bogie

Thanks. I am keeping my mind open to QFT, and metrics are always part of progress and change in the scientific community. I understand your role as a resident expert is to help with the metrics, and that role doesn't require you to engage me by contributing to topics like mine. However, I'm sure you can discuss various topics without applying your resident expert status, so look at the evidence presented by the heat map of the universe, and participate in the discussion of ideas if you want. There is a lot to learn about science from research into existing science that is not yet a consensus, but that uses known evidence to point to preconditions to our big bang; things that there are plenty of metrics from the scientific community to support. For example there are well documented observations and data that could be said to contradict the generally accepted model which predicts a homogeneous background emitted from the surface of last scattering. The hemispherical anisotropy observed by WMAP and Planck is significant and begs for a rethinking of the standard cosmology, which many professional scientists are engaged in doing. Look at what is needed to make those observations directly connected to a single Big Bang event. On the other hand, look how simple the explanation becomes if you predict a multiple Big Bang landscape that features the convergence of Big Bang arena waves to produce our own Big Bang arena wave. If there are multiple Big Bang waves across a potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe, one could expect the hemispherical and angular anisotropy that we observe in the CMB. I call the operative process Big Bang Arena Action, the macro level counterpart to quantum action that I use to describe wave-particles.

I was going to pick up on the comments in post #73, about what the CMBR of our observable universe would logically look like if my hypothesis about two parent Big Bang arenas converging as preconditions to our Big Bang event. It is about the observed hemispherical anisotropy. Preconditions, in this case are part of the potentially infinite past, where a history of Big Bang arenas would cause angular anisotropy which we observe in the WMAP and Planck sky surveys.

I noticed that his thread evolved from an interesting QFT discussion that ended at around post #41, where we had reached a point of talking about different cosmological models; Mordred obviously spent some years studying cosmology and seemingly preferred the "something from nothing" model which he referred to as the free lunch. I expressed my preference for a universe that had always existed. Often, cosmology enthusiasts who have made a personal choice between those two types of models will find their ways parting, as ours did. All of the content after that was from me, and featured my views about my preferred model. I posted a lot of content with a variety of ideas that are consistent with the always existed, wave energy density model. I left off temporally, after feeling guilty about the soliloquy, and started a new thread about my ISU model. That met with a fate that some alternative speculative ideas come to; there is not any extraordinary evidence, and any steps toward quantification are certainly open to dispute as to if there is really any quantification there or not. That thread got shelved, with the acknowledgement that if I come up with a model, presumably with math, I can request that the thread be reopened. This thread remains open for now, and contains many ideas about a universe that has always existed, and that is composed of nothing but wave energy, as opposed to Mordred's referenced symmetry breaking model where the standard particle model is invoked after an initial event (Big Bang) produced matter and anti-matter, and where there remains a preponderance of matter. I'll pick up where I left off, always aware that the thread could come to an abrupt end when the world gets hit by a huge asteroid, or by some less cataclysmic fate.

Thanks for the quick response. If the discussion is to be about measurement, I told you early that I don't have any extraordinary evidence. If there is any merit to my model, other than the fact that I can pump out word salad, then it has to be quantified. As for my model predicting 96%, not a chance. But as for making predictions, and explaining observations, I do like to think it is significant that my model so easily addresses hemispherical anisotropy, without having to resort of our local group of galaxies speeding at breakneck speed toward some great attractor, which is itself in question. Don't you think that the convergence of two or more expanding Big Bang arenas is reasonable? There are the other cosmological issues addressed that are interesting and consistent with my action processes that you would run across if you looked. I do have a good post or two on dark energy that includes the idea that there is a "force" of wave energy density equalization. As our arena expands, the space it is expanding into contains cooling and expanding remnants of the parent arenas, which logically are still expanding into their own parent arenas farther out. So the conclusion is that the wave energy density of the space our arena is expanding into, is itself declining in density, which would account for the accelerating rate of expansion. I have heard that joke. I understand your position, and it is on me to contribute to the next step of quantification, so I will be contemplating it.

