Wave-Particle Speculation

[Mordred]

use latex as full word instead of tex.

[Phi for All]

use latex as full word instead of tex.

 

!

Moderator Note

Edited.

[bogie]

use latex as full word instead of tex.

Thanks for the help, and the edit. This might wrap up the thread, though I am taking in a lot of the info you have provided, and am gaining a tiny amount of ground. I didn't get into the quantum gravity idea, except to mention it, but it would be the same type of word salad, and speculated processes. The thing going for it is that the action processes, quantum action and arena action, are strikingly similar, and they are how I bridge the gap between GR and QM. Of course, the QM is an unknown version.

 

It was interesting seeing how the Pseudoscience sub-forum works here, and I like it. My situation is that I'm enthusiastic about getting a better understanding of the language of math, and thus being able to converse on questions I have about the mechanics that the math describes. My verbal pictures and simple graphics are pretty lame to those who have done the rigor. But I'm not an advocate of seeing my ideas liked, and I'm happy watching science unfold. When it does I can silently appreciate it when I have something right, and can keep quiet when I'm proved wrong, lol.

Edited February 13, 2017 by bogie

[bogie]

Things are quiet this morning so I thought I would post a few images on my wave interference setup from 2013:

This is my laser level pointing at two small slits I cut in the lid of a McDonald's cup. The brown tape on the lid was used to cover one of the slits to get the single slit image (posted earlier).

 

I wanted to use a black screen, so I used the cover of Q is for Quantum . I think that is the best image I got, but have been thinking of getting some good mirrors, making better slits, and maybe adding a splitter for some variations, to see if I can do a better job.

 

Never-the-less, the interference pattern is clear enough to show where the core portion of the wave-particles are grouped. My speculation is that in the single particle experiments, the core passing through one slit skews the distribution toward the center of the pattern because of the greater energy that accompanies the whole wave-particle, core and wave, as it passes through vs just the wave front passing through the other slit.

Edited February 13, 2017 by bogie

[bogie]

This post is about how the wave-particle structure of my model works with a simple quantum gravity idea. The quantum action process that establishes and maintains the presence and motion of particles and objects has a common phenomenon taking place throughout. That phenomenon is the formation of high energy density spots at the convergences of two or more "parent" quantum waves. The equation I posted earlier is supposed to represent quantum action, and when the energy accumulated at the convergence of two or more quantum waves equals a quantum itself, a new spherically expanding quantum wave emerges from the overlap space. Here is a rough depiction of the formation of one such high energy density spot within the core of a wave-particle:

 

 

 

This graphic depicts the simple concept of a wave-particle with a dense core of wave energy and high energy density convergences, surrounded by spherically outflowing wave energy.

 

 

 

The spherically outflowing wave energy is continually replaced by inflowing wave energy from distant objects, making the particle space similar to a standing wave pattern with a huge number of internal waves and high energy density spots.

 

 

 

A particle or object in motion always has a net directional wave energy density inflow which governs its path. More high energy density spots form in that direction because there are more wave convergences in the space surrounding the particle or object in that direction.

 

 

 

The location of the particle is established by the presence of the high energy density spots at the wave convergences within the particle space. At any instant, there are new spots forming in the direction of the net highest wave energy density inflow, and old spots expand and diminish in the space away from the maximum inflow.

 

 

Quantum Gravity is the motion caused by the quantum action described, within and surrounding particles and objects in motion.

Edited February 14, 2017 by bogie

[bogie]

I started the thread with the Kim et al single particle, delayed choice experiment and showed how the strangeness that was sometimes attributed to the outcomes wasn't strange at all, if you considered the wave-particle being both wave and particle at the same time.

 

Now, in the interest continuing the topic of speculations about wave-particles having both a wave portion and a particle-like portion at the same time, there is this recent article I found mentioned on Twitter, linked to the 2/7/2017 article in QuantaMagazine: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20170207-bell-test-quantum-loophole/

 

They used starlight to set the angles of measurement, and as a result, they pushed back the "choice" timeline by about 600 years. That could eventually backtrack all the way to the Big Bang, and if so, after all of these years, we find that we may be able view the universe as Einstein wanted us to, local and real.

 

In place of the "unavoidable non-locality" attributed to Bell's inequalities experiments that were said to eliminate all hidden variable theories, we only need to start thinking of there being slightly less freedom of choice under various wave energy density conditions of the distant past, such as big crunches and big bangs. That would seem to fit nicely with the "preconditions" to the Big Bang that are central to my model.

