Casual question

[brain-in-a-vat]

I just registered thinking I could post speculations for discussion. Then I read the rules and am not sure I am allowed to do that even here in the Speculations forum.

 

I like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, but find there is a rule that speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof.

 

Does anyone beside me find this rule "just wrong"?

 

How is it possible for there to be evidence of something that is speculation. What test can be offered for speculation that goes beyond where technology can presently reach. What if tests of the speculations would require huge advancements in technology?

 

For example, am I correct that to speculate that space preceded the Big Bang would not be allowed because there is no evidence, no proof, and no currently feasible test?

 

The Speculations Policy ends with the encouraging line, "Have fun". Am I being overly cynical to suspect that is said "tongue in cheek" ?

[iNow]

Does anyone beside me find this rule "just wrong"?

No, not me. It sounds like you're more interested in philosophy than in science. For example, you can speculate about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin, but here at SFN (even in the Pseudoscience and Speculations forum) you need to take the time to specify the parameters of the pin, the characteristics of the angels, and how we might go about testing it.

 

How about you give it a shot, and just go ahead and post your idea? There's no harm in that, and you'll get feedback from members here. Whether good or bad, everyone will then have the opportunity to learn from the exchange.

 

If, however, you have zero interest in actually supporting what you say with existing science and experiment, you might try to post at a philosophy board instead.

 

Regardless of your response, welcome.

[Mr Skeptic]

Just go ahead and post it, and if it goes sour the thread will be locked. It's not like you will get banned for it or anything. What matters more is how you go about discussing your speculation.

[brain-in-a-vat]

I thought about doing that and decided I might be starting off on the wrong foot. But I think I might be able to navigate the waters here in Pseudoscience and Speculation based on your example of the need to take the time to specify the parameters of the pin, the characteristics of the angels, and how we might go about testing it.

 

Before I jump in with both feet though let me ask another question related to testing. I have given a lot of thought to that in regard to my views. What if my speculations included talk of multiple arenas, all similar to our known universe. One idea might be that as our arena expands it would eventually intersect and overlap with a neighboring arena. One prediction would be that such convergences could be characterized by the occasional collision of stars and maybe galactic black holes.

 

Such galactic collisions would cause gamma ray blasts and so the prediction might be that those blasts would eventually be detectable and the frequency of such blasts would be localized in the direction of the arena intersection. If a record of all such gamma blasts was kept over the centuries and if their location in the coordinate system implied such a convergence, then that would be supporting evidence.

 

Would speculation and predictions like that keep me out of the Philosophy forum?

[iNow]

Before I jump in with both feet though let me ask another question related to testing. I have given a lot of thought to that in regard to my views. What if my speculations included talk of multiple arenas, all similar to our known universe.

Oh... Well, in that case, you will be mocked mercilessly. Seriously, we're going to point and laugh, it's as simple as that.

 

 

Would speculation and predictions like that keep me out of the Philosophy forum?

 

First, we don't have a philosophy forum, and that was my larger point. This is a science forum, with many interests, but specific rules. After that, just jump in, and try to recognize up front that there are many members here who do this stuff for a living, and have spent decades of their lives studying the topics about which you want to speculate. In other words, if you're wrong, you'll be corrected. If you're curious, you'll be helped. If you're open to new information and correction of your assertions, you'll be accepted.

 

Cheers.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, we have no Philosophy forum here, but from the sound of it your idea has more merit than lots of the crap that ends up in Pseudoscience and Speculation, and the word "evidence" is in your vocabulary, so go for it. Just don't expect us to believe everything you say. Much of the discussion will be trying to figure out what your idea is, and much of the rest trying to poke holes in it. This is the way of science, so don't be disheartened.

[Mokele]

The focus on testing is fairly straightforward to explain:

 

If I make a speculation, I can then make another speculation based on that, then another, then another, then another, and so on. But if *any* of those speculations are wrong, the whole house of cards comes crashing down, and all that effort was for naught.

 

By testing at each step, you greatly reduce the chances that subsequent steps will be based on false ideas/information.

 

In actual science, hypotheses are wrong more often than not, so given that track record, chains of speculation are almost inevitably going to be wrong. If there's a 50% chance of being wrong (it should probably be more like 90%, but I'm being charitable), if you have 5 speculations in a row, that's a mere 3% chance that you're actually right. At 10 speculations, you have less than a 0.1% chance, less than one in a thousand.

 

That's why we test. It's difficult, but it's also the only way to ensure anything resembling accuracy.

[brain-in-a-vat]

Oh... Well, in that case, you will be mocked mercilessly. Seriously, we're going to point and laugh, it's as simple as that.

I get that at home so why not here!

First, we don't have a philosophy forum,

and that was my larger point. This is a science forum, with many interests, but specific rules. After that, just jump in, and try to recognize up front that there are many members here who do this stuff for a living, and have spent decades of their lives studying the topics about which you want to speculate. In other words, if you're wrong, you'll be corrected. If you're curious, you'll be helped. If you're open to new information and correction of your assertions, you'll be accepted.

 

Cheers.

Thanks for the warning . I will work up a short overview because the whole set of ideas hang together into what is my own personal cosmology and includes some speculated new physics that will be good for a few laughs. I think I'll be accepted if the "Have fun" is meant for those being mocked as well as for those who get to do the mocking.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The focus on testing is fairly straightforward to explain:

 

If I make a speculation, I can then make another speculation based on that, then another, then another, then another, and so on. But if *any* of those speculations are wrong, the whole house of cards comes crashing down, and all that effort was for naught.

 

By testing at each step, you greatly reduce the chances that subsequent steps will be based on false ideas/information.

 

In actual science, hypotheses are wrong more often than not, so given that track record, chains of speculation are almost inevitably going to be wrong. If there's a 50% chance of being wrong (it should probably be more like 90%, but I'm being charitable), if you have 5 speculations in a row, that's a mere 3% chance that you're actually right. At 10 speculations, you have less than a 0.1% chance, less than one in a thousand.

 

That's why we test. It's difficult, but it's also the only way to ensure anything resembling accuracy.

I was feeling confident for a minute .

 

Actually, I am thinking of discussing a multiverse cosmology, new physics at both the macro and micro level, an aether, quantization of energy, a new force associated with energy quanta, matter being composed of energy in quantum increments, a universe full of energy with fluctuating energy density, no voids, energy that has always existed, thresholds of energy density that are characteristic of the aether, that determine the point of matter formation, and that are reached in a big crunch formation, as well as events that lead to the burst of big crunches into expansion of dense dark energy, and an energy-to matter-to energy process that operates at the level of arenas that are equivalent in energy to our known universe, and more.

 

I think that the lengthly chain of speculations would fail to meet the requirement of individual tests for each individual speculation.

