, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an underlying similarity. All spec.

I was going to quote you earlier, but now I’m just trying to write a reply without a quote and no matter what I do I can’t get rid of the text box for the quote. What if if space was not created at the moment of the BB? What if that space already existed, but the properties of that space were somehow gradually altered in a way that allowed matter to disperse uniformly within it? In other words uninhabitable space becomes inhabitable space over time. Space as we know it could be being created from our perspective, but in actuality it is created by an alteration of “nothing” which has properties. Could whatever that had existed before the Big Bang have properties? I know it’s speculative but I’m just throwing ideas out there. Could the “nothing” that existed before the BB have curvature? Perhaps the high concentration of matter at the start of the BB caused a great warp of “nothing”. Perhaps as time went on and more “nothing” formed space, the matter dispersed uniformly into the inhabitable space, and the decreasing conc. of matter caused the curvature of “nothing” to be reduced. Could this speculation be plausible? I don’t like to think as anything as being created or destroyed. I like to think that the space we inhabit is just altered form of something that existed before. I know that what I like to think isn’t relevant in the world of science, but regardless I find my speculations worth sharing.

Here’s a fun thought experiment. Take a balloon and draw a bunch of dots on it, then blow it up. The dots on the surface balloon will expand away from each other as the surface of the balloon inflates. There is no center of the expansion relative to the dots on the surface, and there is no boundary on the surface of the balloon (that represents spacetime) Now take another balloon of equal size and draw the same number of dots on its surface. Then put the first balloon inside of it. Then blow them up at the same time. The balloon on the outside will have a greater surface area compared to balloon on the inside, and the dots on its surface would be spread further apart. So if two universes with equal mass (represented by the same number of dots on the surfaces of the balloons) both expand with one inside the other, then the universe on the outside will always be more expansive compared to the universe on the inside. If amount of matter in these two universes are the same, then the concentration of matter in the exterior universe will always be lower than that of the interior. Perhaps the universe on the inside expands towards the surrounding universe because of the movement of matter from high to low concentration. If there were an infinite series of universes all with the same amount of matter, then perhaps this flow from high conc to low conc would accelerate the expansion of all the universes in this system. Perhaps nothing exists outside our universe, but outside that nothing there is another universe (possibly in a higher dimension) that effects ours despite the fact that the two universes will never come into direct contact. Of course this is all nothing but wild speculation, but it’s interesting to think about. We will never observe the properties of what existed outside/before the BB, so we have no choice but to speculate without observational data.

Well maybe the model of our universe doesn’t necessarily have to change, but we could create a model of what surrounds our universe that helps to explain dark energy. If our surroundings had a decreasing concentration of particles, and our universe that expands from a BB has a higher concentration than its surroundings, then is it impossible ,in this hypothetical scenario, that the matter that expands from the BB expands due to the movement of particles from high a concentration to low concentration? I don’t have hard evidence to prove this possibility, but is there hard evidence saying that this possibilitity cannot exist?

From our perspective it appears that time remains constant and distant galaxies expand at an accelerating rate. There is no need to ignore the observational data or disregard our working mathematical models. As I stated in my speculation, the space that surrounds our universe is cold and has lower gravity. In order to be consistent with my theory that space would experience time faster due to its low gravity in comparison to our expanding energy field. Imagine an observer watching our expanding field of energy from those surroundings. Perhaps from the perspective of that observer, the expanding energy would not accelerate, but radiate at fixed rate while it accelerated in time. What im trying to say is from our perspective time moves at a constant rate and the expansion of space accelerates, but from an outsiders perspective the expansion is constant and the rate of time accelerates. Could this blizarre relationship be possible? I’m saying that particles move in the direction from hot to cold. Particles also move from a point of of high concentration to that of a low concentration. For example, the particles condensed into a “singularity” at that the start of the BB exapnded outwards into an area of lower concentration. The initial “singularity” must have warped space time a lot due to its high concentration of matter. As the matter spreaded out from the singularity into the universe that we see today, the curviture diminished. If gravity increases as the curvature of space increases, then gravity decreases as the universe expands. As gravity or the curvature of space time increases, the rate of time that passes by decreases relative to an outside observer. For example, If you watched a person fall towards an event horizon they would appear to decelerate in time and never cross it. But from the perspective of the person falling in, they would experience time as they normally would and continue to fall towards the singularity. Now if the curvature of space decreases in our universe, then a person within our universe would appear to accelerate in time from the perspective of an outside observer. But from the perspective of the person within that expanding universe, they would experience time at a fixed rate. The person within that universe could write laws of physics that use time as a constant and they would work perfectly for him/her. This person could be unaware that the rate of time of his universe is accelerating from the perspective of an observer that existed in the space that surrounded the expanding universe.

The flow from highly concentrated mass to less concentrated mass. The flow from hot to cold. The flow from extremely warped space to less warped space. The flow of time from slow to fast. That’s the best way I could describe the “gradient” at the moment. If we took our existing models of the universe, and changed them so that the expansion of space is constant and that the rate of time is increasing, would the outcome be different? I’m no mathmitican, I would have to find a partner to help me prove my theory. Can’t one of you guys use our current mathematical models to prove me wrong? I’ll try to take a crack at the math when I find a partner but I obviously don’t have any models ready.