 

The article says most scientists favor entanglement, and with it freedom, instead of something preordained and boring. For us it seems like kind of a win-win, Friedman said. Either we close the [choice] loophole more and more, and were more confident in quantum theory, or we see something that could point toward new physics.

Edited February 16, 2017 by bogie

[bogie]

I've been looking at the EPR Paradox and Bell's Theorem, from the perspective of my wave-particle speculations.

 

There are a few issues that quantum mechanics doesn't address, that the wave-particle speculation does. For example, QM doesn't address how the particle can pass through two slits, except to say that all possible paths might include a "curve back and go around again through the other slit" as being a legitimate path. The original post in this thread was about how the wave-particle manages to go through both silts and cause an interference pattern, eliminating all of those exotic swirling curved paths.

 

In addition, part of the implication of the delayed choice experiments in the QM archive of articles is that the past can be altered, which doesn't have to be a consideration when the results take into consideration the wave-particle speculation that says the wave nature and the particle nature are present at all times.

 

I am on record elsewhere agreeing with the uncertainty principle that there is always a certain amount of "fuzziness" involved in any measurement, but the wave-particle speculation gives a very logical explanation for never being able to resolve the measurement fuzziness. The explanation is in the way I explain how the particle moves by incorporating new high energy density convergences into the particle space in the direction of the net highest wave energy density source, while leaving behind the trailing high energy density spots of an instant past. The spots that make up the particle's location are changing every instant, and so a measurement that takes some duration to accomplish will always be fuzzy.

 

Please note that QM doesn't give any explanation for the fuzziness, while the wave-particle speculation in my model talks about the wave mechanics involved that produce high energy density spots, and how the mass of the particle is quantum in regard to the number of spots within the particle space, and how the presence of the particle, its location, is determined by the changing pattern of high energy density spots within the particle space as the directional inflow and spherical out flow of wave energy continually play out.

 

The above omissions of quantum theory are stated as a matter of fact, which supports what some people say, that QM is an incomplete theory, but it also points out that there isn't anything wrong with QM as it stands, at all, other than it doesn't explain the observations.

 

All of that is what brings me to look closer at the two Bell theories from a wave-particle perspective. The Bell theories of 1964 and 1966 revealed von Neumann's error in regard to locality vs. non-locality, and resulted in the conclusion that competing theories can be invented that could actually be put to the test. That is what gave rise to all of the different Bell tests that together have all but put to rest the possibility of an objective reality that would have suited Einstein, and have added to the opinion that maybe no such reality exists.

 

I am wondering if the wave-particle speculations, if applied to the probabilities associated with classical mechanics, would change the upper limits that are otherwise violated in the Bell experiments, and bring new life to objective reality.

Edited February 19, 2017 by bogie

[Strange]

For example, QM doesn't address how the particle can pass through two slits,

 

 

Of course it does.

[bogie]

Of course it does.

There are many interpretations of QM, some of which do offer explanations for how the particles can pass through both slits. The second half of the sentence that you quoted from my post offered one such interpretation, and pilot wave theory, which I mentioned earlier, is another interpretation that addresses the subject. The interpretations themselves are derived from the postulates, of course, but the postulates themselves do not offer explanations for observations.

[Strange]

There are many interpretations of QM, some of which do offer explanations for how the particles can pass through both slits. The second half of the sentence that you quoted from my post offered one such interpretation, and pilot wave theory, which I mentioned earlier, is another interpretation that addresses the subject. The interpretations themselves are derived from the postulates, of course, but the postulates themselves do not offer explanations for observations.

 

 

As the interpretations are informal descriptions of what the mathematical theory says, then the theory must also include the explanation. (Which, of course, it does. How else could the theory have predicted what would happen?)

[bogie]

As the interpretations are informal descriptions of what the mathematical theory says, then the theory must also include the explanation.

Do you mean that QM does give explanations for observations, or do you mean that there are mathematics at the heart of QM that deal with probabilities and not the cause and effect? The "cause and effect" are not part of QM, but the probabilities based on randomness can be described mathematically. If you don't agree I would prefer not get into that disagreement on my thread. I do think that in post #57 I addressed the question you placed in parentheses...

(... How else could the theory have predicted what would happen?)

I said:

...

I am wondering if the wave-particle speculations, if applied to the probabilities associated with classical mechanics, would change the [predicted] upper limits that are otherwise violated in the Bell experiments, and bring new life to objective reality.

.