 

The prediction and test I mentioned earlier could be applied to many of the speculations if, in line with what iNow said, I could show that many of the speculations individually are like the many angels and that the pin itself is a key to a group of the supporting speculations. The key in this case would be that the multiverse would be tested by the prediction of gamma blasts over centuries in a localized direction.

 

Would it be a mistake to proceed thinking that if that prediction proves out then based on that "test", the multiverse idea and many of the associated speculations would be redeemed by that evidence?

 

I have detailed "word salad" about the physical pictures all along the way that I'm sure would be good for a series of hardy laughs, but I don't want to run afoul of the moderator by presenting a very broad set of ideas that are all linked speculations and that I think hang together as a whole.

 

I know that it would take many posts to convey the ideas and the math would easily be considered childish when compared to the math of string theory, quantum mechanics, GTR, etc. Tell me not to waste my time if I am going to constantly aggravate you .

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I didn't mean to merge those posts but I don't know how it happened.

[iNow]

This forum has functionality such that when you post two consecutive posts within a given period of time, so long as no other member has posted after your first post, the two will automatically merge into one post with a line separating them. It's nothing you did, so no worries.

 

After reading your paragraph above, I had this thought. The logical next question everyone here is going to ask you in response your speculations is, "So what?"

 

What does your speculation add to our present understanding? How can we use it? In what ways is it better than the knowledge we already have, what gap does it fill, or what existing idea does it displace?

 

How you are treated and perceived in this community will depend greatly on how you respond to the question, "So what?"

[brain-in-a-vat]

...

After reading your paragraph above, I had this thought. The logical next question everyone here is going to ask you in response your speculations is, "So what?"

 

What does your speculation add to our present understanding? How can we use it? In what ways is it better than the knowledge we already have, what gap does it fill, or what existing idea does it displace?

 

How you are treated and perceived in this community will depend greatly on how you respond to the question, "So what?"

That is a good place to start. While considering trying to bring my ideas to this forum I was thinking about how to put together many individual essays into a coherent presentation. Attempting to answer the "so what" question will be a good test of whether there is any merit to the ideas in the minds of the community.

 

I'm going to see if I can answer that question adequately. How that answer is perceived will not only help your community decide what degree of a crackpot I qualify as, but it will let me get a taste of what your requirements are for me to be considered adequately responsive. The scope and nature of what I am contemplating will surely be viewed as audacity and will annoy many who think that speculation is the worst of all evils so I expect a ration of that. But I do operate on the basis that there is reasonable and responsible speculation, and then there is idle and wild speculation. If at least some in the community can make that distinction I still have some degree of confidence because my speculations aren't all that wild IMHO.

 

But I know that remains to be seen.

[Kaeroll]

I think it's a matter of intent. If you genuinely wish to discuss and develop your speculations, and consider how they could stand or fall by empirical evidence, I reckon you'd be ok. They seem a nice enough bunch round here.

 

You can hardly be faulted for saying, "I have this idea, based on x y and z, though I've no proof. What do you guys think?" I think the approach that'll get you b-tchslapped or ignored by everyone who reads your thread is "I have this idea. It's right. Live with it, and maybe chuck a Nobel prize my way."

 

Just my two pence, I'm not a regular participant in this board really.

[Sayonara]

I'm going to see if I can answer that question adequately. How that answer is perceived will not only help your community decide what degree of a crackpot I qualify as, but it will let me get a taste of what your requirements are for me to be considered adequately responsive.

Like mad people who think they are sane, crackpots rarely consider that they might be any kind of crackpot. So you're leagues ahead already and probably not a crackpot.

[Sisyphus]

Honestly, the most important factor that will affect how the forum as a whole and the moderators in particular will react to your ideas is the attitude with which you present them. If you say “I figured it all out, modern science is a sham, you are all fools,” it’s not going to be well received. If, on the other hand, you say “I have this idea, and I was wondering what you guys think,” things will go more smoothly. The “support with testable evidence” thing is really about arguing that you are right. If, however, you ask “why is this wrong,” you can suggest ideas that are as far out as you want. If they have nothing to do with science, someone will say so, and that will be the end of it.

[Klaynos]

It depends very much on your speculation.

 

If there is evidence against it then it's out.

If it's replacing a current theory then it requires more evidence than the current theory.

If it's about something that there is no evidence for or against then there must be some way of making an experiment which could produce that evidence.

 

So a requirement for evidence depends greatly on the situation, and it can just be a requirement for the possibility of evidence...

[brain-in-a-vat]

I am a humble thinker and have explored the "pop" articles about current theories but have not tried to confirm of disprove them. I don't understand much math beyond what a college graduate from the school of business would have learned through normal courses forty years ago. I do grasp the meaning and use of limit theory and some concepts in calculus but I don't try to write equations to tie in my ideas with the math of existing theories. Generally I accept peer reviewed theories as being the best that we have been able to do so far given our tools.

 

My ideas are a set of connected ideas that must all stand up together. This will be my first attempt to find out what a science forum community thinks of them in their latest form. But that is pretty much just optimism on my part because to get the set of ideas presented is likely to be a lengthly process and I may run "amuck" long before I get it all out .

 

Let me work on an answer to the question brought up by iWill about "so what"; what do I think makes my ideas useful or meaningful to a science community.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What I am interested in presenting for criticism is called Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC). It includes the “ideas” of a cosmology of the universe. The gist of it was developed over a few years on-line, in various forums and in unpublished essays to address issues that are still not solved by science. It is not science as such but neither is it non-science. I would like to start by making a case for QWC as protoscience.

 

To test out ideas that address issues like the cause of mass, the cause of gravity, the aether, the “beginning” or lack thereof, the cause of expansion, and others I go outside of the peer reviewed scientific theories and models. I don’t argue against the current standard cosmology (Big Bang Theory, the General Theory of Relativity, the Cosmological Principle), and the standard particle model of particle physics, or Quantum Mechanics accept to the extent that questions remain unanswered within those theories and with compatibility between them.

 

I propose the existence of undiscovered physics for consideration. Clearly QWC is not yet science by the guidelines presented by the Task Force on Teacher Institutes of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) located in Berkeley, California. This initiative was funded by a grant that Stan Weinberg, the Founding Father of NCSE, had received from the Carnegie and Lounsbury Foundation. It is one of the current protocols to classify ideas relative to the scientific method.

 

Based on the Institute’s website which presents the CONPTT approach, I believe that QWC qualifies as Emerging Science, i.e. as Protoscience, as opposed to Non-Science which is referred to as Pseudoscience. Application of the CONPTT approach covers five pages of material which I will include below.

 

First, the question that needs to be addressed before I get into the ideas of Quantum Wave Cosmology is “so what”. As iWill posed it, what is it about my ideas that make them of interest or in any way meaningful to the scientific community?

