bogie

I can distinguish between them, but not to the standards that I failed to read before I posted the thread. The wave-particle structure isn't a stand alone speculation. It comes along with a whole set of axioms, hypotheses, and speculations, about a wave energy density model of the universe. Imagine trying to explain that here, under the demands for math, evidence, and predictions that live up to the standards of a scientific paper.

I see the similarities, but there are differences too. I don't think I will be allowed to get away with a discussion, since the trash bin is pending :shrug:.

It is the same in QCD, particles are field excitations. The paper is interesting and thanks for the link.

Oh, I didn't see those rules, sorry. To the trash with it.

Give me the reason, because it seems like you think I am not already familiar, and if I am, tell me the reason for reading them again. Speculation lends itself to the heuristic approach, doesn't it? Maybe you can help me with the rules too. First, what am I obligated to by the rules, becauese for the Speculations sub-forums, they say this: Rules: The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory. Have fun. End of rules. Evidence is the results of the various single particle double slit experiments where the interference pattern developes after many particles. I gave an explanation of why the interference pattern forms from the perspective of the speculative nature of the wave-particle. Are there other rules I am expected to abide by? Taking a look at wave-particle duality form the alternative view that the wave-particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time, not the two traits in superposition. In this speculation, photons and other particles are described as wave-particles that can display both their wave and their particle nature at the same time. Yikes, I know. I am characterizing the photon wave-particle to have the particle portion (dense wave energy core) at the center of the particle space, surrounded by the wave portion which is a spherically out flow of wave energy form the dense core. This particle structure applies to particles that cause a wave interference pattern in single particle two slit experiments, including the delayed choice quantum erasure experiments like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment_of_Kim_et_al._.282000.29 This particular particle structure, if the speculation is true, makes understanding what is going on in the single particle two slit experiment a simple matter of the wave portion going through both slits, and interfering with the path of the core portion which goes through one or the other of the two slits. Some may think I am talking pilot wave theory, but I'm not and may differentiate between the two later. It means that in the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment, there will always be an interference pattern developed on the detector after multiple single particles are sent through, if there is a path to that detector from both slits, as is the case with D1 and D2 in this image of the Kim et al setup: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg The article pointed out the there is always an interference pattern at D1 and D2, but never at D3 and D4. Isn't the reason for that simple, if the photon is a wave-particle, i.e., a wave and a particle at the same time, as I speculate? Here's the Kim et al team comment: If an idler photon is recorded at detector D3, it can only have come from slit B. If an idler photon is recorded at detector D4, it can only have come from slit A. If an idler photon is detected at detector D1 or D2, it might have come from slit A or slit B. Wouldn't you always get an interference pattern on the screen if the particle portion of the wave-particle went through either A or B, but the wave portion of the wave particle went through both A and B, creating the interference? In the Kim et al. setup, that is exactly what the red and the blue paths show; if you have a red and blue path to the detector, you get interference on the screen pattern because you have wave energy reaching both D1 and D2 from each slit. You get no interference on D3 and D4 because those detectors never get wave energy from both slits, they always only get the wave energy that comes through the same slit as the particle comes through. The wave-particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time, and that explains how a single particle two slit experiment can produce the wave interference pattern on the detect or screen. Maybe so. Can you trim down the 32 pages to the part that explanings it as an all-fields solution, or do I have to read the whole thing, and still be left with my speculation that I already can envision how it works and is predictive? Give me a setup for a single particle two slit experiment, with or without the delayed choice, and I can predict if and where there will be an interference pattern on a detector and where there won't. My speculation is simple and better, IMHO. I still interested in if there are more extensive rules than what I quoted?

You sound like the Strange from CosmoQuest; small world. You are saying that I am retrofitting an explanation to things already know[n]? What did I say that is already known; can you quote the part of my post that your are referring to as retrofitting, and what exactly are you claiming that is known that I am retrofitting?