That is where I'm planning to take the thread right now, but I have some research to do to evaluate how a particle having both a wave nature and a particle nature at all times might change the classical predictions.

[Strange]

Do you mean that QM does give explanations for observations

 

 

Yes. How else could it work.

 

Of course, this only works for appropriate values of "explain". For example, there are people who say that GR does not "explain" gravity. Well, obviously it does. I guess what they mean is that it doesn't say what it "really" is. Well, of course not. No scientific theory says what anything "really is". Only metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and religion can (claim to) tell you what things "really" are.

[bogie]

Applying the wave-particle speculation to the Bell Theorem and Bell experiments might start with a closer look at the nature of the wave particle, and at the device that measures spin in some of the Bell experiments, the Stern-Gerlach apparatus.

 

In that interest, and as a very slow simple start to looking at the question, I am thinking about the measurement of spin and of what portion of the wave-particle was being measured by the specialized magnetic field of the device. Do both the wave portion and the core portion affect the measurement?

 

My thinking is that the core portion of the particle is likely to carry with it a magnetic field, because there is an inflow of energy associated with each high energy density wave convergence that forms, and an out flow from the location of the spot associated with the disbursal of energy from the overlap space, as the high energy density spot plays out. The speculation is that there are many such spots within the core space.

 

With those flows of wave energy, the wave outflow pattern from the core might be shaped by that magnetic field, changing it from the spherical nature I had been using (remember the Spherical Cow analogy?), into a more focused pattern with lines of force emanating from the core portions as the formation and disbursal of the spots play out in the oscillating wave energy background.

 

In effect, the high energy density convergences may function like tiny electromagnets. If so, the distribution of those spots throughout the particle space that serves as the location of the core portion, might have a net charge related to it.

 

Here is the image I posted earlier to show the way a wave-particle moves in the direction of the net highest wave energy source, and I am thinking about how to depict the changes to it that might be associated with it having a magnetic nature; a work in progress.

 

[bogie]

Work in progress: This is an updated image of the core portion of the wave-particle that I am using as I contemplate any speculative charge or magnetic field associated with the core.

 

 

[bogie]

Still speculating about the wave-particle of course:

Applying the wave-particle speculation to the Bell Theorem and Bell experiments might start with a closer look at the nature of the wave particle, and at the device that measures spin in some of the Bell experiments, the Stern-Gerlach apparatus.

 

In that interest, and as a very slow simple start to looking at the question, I am thinking about the measurement of spin and of what portion of the wave-particle was being measured by the specialized magnetic field of the device. Do both the wave portion and the core portion affect the measurement?

 

My thinking is that the core portion of the particle is likely to carry with it a magnetic field, because there is an inflow of energy associated with each high energy density wave convergence that forms, and an out flow from the location of the spot associated with the disbursal of energy from the overlap space, as the high energy density spot plays out. The speculation is that there are many such spots within the core space.

Considering the diagram in post #50 to be an example of the simplest quantum wave convergence, like those that are filling the core portion of the wave-particle''s space, you can see that the two spherical caps are separated by a plane that runs perpendicular to the axis of convergence. I'm thinking that there could be a magnetic field being produced, generally along that axis, during the formation of the high energy density spots. Given that the preponderance of the new quantum wave convergences would form in the forward region of the core portion, the particle's field would maintain its perpendicular orientation to the forward motion as it moves through the Stern-Gerlach device?

 

If so, I'm thinking every particle would measure either up or down, 50/50, for any given orientation of the apparatus. Then, if you block all the down measured particles along that axis, and retest the up particles, there might be some explanation for why they all remain up; I'll have to continue to contemplate that. Every time you change the orientation of measurement to measure at a different axis though, you go back to getting 50/50 up down.

[bogie]

I'm getting desperate, watching videos in German, since I don't know German, lol. But if you watch the whole whole video linked below, without sound, you will see that there is a lot you can take away from this. To me, it shows that the measurements, up or down, as particles passing through the Stern-Gerlach device, are decided by a fine line of distinction between the orientation of the particles magnetic field strength, vs the very fine balance of the magnetic field of the devices.

 

If you think of the wave-particle field always being oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion of the particle, but also having a slope relative to the perpendicular, caused by the individual particle imbalance in the distribution of the internal high energy density spots, then you could speculate the explanation for how particles that measure "up" in the first device, would also measure up in a second device with the exact same orientation to the direction of motion of the particle.