 

I was asked to remember that the community is composed of members who have devoted much of their lives and much rigor to advancing science. Why would I think that someone like me with nearly none of the credentials of a professional has any really interesting and meaningful ideas that members of the community have not already addressed and have either brought in under the scientific method or have already rejected as speculation that cannot be tested.

 

My answer is that I don’t think that. What I think is that there are questions that science does not yet adequately answered like the cause of gravity, the cause of mass itself, the source of energy of the fundamental particles, the explanation of how our known universe began, what initiated the expansion, as well as the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. QWC proposes that these issues will be solved and unified when the tools of science are developed that can look deep into matter and energy and into the past and discover a single new force that makes everything work together.

 

QWC predicts that there is an undiscovered force called “quantum action” at the quantum level that will unify the forces and that connects the quantum realm with the landscape of the greater universe. The protoscience of QWC is about what I hope science will look like when unification is acheived.

 

What test do I propose that will allow the community to seriously consider QWC? None, unfortunately. Aside from discovering the unifying force, the test will be the fulfillment of the prediction that our expanding arena (our known universe) is one of a potentially infinite number of such arenas. Eventually our arena will intersect and overlap some neighboring arena and when that occurs there will be cosmic collisions and gamma ray blasts to record the convergence.

 

QWC predicts that when an arena convergence begins there will be an increase in the frequency of gamma blasts in a localized quadrant of the arena’s coordinate system over a period of perhaps centuries. I know that is not much of a prediction for the short term but the consistency of the ideas in QWC builds a plausible picture. I hope the community will be able to look at that physical picture and point out where my limited exposure has caused me to go wrong.

 

Here is the application of the CONPTT approach that is how I think QWC qualifies as protoscience as opposed to non-science:

 

WHAT IS "FALSE SCIENCE"?

 

False Science Defined: False science ("pseudoscience") may be defined as a non-science which is portrayed and advertised as a legitimate science by its followers and supporters. Good examples of a pseudoscience would include "astrology" (as presented by some of its supporters), and "creation science". (See Strahler, page 525).

 

Can Quantum Wave Cosmology be shown to be protoscience?

 

WHAT IS "EMERGING SCIENCE"?

 

Emerging Science Defined: Emerging science (or "protoscience") may be defined as a "near science". A protoscience tends to conform to most of the CONPTT criteria but typically falls short in one or more of the criteria. A protoscience differs from a science in that consistent observations and predictions may be limited by knowledge and/or technology.

 

For example, let's look at parapsychology. This includes such phenomena as clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis. Scientists generally consider parapsychology a pseudoscience because its phenomena conflict with known physical laws. However, at least one member of the parapsychology family, mental telepathy (thought transmission directly from one brain to another), might be worthy of scientific consideration. Mental telepathy, then, could be considered as a "protoscience".

 

NOTE: See Arthur Strahler, Science and Earth History (1987), page 55 regarding mental telepathy as a protoscience; pages 46-47 for more information about extraterrestrial visitors; and pages 47-49 for more information about UFOs and UFOlogy.

 

Can we use the CONPTT approach to determine if QWC is Pseudoscience or Protoscience?

 

HOW CAN WE TELL SCIENCE FROM NON-SCIENCE?

 

Concept: Following the discussion of "CONPTT", the student will be able to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific statements.

 

Introduction: To summarize our previous discussions and today's ideas, let's list some criteria that might help us recognize the difference between what is science and what is not science, criteria that will enable us to recognize a scientific statement and a non-scientific statement.

 

The following criteria were developed by science educators in Iowa and found acceptable by several Midwestern high school biology teachers (this was an Indiana initiative at the time).

 

SCIENCE IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA or THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE

 

Six Criteria of Science: Consistent, Observable, Natural, Predictable, Testable, and Tentative. The sequence is not important, but the acronym "CONPTT" makes a good long term memory hook.

 

1. Consistency: The results of repeated observations and/or experiments concerning a naturally occurring event (phenomenon) are reasonably the same when performed and repeated by competent investigators. The event is also free from self-contradiction: it is consistent in its applications. The weight of the evidence is also compatible with well established observations and limits.

 

REALITY CHECK #1: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?

 

1. Green plants will grow towards a light source.

2. Walking under a ladder will cause bad luck.

Using the idea of "Consistency", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?

2. Observability: The event under study, or evidence of the occurrence of the event, can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as electron microscopes, Geiger counters, etc. If the phenomenon cannot be reproduced through controlled conditions, natural evidence of the event's occurrence must be available for investigation.

 

REALITY CHECK #2: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?

 

1. Some plants eat meat.

2. Extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth.

Using the idea of "Observability", how can we assess which statement above is a scientific one?

3. Natural: A natural cause (mechanism) must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test.

 

REALITY CHECK #3: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?

 

1. Green plants convert sunlight into energy.

2. With a rod, Moses parted the sea so his people could cross to the other side..

Using the idea of "Natural", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?

4. Predictability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event can be used to make specific predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true or false.

 

REALITY CHECK #4: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?

 

1. Without sunlight (or comparable artificial light), green plants will die.

2. If you are a "Scorpio", your horoscope for today is "You'll be saying 'I feel rich !' Lunar position highlights back pay, refunds, correction of accounting error."

Using the idea of "Predictability", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?

5. Testability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. Reference to supernatural events or causes are not relevant tests.

 

REALITY CHECK #5: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?

 

1. The Bermuda Triangle causes ships and planes to sink and disappear.

2. Life comes from life and cannot come from non-life.

Using the idea of "Testability", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?

6. Tentativeness: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events.

 

REALITY CHECK #6: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?

 

1. The number of human chromosomes was once "known" to be 48, but is now considered to be 46.

2. Living things were once grouped into 2 major groups, then 3, then 4, and now 5, because the criteria used for classifying living things have changed.

3. We know that the world began about 6000 years ago, and nothing will change that.

4. At one time, it was thought the heart pumped blood out of a large container as an "open system", but now it is known that blood "circulates" in a closed system.

Using the idea of "Tentativeness", how can we assess which statement above is a scientific one?

 

To evaluate QWC and compare it to Emerging Science I followed the CONPTT approach.

 

First the C in CONPTT, Consistency: The results of repeated observations and/or experiments concerning a naturally occurring event (phenomenon) are reasonably the same when performed and repeated by competent investigators. The event is also free from self-contradiction: it is consistent in its applications. The weight of the evidence is also compatible with well established observations and limits.

 

QWC is based on a wide variety of observations that are consistently repeatable, naturally occurring and well documented. Expansion of our observable universe as observed repeatedly by observation of the separation of galaxies moving away form us in all directions. The equivalence of mass and energy, e = mc^2, which is observed and confirmed as to its consistency. The permanence of energy in that it cannot be created or destroyed which is a basic in our understanding of nature. Increasing entropy of useful energy in a closed system which is also a basic consistent aspect of nature; open systems can defeat entropy by renewing the supply of useful energy. The arena process that renews useful energy by converting mass and gravity back into useful energy is predicted to be ongoing in QWC because arenas, if they exist, would part of an open system.

