Quantum gravity idea

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

Causality is a trickier thing in QM, but if you have an atom in steady-state, what cause and effect is there to consider?

I just read the cause is insufficient binding energy for continued stability, so wouldn't the issue be when it - the decay - occurs, which is indeterminate?

Edited April 8, 2018 by StringJunky

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I just read the cause is insufficient binding energy for continued stability, so wouldn't the issue be when it - the decay - occurs, which is indeterminate?

"Insufficient" is probably not well-defined (there isn't a number for BE where you can say that being above it means you are stable and below it means you aren't), but I was referring to atoms and the lack of motion with that statement, not nuclei undergoing decay.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

"Insufficient" is probably not well-defined (there isn't a number for BE where you can say that being above it means you are stable and below it means you aren't), but I was referring to atoms and the lack of motion with that statement, not nuclei undergoing decay.

OK. Thanks.

[Allan Rich]

Guys please forgive me for my inability to use the correct language.

1. I contend space - the universes expansion is not causal but fundamental.

2. in turn the notion of dark energy and matter become moot as fundamental aspects of our universe and space time,  their nature are outputs or observable consequensus.

3 Space just wants to expand, it is true to what it is. 

4. Gravity and it’s absence are called dark energy and dark matter. The ultimate moderator of Space’s nature, which is to expand.

5. My test as a preliminary indicator of this hypothesis is to look for differences in red shift in a galaxies centre versus the outer regions demonstrating that the expansion is moderated by mass/gravity.

6. Since space time is multidimensional the mathematics will show this hypothesis validates the fact that space is increasing its expansion at an increasing rare which is inversely proportional to the average density of the universe at its margins.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Allan Rich said:

the universes expansion is not causal but fundamental.

Well it seems to be a fundamental property of space that with a homogeneous distribution of matter (which there is on large scales) that it will expand (or contract, depending on density). 

[geordief]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well it seems to be a fundamental property of space that with a homogeneous distribution of matter (which there is on large scales) that it will expand (or contract, depending on density). 

Might "nothing remains the same" be the  fundamental axiom?

"panta rhei"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Panta_rhei,_"everything_flows"

Edited April 8, 2018 by geordief

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, Allan Rich said:

2. in turn the notion of dark energy and matter become moot as fundamental aspects of our universe and space time,  their nature are outputs or observable consequensus.

You seem to be saying: we observe these things that require an explanation but we shouldn't attempt to explain them, we should just accept them for what they are.

That is not how science works.

27 minutes ago, Allan Rich said:

3 Space just wants to expand, it is true to what it is.

Or contract.

27 minutes ago, Allan Rich said:

4. Gravity and it’s absence are called dark energy and dark matter.

Errrr. No.

We observe things that are not explained by the current laws of gravity.

One of those is the accelerating expansion of space. This is most easily explained by adding some extra energy to space. You seem to just want to avoid explaining it.

The other one is the anomalous orbital speeds in galaxies and galaxy clusters. Most simply explained by adding some unseen matter (which also matches other observations). Again, you seem to want to avoid an explanation for some reason.

29 minutes ago, Allan Rich said:

5. My test as a preliminary indicator of this hypothesis is to look for differences in red shift in a galaxies centre versus the outer regions demonstrating that the expansion is moderated by mass/gravity.

Unless you can quantify what this difference should be, this is a meaningless test.

30 minutes ago, Allan Rich said:

6. Since space time is multidimensional the mathematics will show this hypothesis validates the fact that space is increasing its expansion at an increasing rare which is inversely proportional to the average density of the universe at its margins.

Great. Show us this mathematics, then. 

[Allan Rich]

On point 5, It has been firmly suggested previously, I must find a way to experimentally validate the idea, If red shift variation is present then an iterative approach to test the initial premise may have legs. 

On point 3, space can contract but in the absence of mediators it will expand. That is why at the outer reaches of the observable universe there is acceleration of expansion. The lower density favors space's fundamental nature i.e. Kind of gets rid of the need to worry about dark energy.

On point 4, sorry I was not clear in my thoughts, my comments on point 3 explains the dark energy bit. As for dark matter I see it as part what real matter does to space in mediating it's nature.

On point 6, firstly at least I have an experiment and if correct it can be fed back into my initial proposition/thought experiment. Secondly I am on this forum to test and share my ideas. I acknowledged at the outset in my first post. 'Apologies if I'm an idiot.  Thoughts?''

So if my ideas are of any worth, at least I am in the fortunate position in terms of financial capability and time to collaborate with someone who has appropriate mathematical talent, and is interested in adding to humanities collective knowledge.

Lastly does anyone know if there has been a study done on red shift variation on a within a distant galaxy?

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Allan Rich said:

On point 3, space can contract but in the absence of mediators it will expand.

Well, that is in contradiction with current theory. 

6 hours ago, Allan Rich said:

That is why at the outer reaches of the observable universe there is acceleration of expansion.

It's actually the other way round. Because the acceleration started about 5 billion years ago, we see accelerated expansion nearby relative to galaxies further away.

And then there is all the other evidence for dark energy to explain.

7 hours ago, Allan Rich said:

As for dark matter I see it as part what real matter does to space in mediating it's nature.

So you are suggesting we need to change the way our model of gravity works, in order to explain the effects?

None of the models that attempt to do that so far have worked. 

And then there is all the other evidence for dark matter to explain.

7 hours ago, Allan Rich said:

On point 6, firstly at least I have an experiment and if correct it can be fed back into my initial proposition/thought experiment.

The trouble is, you need to quantify the expected effect first. Otherwise, suppose the data is available but shows no such effect. Does the mean your idea is wrong, or does it just mean that the measurements were not accurate enough.

7 hours ago, Allan Rich said:

Lastly does anyone know if there has been a study done on red shift variation on a within a distant galaxy?

It depends how distant. (Again, see the need to quantify it?)

The red shift across galaxies has been looked at to determine the speed of rotation, for example.  But I don't know if those galaxies are too close to be affected by expansion. I don't know if galaxies that are affected by expansion are too small for differences like this to be measured. Maybe you need to research these questions ...