 

You would have to speculate that there is some repeatability to the slope because the momentary high energy density convergences have a pattern. The pattern persists, even though each spot is only momentary, because the wave/wave intersections that form the spots have only a certain number of adjacent quanta with which to intersect, and once a complex standing wave pattern is established, the speculation is that it has the characteristic of "persistence".

 

Up particles would consistently measure "up", and down particles would consistently measure down. But there is no "memory" involved, it is the physical orientation of the persistent high energy density spots within the core particle space. Change the axis of measurement, and it is a whole new ball game, with a randomness of the slope based on the distribution of the high energy density convergences on that new axis.

 

[bogie]

In post #57 I wondered if the wave-particle speculations, if applied to the probabilities associated with classical mechanics, would change the upper limits that are violated in the Bell experiments, and bring new life to objective reality.

 

Then in post #63 I concluded that the answer might not be that the nature of the wave-particle would change the upper limits of the expected probabilities, but instead, might mean that we don't completely understand the nature of wave-particle "spin". If we don't understand exactly the nature of spin, then our interpretation of what the "up/down" measurements by the Stern-Gerlach device are telling us about the particle might not be completely understood either.

 

I began contemplating the wave energy mechanics of the wave-particle in regard to what was actually being measured by the Stern-Gerlach apparatus. Generally, particles in motion are incorporating new convergences in the direction of motion, and "dropping off" convergences in the trailing direction. Based on that, given that the quantum wave convergences have a directional axis perpendicular to the plane separating the two converging waves, what I came up with was the idea that the wave-particle logically could have a magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of motion,

 

In accord with the speculation that there is a magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of motion, then it follows that that there might be a slope to that field force based on the internal distribution of the high energy density spots within the core particle space, which might differ for each individual particle. That is followed by the speculative idea that there is a persistency to that distribution within the core particle space that maintains the slope of the field for individual particles, relative to the axis of motion. If so, that could be an explanation for how all of the "up or down" spins might persist throughout subsequent measurements on the same axis.

[bogie]

If my speculations about the physical nature of the wave-particle aren't totally bogus, then I have something I can call on when I imagine an objective reality. (If there is no objective reality, and the only thing that is real is what goes on inside my head, then I have objective reality covered either way, lol)

 

So the direction these speculations are taking me is to wonder, as a rhetorical question, if there is any meaningful segment of the community that might welcome an objective reality? I'll do some research.

Edited February 27, 2017 by bogie

[bogie]

What comes to light in searching out a segment of the community that would welcome evidence supporting an objective local reality is that there are many people still uncomfortable with aspects of QM that relate to "spooky action at a distance". One side of the argument is that the universe doesn't consider how any group of people feels about reality, so If reality is a "spooky" non-locality, then humans have to accept it. Another side of the argument is that anything that seems spooky has natural local causes that we don't yet understand. That is the side of the argument where any physical reality of the wave-particle speculations would come into play.

 

Therefore, the wave-particle speculations that I am considering do have some support because they might explain away the "spookiness" by providing a physical alternative which can be embraced by the "objective reality" people. Not that they would be right, but that they would still have enough of a loophole to keep them in the game.

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/new-theory-explains-how-objective-reality-emerges-from-the-strange-underlying-quantum-world/

[bogie]

The concept of "persistence" has come up before in my speculations, but I didn't name it that until I related it to spin up and spin down persistence in this thread. Now that I can visualize how it affects the slope of the magnetic field generated by wave-particles, I think it is appropriate to mention my speculations about its greater role in the cosmology I have come to call the Wave Energy Density model of the universe.

 

There is a persistence connection between quantum action and arena action, the two major processes of the model. The connection stems from the nature of wave energy itself, of which everything is composed. Wave energy is the ultimate example of "persistence", and in the model it is infinite and perpetual.

 

The effect of persistence at the quantum level is that the temporary spots within the particle's standing wave pattern tend to re-form in the same general configuration because their inflowing wave energy component comes from the previous adjacent spots, and their out flowing wave energy component feeds subsequent spots that form adjacent to existing spots. This micro level process of quantum action has its similar counterpart at the macro level in that the arena landscape is perpetuated by the process of arena action.

 

The unique persistence of the configuration of quantum spots within the particle space has existed since the particle achieved stability early in the process of arena action (after the decay of the Big Bang energy ball).

 

Particles within the Big Bang arena are, for the most part, the product of the big crunch decay process. Thus the individual standing wave patterns, composed of a huge number of convergences, maintains its individual configuration of energy quanta distribution within the particle space. Thus persistence is a speculative explanation for the perpetuation of the slope of the particle's magnetic field that forms perpendicular to the axis of motion.