 

The consistency test disqualifies observations that continually have differing or unpredictable results. Predicted mechanisms to explain observations and that are predicted to be consistent when tested are not disqualified. They can change the classification of the predicted mechanisms from science to protoscience until the predicted mechanisms can be tested and confirmed to be consistently repeatable. QWC is not classified as proved science but is not disqualified as protoscience even though it makes predictions of consistency that cannot be tested.

 

For example, QWC includes aspects that are predicted to be consistent but that are not observed and not directly testable based on existing technology. The existence of an energy background to the universe is one example. The existence of the force called quantum action cannot be proved yet because of our limited ability to observe the elemental particles of the Standard Particle Model closely enough to prove that they are composed of energy quanta as predicted by QWC. The existence of energy density fluctuations of the background energy caused by quantum action, and existence of the spherical quantum waves generated by quantum action cannot be observed. The existence of the Arena Landscape of the greater universe cannot be observed because according to QWC we are within a single expanding arena and our technology doesn’t allow observations beyond the most distant known galaxies. There is no direct evidence of the formation of big crunches from the galactic remnants of a history of arenas like ours that QWC predicts form in the greater universe as those remnants merge from various directions. There is no evidence that a big crunch is limited by “critical capacity” and bursts into an expanding arena of high energy density as a result. There is no evidence that quantum action can be locked in the core of a big crunch or that locked quantum action causes mass to stop functioning and stops gravity being emitted from that mass. There is no evidence that matter can form from high energy density as the density declines to the matter formation threshold. There is no evidence that matter that might form below that threshold could acquire the same characteristics as the particles in the Standard Particle Model. There is no evidence that galactic structure would form from such particles or that the galaxies would all be moving away from each other throughout the entire expanding arena.

 

All of these unobservable aspects of QWC are however consistent with existing observations in nature and consistent with each other. There are no two such aspects of QWC that are not dependent on each other or that are not compatible with each other. All of the aspects mentioned must be true and must work together in order for QWC to be the real cosmology so QWC passes the consistency test as consistently compatible predictions of natural mechanisms.

 

Next, the O in CONPTT, Observability: The event under study, or evidence of the occurrence of the event, can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as electron microscopes, Geiger counters, etc. If the phenomenon cannot be reproduced through controlled conditions, natural evidence of the event's occurrence must be available for investigation.

 

All cosmologies include unobservable aspects if they attempt to fully describe the universe. Each of the aspects of QWC mentioned in the consistency section above that are unobservable fall in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the event’s occurrence.

 

The existence of an energy background to the universe is one example. We observe that gravity acts between mass and that there must be a medium across which the effect of gravity can be transmitted but we can’t observe the medium. The natural evidence of that medium is the nature of the relationship between mass and gravity which is continually observed in nature.

 

The existence of the force called quantum action cannot be proved yet because of our limited ability to observe the elemental particles of the Standard Particle Model closely enough to prove that they are composed of energy quanta as predicted by QWC. We observe that mass exists and has many observable properties like kinetic energy for example, but we cannot observe directly the force that causes mass to exist from the combination of elementary particles of which we observe mass to be composed. We know there is a way that nature makes mass exist and QWC predicts that it is quantum action.

 

The existence of energy density fluctuations of the background energy caused by quantum action, and existence of the spherical quantum waves generated by quantum action cannot be observed. These aspects of QWC are consistent with the way it predicts mass is formed. We cannot observe these waves or the trough/crest spherical wave structure predicted by QWC that would cause mass to exist but we observe mass and know there must be a cause.

 

The existence of the Arena Landscape of the greater universe cannot be observed because according to QWC we are within a single expanding arena and our technology doesn’t allow observation beyond the most distant known galaxies. There is no direct evidence of the formation of big crunches from the galactic remnants of a history of arenas like ours that QWC predicts form in the greater universe as those remnants merge from various directions. There is no evidence that a big crunch is limited by “critical capacity” and bursts into an expanding arena of high energy density as a result. However these aspects of QWC fall in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. The evidence of observed expansion rolls back to an event 13.7 billion years from which expansion emerged. QWC, as any cosmology must, addresses initial events and predicts solutions that would cause the natural observation. QWC predicts that energy cannot be created and therefore the energy in our expanding arena and the energy that initiated the expansion pre-existed. The prediction of the burst of a big crunch is based on this combination of natural observation and basic law of energy conservation. The means of the burst, called “critical capacity of a big crunch”, is consistent with the nature of mass and the energy density thresholds within which mass can function. Are there other possible explanations, yes, but in QWC the burst of a big crunch would be consistent with the observed expansion and the conservation of energy.

 

There is no evidence that quantum action can be stopped by compression in the core of a big crunch or that locked quantum action causes mass to stop functioning and stops gravity being emitted from that mass. Like the other aspects of QWC mentioned above, this aspect also falls in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. The implied big crunch and burst that QWC predicts account for the observed expansion must itself have a cause that is consistent with the other aspects of the cosmology. QWC predicts thresholds of energy density within which matter can form and function, and when the upper threshold of energy density is reached, mass ceases to function. The result is consistent with the observations that expansion exists and is consistent with the QWC aspects that explain the cause of that expansion.

 

There is no evidence that matter can form from high energy density as the density declines to the matter formation threshold. There is no evidence that matter that might form below that threshold could acquire the same characteristics as the particles in the Standard Particle Model. There is no evidence that galactic structure would form from such particles or that the galaxies would all be moving away from each other throughout the entire expanding arena. This group of aspects of QWC is quite similar to the process of nucleosynthesis that is predicted by Big Bang Theory. Nucleosynthesis is a phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments but that relies on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. Observations are being made that support nucleosynthesis and future data produced by the LHC will expand the data. Both BBT and QWC will be modified by LHC data as it unfolds.

 

For these reasons, QWC passes the observation test based on the allowed range of application of the concept of observation.

 

Next, the N in CONPTT, Natural: A natural cause (mechanism) must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test.

 

QWC was developed as a cosmology because the standard cosmology did not address the cause of the observed expansion and some professionals say BBT implies that there was no space or time before the expansion began. QWC sees those conditions would require something from nothing, a violation of the conservation of energy, or the intervention of the supernatural. QWC predicts that the conservation of energy is a natural law that cannot be violated. The intervention of the supernatural is not consistent with science and would cause any cosmology to fail the “natural” N of the CONPTT definition of science.

 

QWC passes the Natural test.

 

Next, the P in CONPTT, Predictability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event can be used to make specific predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true or false.

 

Predictability and testing are well established in the scientific method. As mentioned above, many predictions of QWC are not testable. However, each aspect of QWC does pass the Natural test within the acceptable meaning of “natural” in the CONPTT definition of science and so the natural causes and mechanisms included in QWC can be used to make specific predictions.