I can and did. I described, from the perspective of my model, how relative motion could add a quantum, or more appropriately multiple quanta, to the complex standing wave pattern that represents the presence of a wave-particle. I gave real examples. Do you refute them? So you are saying I can't explain what I already did. Quantification of a very alternative model, that address many issues, is going to be a slow process, and people shouldn't be impatient. I would have liked to be working with you, and am fine with you being neutral, but you are clear about giving me the impression that you are being a headwind. However, progress is being made just in the fact that you now acknowledge that there is a vast difference in scale in my model vs what you are familiar with. My model is about a level of order below the level of the standard particle model, and you now realize that. BTW, I don't want to let slip past, the fact that in my last post I pointed out that my model does address the vast amount of unexplained energy in the universe; the figure is 96% of the mass of the universe, and the issue is that it is unaccounted for. My explanation is that there is a huge amount of unaccounted for energy in space in the form of light and gravitational wave energy, not to mention the wave energy in the composition of the oscillating background which equates to the idea of quantum foam. Note that I gave examples to support the idea that space is filled with light and gravitational wave energy. Do you want to take a position on that? Look here: http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html It is in line with the equivalence principle I mentioned this morning. Something that did slip by; you might recall that few a days ago I offered an explanation for the hemispherical anisotropy in post #31 that was interesting: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104555-introduction-to-the-infinite-spongy-universe/?p=982531. "There is motion of the the earth, as part of the solar system, that affects the local wave energy density of clocks on earth, and motion of the entire solar system that affects the wave energy density of the entire solar system relative to the galaxy. There is even relative motion between galaxies that could come into play also. Some scientists attribute the hemispherical anisotropy detected by WMAP and Planck sky surveys to the fact that our local group of galaxies is "speeding" toward some great attractor or great accumulation of galactic structure. My model attributes the hemispherical anisotropy to the speculation that our Big Bang arena had preconditions that involved the intersection and overlap of two "parent" Big Bang arenas, each with a somewhat different level of wave energy density, as could be evidenced by their potentially different cosmic microwave background temperatures before they converged. Mix those two different backgrounds and I speculate that you would get hemispherical anisotropy in our background." Interesting concept, and the explanation is internally consistent with the action process I describe. Add that to the number of cosmological issuers my model addresses, and the circumstantial evidence grows. Ignoring a growing list of the cosmological questions that my model addresses is fine, but if you wave off my individual points, you are never seeing a growing body of ideas that my model supports, and offers wave energy mechanics to explain. I point out that the explanations are all internally consistent, and not inconsistent with observations and data, as far as I know. So though one might conclude that my progress toward quantification is slow, a reasonable person would see there is effort that only started here a few days ago, and might also agree that the ideas that my model contains do address many issues in modern cosmology, making it worth a look. I'll keep working on quantification as long as you allow it. You'll have it your way in the end.

I never used the term "quantum of action", and you were careless to equate the term with the processes of quantum action. I forgive your confusion because my model is quite Alternative. Since you get the point about the vast difference in scale between our models, there is another point to mention here about what my figure represents. Not just the difference between quanta in my model vs. "quanta of action" in an electron or proton, and maybe more importantly in a photon. Also the point is that within the finite Planck space occupied by one particle in the standard model, there are hundreds of thousands, even hundreds of billions of quanta in my model. The explanation involves the acknowledgement that when particles move relative to each other, they are moving through the existing background wave energy. 1) The amount of energy in any finite patch of existing background wave energy can be equated to an equivalent number of quanta, and there is a huge amount of energy in what some might think of as empty space. There is no empty space in my model, and the huge preponderance of the energy in our Big Bang arena is in the form of quanta in the space between particles and objects. The energy in space in the ISU is composed three parts, the foundational oscillating background that is defined as "otherwise waveless", the light and gravitational wave energy traversing the space between particles, which are the light and gravity waves traversing the "otherwise waveless" oscillating background, and the wave energy contained in the standing wave patterns of wave-particles and objects, which is where the numbers of quanta in an electron (381,239,356), and in a proton (699,955,457,517) at rest enter the picture of the energy in space. 2) A simile is that particles moving through the existing local wave energy density is similar to particles moving through the CMB. However, it is not exactly the same. I have described what the oscillating wave energy background is, what it is composed of, the mechanics of how it works, and why it is of significance in my model. Motion through the CMB increases the local temperature of the moving particle. That increase in temperature equates to an increase in relative mass within the particle space between it and a rest particle. It is akin to when a particle in an accelerator gains mass relative to a rest position.