[bogie]

Wave-particle speculation has been the topic all the way through this thread. The Wave Energy Density model of the universe is unique among cosmologies because of the unique nature of particles it invokes, and the way they can be used to explain some of the generally accepted observations of physics.

 

For example, observations of wave interference in the various two slit experiments, especially the single particle delayed choice set-ups, where particles display both their wave nature and their particle nature at the same time. They also can be used to suggest a local solution to what other models have to resort to calling non-local or "spooky" action at a distance. If you consider the speculations about the persistence of the slope of the particle's magnetic field relative to a perpendicular to the axis of motion, you get a possible explanation for the observed always up/down behavior measured by the Stern-Gerlach apparatus.

 

Those observations and the associated explanations, given the speculated nature of the wave-particle, brings up the possibility of local hidden variable theories that might give some possible support for an objective local reality, as opposed to the spookiness of non-locality. With that perspective, the interpretations of the Bob and Alice scenarios that use spin as a determinant in the Bell experiments might require a change in the predicted limits produced by the Bell equations.

 

Those points, which have been brought up in the thread, are open for discussion, but beyond that, the wave-particle, and how it fits nicely into the Wave Energy Density model, leads me to contemplate it seriously, since it accommodates all of those points. I call that model the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU), and it could be said to be a flat spacetime model.

 

That contemplation leads to speculation about how local wave energy density could be construed to have the same effect that is quantified as the curvature of spacetime in General Relativity. In GR, matter tells spacetime how to curve, and the curvature of spacetime tells matter how to move. Given that relationship in GR, and since individual wave fronts are real, the curvature of spacetime equates to a linear distance in the wave energy model, with the caveat that it can take a variable amount of time on a benchmark at-rest clock to traverse the same linear distance, depending on the local wave energy density.

 

A case in point, in the wave energy model, the wave energy density would be greater near a massive object because of the elevated outflowing gravitational wave energy, slowing the relative velocity of an object traveling the space surrounding that massive object, causing its path to turn in toward the massive object. That is what we physically observe, in the ISU, I speculate it would happen, just as the GR spacetime geodesics would predict. Light from distant stars would bend as it is observed to do, but the explanation for its bending would be the changing wave energy density around the massive object instead of the bending of spacetime caused by the presence of the massive object.

 

Also, a notable ramification of the wave energy density model is that particles would function at a variable rate, just as wave-particles are predicted to do in the wave energy model. They are predicted to function slower as the local energy density increases, and faster as the local energy density decreases, i.e., the rate that clocks measure time is attributed to the differing wave energy density of the local space hosting the clocks. A case in point, if light and gravity traverse different local space environments, they would likely be measured at different velocities relative to the rest position. Then clocks would run slower when accelerated, and twins would age at different rates relative to a scenario that considers one twin to be at rest and the other in relative motion to the twin at rest, and that is what observations show.

[bogie]

Adding to my speculative comments about the variable rate that wave-particles function, I should make a distinction because many interactions are speeded up by applying heat energy, and so how do I reconcile that?

 

The question in some cases comes down to what affect heat transfer has on a local environment, vs. what effect acceleration has on the particles and on the local environment of the moving objects. I am taking relative motion. If you heat up a gas it expands, and all of the wave-particles within the container increase their relative motion and push against the container; they are accelerated relative to the container, but the expansion of the container itself is unremarkable, so the space within it remains essentially unchanged. On the other hand, if you accelerate the container, the local environment changes in a different way.

 

When the container of gas is accelerated, the wave-particles and the container become heavier relative to the rest environment, and the internal flow of wave energy that sustains their presence within the moving environment experiences a slightly longer duration of time delay at each intersection and wave convergence. So I'm referring to time delay due to acceleration of the local environment relative to the rest environment, as opposed to elevated energy levels of particles within an otherwise "at rest" environment.

 

The time delay occurs as the wave energy in the overlap space of each wave convergence (see earlier graphics) equalizes and overcomes the wave energy density surrounding it. The relative difference between the internal wave energy density and the surrounding wave energy density governs the duration of the resulting time delay. As a result, in a very low energy wave convergence, equalization of the local internal wave energy density is more rapid than in a high energy density wave convergence, causing particles to function more slowly at higher rates of acceleration, and subsequently, causing the traveling twin to age slower.