 

There are categories of science that don’t completely pass the [predictability and testing aspect of the] CONPTT approach. There is Non-Science which covers religious beliefs, philosophy, personal opinions or attitudes, a sense of esthetics, or ethics, False Science described as Pseudoscience, and Emerging Science described as Pre-science (or protoscience).

 

QWC pass the predictability test which is intended to disqualify areas that do not now and will not normally be testable, not because of the limitations of technology, but because they are belief systems. Though QWC is not yet testable, its predictions do not fall into the category of belief systems. There is no reason to believe that future technological developments will not be able to detect quantum action, quantum waves, the energy background that transmits them, and the predicted thresholds of energy density which control them, i.e. the primary aspects of QWC that are not currently testable.

 

Next, the first T in CONPTT, Testability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. Reference to supernatural events or causes are not relevant tests.

 

QWC does not pass the Testability test of the CONPTT approach. This does not mean that QWC does not qualify as science. The Testability test is defined to disqualify reference to supernatural events or causes, and other causes and mechanism for which there is no existing means of testing. The failure of QWC in this category demotes it into Pre-science because though no current technology can be used to test it, it is likely that future technology will be developed that can test it. If the LHC fails to confirm the Higgs mechanism, then the direction of science technology might be refocused on finding a unifying force, i.e. quantum action. Our current ability to detect gamma ray blasts will enable us to detect the possible future arena convergence predicted by QWC.

 

Next, the second T in CONPTT, Tentativeness: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events.

 

Any aspect of QWC that is tested successfully must be considered tentative and there is no reason for them not to be tentative within this use of the word. Non-tentative results are described as irrefutable, for example, “We know that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago, and nothing will change that.” (A statement like that would fail the “tentativeness” test.)

 

Based on the CONPTT approach, I find that QWC qualifies as Emerging Science, referred to as Protoscience as opposed to Non-Science which is referred to as Pseudoscience when analyzed by the CONPTT approach.

[Klaynos]

I have not read the whole thread. But what would the strength be over what range? It it was acting on quarks or bigger we would have detected it by now...

[swansont]

There's speculation that is the "mainstream science is wrong, and I am right" flavor. For that, you need to bring evidence to support your position and be prepared for a vigorous debate.

 

For other speculation, I think things break down into two very broad categories: (1) it hasn't been studied (or nobody here knows of any studies), or (2) it can't be studied (scientifically).

 

For (1), answers will be educated guesses of the "maybe it's x" variety. If any actual work is uncovered, that trumps any guesses.

 

For (2), it's philosophy/metaphysics.

[brain-in-a-vat]

There's speculation that is the "mainstream science is wrong, and I am right" flavor. For that, you need to bring evidence to support your position and be prepared for a vigorous debate.

I agree. I don't say I am right and the mainstream is wrong. What I say is that the mainstream theories leave some questions unanswered and some mainstream theories are contradictory.

For other speculation, I think things break down into two very broad categories: (1) it hasn't been studied (or nobody here knows of any studies), or (2) it can't be studied (scientifically).

 

For (1), answers will be educated guesses of the "maybe it's x" variety. If any actual work is uncovered, that trumps any guesses.

 

For (2), it's philosophy/metaphysics.

I'm a little concerned that you will put some of my ideas into category two because my speculations start at the departure point of what science knows (or at least standard theory) and what science does not yet know. I claim that the ideas are reasonable and responsible speculation and will try to defend them to the extent that I can do so without becoming unreasonable and annoying. If a moderator says stop at some point, I would stop and go back to work in the ideas on my own.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I have not read the whole thread. But what would the strength be over what range? It it was acting on quarks or bigger we would have detected it by now...

My idea is that this force has not yet been detected because it is expressed at energies much smaller than even the rest energy of any particle in the standard model. Fundamental particles with mass would be composed of energy in quantum increments. The energy quanta that make up any particle with mass would establish the presence of mass because the force, quantum action, is operative within the mass. The energy and force work as a repetitive process within mass.

[swansont]

I'm a little concerned that you will put some of my ideas into category two because my speculations start at the departure point of what science knows (or at least standard theory) and what science does not yet know. I claim that the ideas are reasonable and responsible speculation and will try to defend them to the extent that I can do so without becoming unreasonable and annoying. If a moderator says stop at some point, I would stop and go back to work in the ideas on my own.

 

 

That shouldn't present a problem. The key is being responsive to critiques and comments (especially procedural ones from staff members)

 

If one were to spend enough time here, one would notice that there has been lots of philosophy and metaphysics posted and discussed. Problems only seem to arise when the proponent insists that the nonscience really is science.

[Mr Skeptic]

I am a humble thinker and have explored the "pop" articles about current theories but have not tried to confirm of disprove them. I don't understand much math beyond what a college graduate from the school of business would have learned through normal courses forty years ago. I do grasp the meaning and use of limit theory and some concepts in calculus but I don't try to write equations to tie in my ideas with the math of existing theories. Generally I accept peer reviewed theories as being the best that we have been able to do so far given our tools.

 

Good for you.

 

My ideas are a set of connected ideas that must all stand up together. This will be my first attempt to find out what a science forum community thinks of them in their latest form. But that is pretty much just optimism on my part because to get the set of ideas presented is likely to be a lengthly process and I may run "amuck" long before I get it all out .

 

Ah, the proverbial deck of cards. Unfortunately, ideas that must stand together are very difficult to discuss.

 

Let me work on an answer to the question brought up by iWill about "so what"; what do I think makes my ideas useful or meaningful to a science community.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What I am interested in presenting for criticism is called Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC). It includes the “ideas” of a cosmology of the universe. The gist of it was developed over a few years on-line, in various forums and in unpublished essays to address issues that are still not solved by science. It is not science as such but neither is it non-science. I would like to start by making a case for QWC as protoscience.

 

To test out ideas that address issues like the cause of mass, the cause of gravity, the aether, the “beginning” or lack thereof, the cause of expansion, and others I go outside of the peer reviewed scientific theories and models. I don’t argue against the current standard cosmology (Big Bang Theory, the General Theory of Relativity, the Cosmological Principle), and the standard particle model of particle physics, or Quantum Mechanics accept to the extent that questions remain unanswered within those theories and with compatibility between them.

 

Fair enough, but we will expect that it predicts approximately the same stuff as accepted theories, and where it differs, that the difference be small (officially within the margin for experimental error, but coming vaguely close is a good start) or that the difference show something that has not been tested yet or has been tested and goes against established theory.

 

I propose the existence of undiscovered physics for consideration. Clearly QWC is not yet science by the guidelines presented by the Task Force on Teacher Institutes of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) located in Berkeley, California. This initiative was funded by a grant that Stan Weinberg, the Founding Father of NCSE, had received from the Carnegie and Lounsbury Foundation. It is one of the current protocols to classify ideas relative to the scientific method.