Wave-Particle Speculation Speculation: Particles have both a wave nature which is out flowing waves (the wave portion) and a particle nature (the dense core), making them wave-particles. Individual wave-particles can display both their wave and particle nature at that same time in single particle two slit experiments. In the single particle two slit experiments, there is a wave pattern that forms on the screen after many single particles are sent through the slits, giving some evidence that both the wave portion and the particle core portion of the wave-particle are both in evidence in the space between the slits and the screen. Explanation: The wave portion of the wave-particle goes through both slits, and the particle portion goes through one or the other. The wave interference pattern is caused as the out flowing wave energy from the particle core passes through both slits. The interference pattern has peaks and valleys of wave energy density which influence the path of the particle between the slits and the detector.

Yes, correct. I see the difference. It brings to mind the peculiar velocity, doesn't it?

Gravity lensing makes it possible to see multiple images of the same object. It also can magnify the object. This graphic is exagerated to show the magnifying affect; the link describes it.

And Rog came back with:

To relate what Rog replied from another board:

Let's revisit the earlier premise about whether space exists outside the big bang or not. On another board, Rog posted:

Wait and see is pretty weak as a test for a greater universe I guess' date=' but let me run another thought by you. It has to do with the density of the known universe and the balance between the density of matter in the universe with the density of vacuum energy. If there is no such thing as vacuum energy, then the matter energy of the universe equals one. If there is vacuum energy then the sum of the matter energy and vacuum energy equals one and each of the two components make up a percentage of the total. "The recent matter density ΩM and vacuum energy density ΩL for current data from supernovae (Knop et al. 2003), cluster measurements (based on Allen et al. 2003), and CMB data with H_0 priors (outer contours: Lange et al. 2001, inner: Spergel et al. 2003). These results rule out a simple flat ΩM=1, ΩL=0 cosmology, and indeed the supernovae data rule out cosmologies without vacuum energy. Their consistent overlap is a strong indicator for dark energy dominating the universe with some 70% of the energy density. Also shown is the expected confidence region from just the SNAP supernova program, for ΩM=0.28, ΩL=0.72." Now science is thinking that this "dark" energy exists within the known universe and is offsetting, in fact more that offsetting the force of gravity in the known universe, resulting in the acceleration of the expansion. The SNAP project, if it gets funded, will be able to more accurately measure the rate of expansion of the universe and will provide a wealth of new information about "dark" energy. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the "dark" energy is now being suggested as 1) the reason why galaxies aren't collapsing faster, and 2) at the same time it is the reason why the known universe is expanding faster (accelerating). [Edit] Actually the question with galaxies might be why they aren't flying apart faster due to their rotational energy. The answer to that question would be the negative pressure caused by the outward rotation as matter is displaced away from the center of the galaixes. This negative pressure or "dark energy" would slow the outward movement. They think that "dark" energy within the known universe causes the expansion of the known universe to accelerate and a "dark matter" effect slows the outward expansion of galaxies. Makes sense doesn't it? I think that the dark matter and dark energy are one in the same. Dark energy outside the expansion, or inside the expansion would have the same effect as dark matter. It is just that the operative force of dark energy is negative pressure, and the operative force of dark matter is gravity. My thinking is that the cause of both the slowing the expansion or the collapse of galaxies and the acceleration of the expansion of the known universe is in fact due to this "dark" energy (the negative pressure of vacuum energy is the same as dark energy), but the cause of the "dark" energy is the displacement of matter energy, not some fixed mix of the two. I suggest that displacement of matter energy due to the relativistic curvature of space and the resulting attraction of bodies in space leaves "dark" energy or call it vacuum energy or negative pressure in the area from which the body was displaced. If my thinking is correct, the slowing of the collapse of galaxies is due to vacuum energy (negative pressure) caused by the inward displacement of the in-swirling (or just accumulation toward the center) matter energy in the galaxy. If so, the resulting negative pressure due to displacement would slow the collapse. Also, if my thinking is correct, the acceleration of the expansion of the known universe is caused by this same kind of negative pressure that was caused by the accumulation (inward displacement of matter energy) of a big crunch that might have preceded the Big Bang. If my thinking is correct, then there is a greater universe within which there was a big crunch that lead to our big bang, and the formation of that big crunch left negative pressure (vacuum energy) as it accumulated. Our known universe is now expanding back into the area (call it an arena) from which it was accumulated, and the vacuum energy that was caused by the earlier inward crunch (inward displacement) is now the cause of the acceleration in the expansion that has recently been noticed. Do you see the subtle difference between "dark" energy existing within the known universe, and "dark" energy existing outside the known universe? Do you at the same time see the subtle difference between "dark" energy existing within a collapsing galaxy, and "dark" energy existing outside of a collapsing galaxy? Now to add to the confusion , as the known universe expands, matter energy is being displaced outward, and that displacement is causing "dark" energy within the expansion. The only difference is that "dark" energy within the expansion is growing and will eventually offset the negative pressure of the "dark" energy outside, and the expansion will begin to slow. Thus, another test of a greater universe would be the acceleration of the expansion while the outside "dark" energy was greater than the inside "dark" energy (like now), and then the gradual slowing of the expansion as the inside "dark" energy grows and the outside dark energy gets "used up" (the prediction). Unfortunately again it is a "wait and see" test, though it should occur before the predicted merging and mingling predicted earlier.