Edited March 14, 2017 by bogie

[bogie]

My speculations about time delay and the action processes brings me to an appropriate point in this thread to bring in some thoughts about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. If you view the universe from a perspective of a multiple Big Bang arena landscape, time is no longer recorded from a beginning some 14 billion years ago, but instead there potentially would have been an infinite past. That leads to speculative predictions about the history and nature the CMBR that don't exactly agree with Big Bang theory timeline.

 

In current theory, there is one feature of the wave energy background that is sometimes referred to as the CMB "rest frame". The theory of the CMB rest frame is that it is casually connected to the Big Bang, and the mechanics of that BB origin involve a Surface of Last Scattering. The "surface of last scattering" was a very early event in the 14 billion year Big Bang timeline. It marked the point in the decline in the temperature of the hot dense ball of wave energy when the "opacity" was lifted. It was at that point that atoms formed and emitted light in the form of photon energy. That light was released almost simultaneously from all points within the expanding Big Bang arena. At its origin, the CMBR was thought to have been a homogeneous and isotropic flow of high energy photons, coming and going in all directions at all points of space.

 

The generally accepted explanation goes on to discuss the effect that expansion has on the light waves that are present and traversing space. The effect of expansion on the original light waves emitted from the surface of last scattering is that the wave length gets lengthened and the light gets redshifted. After some 14 billion years of expansion, that high energy radiation would have been stretched and tamed down to the radio and micro wave frequencies that we observe today.

 

However, in the Wave Energy Density model of the universe (the Infinite Spongy Universe), speculation is that something is happening on a much grander scale than that of a singular Big Bang. It is in the potentially infinite pre-existing space, and the potentially infinite history of Big Bang arenas, where we would expect multiple big bangs to have left their individual CMB contributions on the background wave energy that we observe today.

 

That would make the CMB much older than our individual Big Bang, meaning that the causal connection to our Big Bang event changes. Our arena would have been the result of the intersection and overlap of two or more parent arenas with their own individual cosmic microwave energy backgrounds, which might nicely explain the significant hemispherical anisotropy that we observe in the WMAP and Planck surveys. Further, those parent arenas would be just a tiny fraction of the history. The sky surveys show a complicated angular temperature pattern that doesn't look at all like the homogeneous and isotropic background predicted by Big Bang theory. They would seem to be more supportive of the long history of a multiple Big Bang arena landscape, as predicted in the wave energy density model.

[bogie]

This thread has become a soliloquy by me about a very speculative cosmological model that features the wave-particle, and a universe composed of nothing but wave energy. That model is called the Wave Energy Density model, which I also call the Infinite Spongy Universe model.

 

I could go on indefinitely about the ISU, contrasting that model with the Big Bang model, with other models that are not quite the consensus but have professional support, and with various interpretations of quantum mechanics. But is this Speculations sub-forum supposed to be a place for that? I'm not sure.

 

Or is it more a place to move speculations that are opened and promoted in the hard science forums? If your thread is moved here, that act carries with it a sort of warning that the Trash Can could become the final resting place of your personal speculations. It is generally true that threads moved here often evolve into claims that are clear violations of known, testable, repeatable science. In some ways of thinking, members are given enough rope to hang themselves, on the way out into the Trash Can; that is how science forms should be run, in my opinion.

 

It doesn't look like this thread is headed for that fate yet, and that might be a sign that there is some consideration of the ideas herein. Perhaps the membership, and especially the moderation team, has not yet formed the consensus that the content violates the standard of reasonable and responsible speculations. But that could easily change if I add related ideas that clearly cross the line, and new material could start pointing to the next move; to the trash can.

 

If I stop here, maybe the content so far will just go unchallenged, and this forum will be the final resting place of speculations about the Wave Energy Density model of the universe. However, if I do decide to stop here, that might be an admission that there are serious flaws in the material that no one is interested in enough to challenge, but that if fully examined would be found to violate the self-designated "reasonable and responsible speculations" standard.

 

Guidance from the moderation team isn't expected, but sometimes there are comments from moderators that give ample warning to an impending move to the trash can. I think that the policy, that I interpret as "fair warning", applies to this thread too. On faith that that is true, I'm going to go on into some more speculations upon speculations, hoping that I get fair warning in advance of a decision to trash can these ideas in their entirety. I would welcome a chance to either elaborate on the challenged content, and present a better case, or retract the offending post because, when after consideration of content of the challenge, I agree with the opposing argument.

Edited March 24, 2017 by bogie

[bogie]

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.