 

Based on the Institute’s website which presents the CONPTT approach, I believe that QWC qualifies as Emerging Science, i.e. as Protoscience, as opposed to Non-Science which is referred to as Pseudoscience. Application of the CONPTT approach covers five pages of material which I will include below.

 

First, the question that needs to be addressed before I get into the ideas of Quantum Wave Cosmology is “so what”. As iWill posed it, what is it about my ideas that make them of interest or in any way meaningful to the scientific community?

 

Well, the "so what" question is not nearly as important as the "does it work" question, but is likely easier to answer.

 

I was asked to remember that the community is composed of members who have devoted much of their lives and much rigor to advancing science. Why would I think that someone like me with nearly none of the credentials of a professional has any really interesting and meaningful ideas that members of the community have not already addressed and have either brought in under the scientific method or have already rejected as speculation that cannot be tested.

 

My answer is that I don’t think that. What I think is that there are questions that science does not yet adequately answered like the cause of gravity, the cause of mass itself, the source of energy of the fundamental particles, the explanation of how our known universe began, what initiated the expansion, as well as the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. QWC proposes that these issues will be solved and unified when the tools of science are developed that can look deep into matter and energy and into the past and discover a single new force that makes everything work together.

 

QWC predicts that there is an undiscovered force called “quantum action” at the quantum level that will unify the forces and that connects the quantum realm with the landscape of the greater universe. The protoscience of QWC is about what I hope science will look like when unification is acheived.

 

Ah, one of the Grand Unified Theory attempts. Definitely a worthy goal.

 

What test do I propose that will allow the community to seriously consider QWC? None, unfortunately. Aside from discovering the unifying force, the test will be the fulfillment of the prediction that our expanding arena (our known universe) is one of a potentially infinite number of such arenas. Eventually our arena will intersect and overlap some neighboring arena and when that occurs there will be cosmic collisions and gamma ray blasts to record the convergence.

 

So, we know our universe is expanding. You are suggesting that there are other universes and that they are expanding (fairly reasonable), and that two such universes could expand into each other? But what is the mechanism (reason) by which our universe could intersect with another?

 

QWC predicts that when an arena convergence begins there will be an increase in the frequency of gamma blasts in a localized quadrant of the arena’s coordinate system over a period of perhaps centuries. I know that is not much of a prediction for the short term but the consistency of the ideas in QWC builds a plausible picture. I hope the community will be able to look at that physical picture and point out where my limited exposure has caused me to go wrong.

 

OK, another prediction is good. But I don't know the mechanism for producing these gamma rays, nor whether they have been observed.

 

...protoscience as opposed to non-science...

 

Sounds a bit sketchy. I don't really care what it is called, I'm more concerned about whether it is useful (ie, makes useful observable predictions, or at least makes the same/similar observable predictions as standard models and eg makes more sense)

[brain-in-a-vat]

...

Ah, the proverbial deck of cards. Unfortunately, ideas that must stand together are very difficult to discuss.

Maybe I should have said that they do stand together and work together as opposed to being one idea about mass, a different idea about gravity, one about the quantum level and a different one about the level of the greater universe. I hope to present for evaluation ideas about the aether, energy quanta, the force of quantum action, and the idea that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments that work together and work with the ideas about energy density thresholds, energy density equalization, energy density differentials, and the energy-to matter-to energy process that characterizes arenas (our expanding universe is one arena) and big crunch/big bursts that defeat entropy.

Fair enough, but we will expect that it predicts approximately the same stuff as accepted theories, and where it differs, that the difference be small (officially within the margin for experimental error, but coming vaguely close is a good start) or that the difference show something that has not been tested yet or has been tested and goes against established theory.

Yes, for example I hope you will consider and evaluate the ideas about how the particles considered fundamental particles today (because they are thought to have no internal composition) might be composed of energy quanta and might be very busy places internally as quantum action generates quantum waves. That would be a considerable change to the standard particle model and yet every particle in the model would still be there but would have a whole new horizon of possible metrics (term usage?).

 

One improvement would be that the long sought after gravity wave could be identified and added to fill the spot left vacant by the missing graviton.

Well, the "so what" question is not nearly as important as the "does it work" question, but is likely easier to answer.

I have reached the point of "does it work" and have some childish math to discuss a tiny three quanta mass moving relative to a similar mass, and how gravity travels between them across the aether. The same idea of energy quantization and the force of quantum action is involved in how the presence of mass is established and how gravity works.

Ah, one of the Grand Unified Theory attempts. Definitely a worthy goal.

I know , what are the chances of navigating that minefield?

So, we know our universe is expanding. You are suggesting that there are other universes and that they are expanding (fairly reasonable), and that two such universes could expand into each other? But what is the mechanism (reason) by which our universe could intersect with another?

Yes, but I call them arenas because I reserve the term "universe" to mean the sum of all arenas. The greater universe is a somewhat redundant term but I use it often to distinguish between our expanding universe (arena), and the arena landscape of the greater universe.

 

Two expanding universes could expand into each other, i.e. intersect and overlap. The mechanism or reason by which they overlap is two fold. First they both exist separately in "contiguous" space meaning that space exists independent of the expansion of the arenas (I propose that space has always existed and is not created as inflation occurs).

 

Second, expanding arenas have similar histories that set them into expansion and the initiating force will cause them to continue to expand until they intersect.

 

They begin with the convergence of galactic matter from two (or more) arenas that have previously intersected. In the overlap region, the expansion momentum of the galaxies is overcome by the gravitational attraction between the converging galaxies. A new center of gravity is established and a big crunch forms out of the galactic remnants in the overlapping region of the two previously expanding arenas.

 

The crunch encompasses some physics related to energy density thresholds. Matter has a range of energy density within which it can function. In a big crunch that threshold of energy density is exceeded and matter ceases to function inside a big crunch. Gravity ceases when matter fails to function and the crunch fails from within. At the final capitulation of the crunch, the remaining gravity of the crunch is defeated by the potential expansion energy of the dense dark energy compressed at the core of the crunch and the dark energy is released into spherical expansion (and expanding ball of dense dark energy).

 

The two expanding arenas that both start from the burst of their own crunches will expand indefinitely until they intersect, overlap, and provide the gravity and galactic remnants to form a new big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap.

OK, another prediction is good. But I don't know the mechanism for producing these gamma rays, nor whether they have been observed.

There are recorded gamma ray blasts that occur rarely, and the exact cause may not be proved, but I am using an idea that when stars collide and especially when galactic black holes collide there would be a gamma ray blast. I acknowledge that even when two galaxies collide there is really very little interaction, star collisions would be infrequent, and black hole collisions ... well they could happen. But when two arenas intersect and overlap, there would be millions of merging galaxies and so the frequency of gamma blasts would certainly be at a detectable level (over hundreds or even thousands of years I think).