You have twice mentioned "quantum of action". I have been long familiar with the term, and you are not understanding my model if you equate the quantum of action to a quantum in my model. The quantum of action is very basic to QM, and has a precise definition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant You know that though, do you not? It is not the same thing as a quantum in my model. I hope you can tell that the micro level quantum in my model is a bit tinier than the Planck constant. Would you mind acknowledging that you understand that. If you see the difference, then when I answer your question, "What would it mean to change the quanta of action by 1 in an electron or proton?", I will know that you get the vast difference in scale.

I watched and listened and liked.

Let's step through this. The estimate of the number of quanta in a wave-particle in my model is being compared to something we can measure, if you agree with the equivalence between mass and energy. Look here: https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/r/rest-energy.htm"Based on relativity theory, it is concluded that an equivalence relation exists between mass and energy. The energy is equal to the product of mass and the square of light velocity: E = mc2. The rest energy E0 is also the energy equivalent of a resting, i.e. immobile particle. Therefore, the rest energy of a proton for example is 938.257 MeV. The rest energy of 1 g mass is about 2.5·107 kWh. If you agree generally that 938.257 MeV is a reasonable figure for the rest energy of the proton, my ball park estimate of the numbers of quanta would be divided into the rest energy, to get the energy of a quantum at the level where quantum action plays out in my model (938.257 / 700,000,000,000 MeV). That tiny amount of energy represents the quantum, and the mass of a particle is the sum of the quanta that make up its complex standing wave pattern. That is a comparison with something we can measure.

It will take some time to address that part of your post, which I have started to work on. QWC was my a designation of my earlier model. After it had evolved, I had gone back to the drawing board, and what I called the model changed. BTW, brain-in-a-vat was accidentally a duplicate registration. I pointed that out some time ago, and the direction I got was to stop using it, and stick with my original registration, as "Bogie"

In regard to starting the process of quantification, you commented that (obviously) an equation would help. I had already presented my basic equation and linked to it here: I followed your lead, and I went on with beginning steps of quantification by detailing a ball park figure for the number of quanta in rest particles, given the description of wave-particles and quanta in my speculative model. At this point we are agreeing that by equating my definition of the number of quanta in wave-particles at rest, to your view of the energy of a proton and electron (you representing the scientific community here), is not a test of scientific validity of the equation, in the context of what would be expected if it was presented as theory, and if there were predictions and proposed tests that could be falsified. Never the less, the equation is valid in regard to math, and has my accompanying logic. My follow up use of other simple and common equations returns ball park figures that are useful in the process of quantification; they put into perspective how tiny a quantum is in the quantum action process of the model. That is a step toward quantification. Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356 Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517 Moving along, there is a quantum associated with both action process. The arena action process invokes a quantum of energy equal the the energy in the hot, dense, ball of expanding energy, referred to as an arena wave, that emerges from a Big Bang, and so in a multiple Big Bang arena model like the ISU, quantification at the macro level logically begins with the Big Bang itself, the energy of which is the quantum at the level of the landscape of the greater universe.

No.

The rest energy of the electron and the proton.