I guess the answer to the question posed in the OP (Could there be a greater universe outside our known universe) is, it depends. If you believe in the view that spacetime is being created as the universe expands, then there was and is no spacetime before or beyond the Big Bang, and the answer to the question is no. If you believe that the curvature of spacetime that makes it impossible to determine if there is an outside universe, then the answer to the question is you don't know. That is where I am. I don't know. I don’t think we can know until new evidence is uncovered. The test of any theory that posits a greater universe as opposed to an endlessly expanding known universe lies in the eventual outcome. Do we expand and create spacetime until the universe suffers complete entropy where all useful energy has been spent, or do we expand until the known universe encounters the matter/energy of the posited outside universe. Such an encounter would be cataclysmic as our galaxies merged and mingled with the older colder objects that would likely occupy a greater universe capable of generating our known universe from its constituents; maybe an outside universe spatially infinite and infinite in matter/energy. Such cataclysms would create bursts of gamma rays and cosmic rays which would be clues to the encounter. The signature of those bursts, their frequency, and their widely dispersed direction may eventually give scientists the clues they need to confirm the existence of an outside universe. So if there is an outside universe the proof would be in the encounter between our known universe and the fringes of that greater universe. We just have to wait and see I guess. Could "wait and see" be considered enough to make a theory that posits a greater universe testable?

This is speculation and I thought if I posted it here someone might let me know that it has been examined and rejected, or why it can’t be true because … I have read some of the forums and there are quite a few posters who are knowledgeable in the areas that I am speculating about, and I am hoping to find someone who is willing to be helpful. You can refer to me as a fringe character because I have no credentials, no formal training in science, and only internet exposure about physics and cosmology gained over the past two or three years. My imagination often gets me thinking about why can’t things be “such and such” a way, and if they were, wouldn’t “something that I can imagine” follow from that. Clearly we are in an expanding known universe, and recent evidence shows that the rate of expansion seems to be accelerating. The expansion is consistently the same no matter where we look, and everything is receding in such a way that there appears to be no center or leading surface or edge to the known universe. I have read about why this is the case and the standard cosmology seems to represent this effect as being the result of the idea that as the known universe expands, it is making its own spacetime as it goes (the raisin bread rising in the oven analogy). Therefore, and in accord with general relativity and the cosmological principle, the curvature of the known universe, whether open or closed (probably open), curves the light traveling to us from all directions so there is really no “straight” line of sight. I am thinking that the exact same thing would happen if, instead of the universe creating spacetime as it expands, it was expanding into a much less dense space surrounding the known universe. Spacetime would be just about as curved as if it was creating spacetime as it goes, and there would still be no detectible center or edge or surface of expansion due to the relativistic curvature of spacetime. The expansion into a less dense space, meaning substantially empty space, would still provide an environment where the curvature of the known universe would not be interfered with from the surrounding outside area, and light coming to us from within the known universe would be curved just the same. If this is the case, I can imagine a greater universe out there that our known universe is expanding within. Other thoughts come to mind that I would like to speculate about here if this idea is not already proven to be wrong or calculated to be impossible. Can someone help me understand if my idea is acceptable or not even though it can’t be proven, or even tested, i.e. is anyone likely to be interested in talking about it? I wouldn't mind vetting my ideas by PM with anyone who would be willing to give them a "once" over before I post them in a forum.