Sounds a bit sketchy. I don't really care what it is called, I'm more concerned about whether it is useful (ie, makes useful observable predictions, or at least makes the same/similar observable predictions as standard models and eg makes more sense)

Agreed, and I think the ideas would be useful if they have any merit, and that is what this thread hopes to get your help to determine. Edited March 12, 2009 by brain-in-a-vat

[Mr Skeptic]

Maybe I should have said that they do stand together and work together as opposed to being one idea about mass, a different idea about gravity, one about the quantum level and a different one about the level of the greater universe. I hope to present for evaluation ideas about the aether, energy quanta, the force of quantum action, and the idea that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments that work together and work with the ideas about energy density thresholds, energy density equalization, energy density differentials, and the energy-to matter-to energy process that characterizes arenas (our expanding universe is one arena) and big crunch/big bursts that defeat entropy.

 

What I meant was that you have to understand them all at the same time, and tentatively accept all of them in order to get anywhere... this is difficult, much more so than if each piece could stand on its own.

 

Yes, for example I hope you will consider and evaluate the ideas about how the particles considered fundamental particles today (because they are thought to have no internal composition) might be composed of energy quanta and might be very busy places internally as quantum action generates quantum waves. That would be a considerable change to the standard particle model and yet every particle in the model would still be there but would have a whole new horizon of possible metrics (term usage?).

 

I personally have found this idea very appealing to me for years now. Someone named Farsight has had similar ideas, that particles are twisted photons. My own current pet project is to try to get charged electromagnetic waves in accordance with Maxwell's equations, but I am missing some math and it may be an impossible undertaking even if I knew what I was doing.

 

One improvement would be that the long sought after gravity wave could be identified and added to fill the spot left vacant by the missing graviton.

I have reached the point of "does it work" and have some childish math to discuss a tiny three quanta mass moving relative to a similar mass, and how gravity travels between them across the aether. The same idea of energy quantization and the force of quantum action is involved in how the presence of mass is established and how gravity works.I know , what are the chances of navigating that minefield?

 

Well unless you share your math it doesn't really matter if it is childish math or genius math or no math at all.

 

Yes, but I call them arenas because I reserve the term "universe" to mean the sum of all arenas. The greater universe is a somewhat redundant term but I use it often to distinguish between our expanding universe (arena), and the arena landscape of the greater universe.

 

Seems fair.

 

Are you more or less the originator of the QWC model? I looked it up, but most of it was on discussion forums. Is there an official site that describes the idea?

 

Two expanding universes could expand into each other, i.e. intersect and overlap. The mechanism or reason by which they overlap is two fold. First they both exist separately in "contiguous" space meaning that space exists independent of the expansion of the arenas (I propose that space has always existed and is not created as inflation occurs).

 

So the arenas are embedded in some kind of space in the greater universe, and are expanding into that space?

 

---

 

I keep seeing a lot of predictions, but no mechanism for the predictions. Without a mechanism, you might as well be telling a story as doing science. How are any of these predictions made? Maybe you should start with what the QWC model says, and then maybe we can see how the predictions it makes follow from the model.

[brain-in-a-vat]

What I meant was that you have to understand them all at the same time, and tentatively accept all of them in order to get anywhere... this is difficult, much more so than if each piece could stand on its own.

True, to present QWC from top to bottom will take some time. Hopefully as it unfolds there will be many suggestions and improvements. But even though it all plays together if you ask me, there are stand alone features that then fill slots in the big picture. The combined mechanics of mass and gravity and aether at the quantum realm can stand alone. At the level of the greater universe, the concept of the energy-to matter-to energy arena process that includes an entropy phase and a reverse entropy phase can stand alone, but since mass, gravity, and the aether play roles at that level, they fill their appropriate slots there too.

I personally have found this idea very appealing to me for years now. Someone named Farsight has had similar ideas, that particles are twisted photons. My own current pet project is to try to get charged electromagnetic waves in accordance with Maxwell's equations, but I am missing some math and it may be an impossible undertaking even if I knew what I was doing.

That is good to know. I met someone on another forum who was working in the same thing, Vern is his name, on SciForums (I am Quantum_wave over there). He has a website you should be able to find. Let me know if you take a look.

 

But also, I hope you want to do due diligence on what I have to say about quantum action just so you can assure yourself that there is nothing worthwhile there and at the same time help me iron out the bugs or abandon the idea.

Well unless you share your math it doesn't really matter if it is childish math or genius math or no math at all.

I will. BTW, I assume LaTeX works here.

Funny that the simple math I have to describe quantum action was the hardest part because I have a simple equation but there are a few variables and to track a single quantum action takes a series of calculations. I have a spread sheet now that helps but there is some fudging necessary to hit exact phases. The living action of establishing the presence of mass and the emanation of gravity is scoped out but requires so many individual calcs that I am putting it off. The living action is the latest part of the picture that I have put together. "Living action" is simply the math that describes a three quantum mass, the way the mass is maintained, the way gravity emanates from mass, the way gravity is transmitted between mass, and the way that mass moves as a result.

 

Quantum action may be the place to start. If so, my ideas about the aether have to be introduced and discussed to see how much merit they might have. I need the aether because I can't establish the presence of mass and the gravity that emanates from mass without it.

Seems fair.

...

Are you more or less the originator of the QWC model? I looked it up, but most of it was on discussion forums. Is there an official site that describes the idea?

Yes, if you Googled it you found probably more that a year of my posts where I call it QWC. Bad Astronomy where I was Bogie, and SciForums where I was and am Quantum_wave. Before that, earlier in my evolution, I posted on other forums too. Back then I called it the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) which I still like. In the ISU, the energy particle was called the Elemental Energy Particle (EEP) but it wasn't as robust as the energy quantum and the force of quantum action. Each forum I have worked on has helped me build the ideas that I now call QWC.

So the arenas are embedded in some kind of space in the greater universe, and are expanding into that space?

Yes. One way to put it is that space could be empty but isn't because all space has some level of energy density, there are no voids. Energy density plays a major role in QWC.

---

 

I keep seeing a lot of predictions, but no mechanism for the predictions. Without a mechanism, you might as well be telling a story as doing science. How are any of these predictions made? Maybe you should start with what the QWC model says, and then maybe we can see how the predictions it makes follow from the model.

OK, let me write a post with a brief abstract of QWC that mentions the key concepts and draws the major relationships. From the abstract I can elaborate on any given concept to get feed back.

 

That might end up being the best way to decide where to start with the detail I have and to let the weak points get vetted out by you and other as I go.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just a technical question. I found a couple of spelling errors in my previous posts and noticed when I went to correct them that the edit button was gone. How long to I have to edit? Is it only a few hours?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Mr Skeptic, I have pulled the pieces from our several exchanges that relate to the arena landscape of the greater universe. This portion of our discussion is about the process of energy-to matter-to energy that is characteristic of “arena action”. Arena action is a force at the arena level that is strikingly similar to the force of quantum action in the quantum realm, so that is why I isolated that part of the discussion.

 

If you can envision the expansion of multiple arenas in the landscape of the greater universe, you have a good mental picture of the action in the quantum realm also. If you note the expanding arenas intersect and overlap at the arena level, you have a physical picture of quantum waves intersecting and overlapping at the quantum level. A quantum wave is the quantum realm’s equivalent to the expanding arena in the landscape of the greater universe.

 

If you can envision the expansion momentum of expanding arenas being interrupted when two arenas intersect, then you can envision what happens when quantum waves at the quantum level intersect and overlap.

 

If you can envision the overlap of arenas involving two sets of galaxies where each arena is contributing its galaxies to the convergence, each set will have relative momentum. When the arenas meet and the momentum of their respective sets of galaxies are combined, gravity comes into play between the two sets of galaxies and there begins a dance of swirling rendezvous of galactic material (maybe to colorful a language).

 

The overlap region then is a new energy environment containing some of the galaxies from each set and having a new center of gravity. That center of gravity is the birth of a new big crunch because now gravity rules the new environment instead of expansion momentum.

 

In the excerpts you will come to below you will see a brief discussion of what happens to a big crunch to cause it to fail and burst into an expanding ball of dense dark energy.

 

There is a corresponding set of mechanics at the quantum level except the equivalent to the big crunch is called a high density spot at the quantum level, and the burst of a big crunch is called a “bounce off of a maximum limit of energy density” in the quantum realm.

 

Just as quantum action and arena action are forces that operate at their respective levels of order (quantum realm and arena landscape), there are quantified energy increments at each of the two levels of order also.

 

At the quantum level of order I have been calling the quantized increment of energy the “quantum”, and at the arena level of order the quantized increment is the energy of an arena (the energy in an arena is equivalent to the total energy of our expanding universe as you call it. I call it for now the critical capacity of a big crunch.

 

Arena action is what we have been discussing in the excerpts from our posts (below). Quantum action has strikingly similar mechanics. I mention this because if you will follow my lead here for just a moment, the mechanics of the action at the arena level will give you something to relate to when I describe the mechanics of the quantum level, i.e. quantum action.

 

Here are the excerpts:

 

Biav: What test do I propose that will allow the community to seriously consider QWC? None, unfortunately. Aside from discovering the unifying force, the test will be the fulfillment of the prediction that our expanding arena (our known universe) is one of a potentially infinite number of such arenas. Eventually our arena will intersect and overlap some neighboring arena and when that occurs there will be cosmic collisions and gamma ray blasts to record the convergence.

 

Skeptic: So, we know our universe is expanding. You are suggesting that there are other universes and that they are expanding (fairly reasonable), and that two such universes could expand into each other? But what is the mechanism (reason) by which our universe could intersect with another?

 

Biav: Yes, but I call them arenas because I reserve the term "universe" to mean the sum of all arenas. The greater universe is a somewhat redundant term but I use it often to distinguish between our expanding universe (arena), and the arena landscape of the greater universe.

 

Two expanding universes could expand into each other, i.e. intersect and overlap. The mechanism or reason by which they overlap is twofold. First they both exist separately in "contiguous" space meaning that space exists independent of the expansion of the arenas (I propose that space has always existed and is not created as inflation occurs).

 

Second, expanding arenas have similar histories that set them into expansion and the initiating force will cause them to continue to expand until they intersect.

 

They begin with the convergence of galactic matter from two (or more) arenas that have previously intersected. In the overlap region, the expansion momentum of the galaxies is overcome by the gravitational attraction between the converging galaxies. A new center of gravity is established and a big crunch forms out of the galactic remnants in the overlapping region of the two previously expanding arenas.

 

The crunch encompasses some physics related to energy density thresholds. Matter has a range of energy density within which it can function. In a big crunch that threshold of energy density is exceeded and matter ceases to function inside a big crunch. Gravity ceases when matter fails to function and the crunch fails from within. At the final capitulation of the crunch, the remaining gravity of the crunch is defeated by the potential expansion energy of the dense dark energy compressed at the core of the crunch and the dark energy is released into spherical expansion (an expanding ball of dense dark energy).

 

The two expanding arenas that both start from the burst of their own crunches will expand indefinitely until they intersect, overlap, and provide the gravity and galactic remnants to form a new big crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap.

 

Skeptic: So the arenas are embedded in some kind of space in the greater universe, and are expanding into that space?

 

Biav: Yes. One way to put it is that space could be empty but isn't because all space has some level of energy density, there are no voids. Energy density plays a major role in QWC.

 

End of excerpts.

 

If you can envision my view of arena action and how it perpetuates itself as arenas overlap, new crunch/bursts occur, and new arenas emerge, then picture that same action at the quantum level and you have a view of quantum action.

 

Where at the arena level the big crunch establishes the presence of a single arena, at the quantum level, a high density spot establishes the presence of a single quantum of mass.

 

The presence of mass is perpetuated at the quantum level in the same way the presence of arenas is perpetuated in the landscape of the greater universe.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I was too late in editing to correct this in my last post. In the following paragraph from my post to Mr. Skeptic, the word "quantified" should read "quantized".

 

 

"Just as quantum action and arena action are forces that operate at their respective levels of order (quantum realm and arena landscape), there are quantified energy increments at each of the two levels of order also."

 

... should say, "there are quantized energy increments at each level of order", meaning that there are quantized energy increments at the quantum level that contribute to establishing the presence of mass, and there are quantized energy increments at the arena level that are equivalent to the total amount of energy that can be accumulated into a big crunch before the maximum energy density threshold is reached.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm sorry, but your ideas are too vague for me to say much. And I am definitely not good at imagining. Before I withdraw from this discussion, I will share some comments though.

 

Funny that the simple math I have to describe quantum action was the hardest part because I have a simple equation but there are a few variables and to track a single quantum action takes a series of calculations.

 

Math is generally the hardest part because it is the most important part.

 

Quantum action may be the place to start. If so, my ideas about the aether have to be introduced and discussed to see how much merit they might have. I need the aether because I can't establish the presence of mass and the gravity that emanates from mass without it.

 

Well yes, but the real trick is to show that with the aether, you can explain the presence of mass and gravity.

 

Yes. One way to put it is that space could be empty but isn't because all space has some level of energy density, there are no voids. Energy density plays a major role in QWC.

 

As it does for standard cosmology. But I don't believe that you showed what role it does play.

 

Just a technical question. I found a couple of spelling errors in my previous posts and noticed when I went to correct them that the edit button was gone. How long to I have to edit? Is it only a few hours?

 

I think it is six hours. But I think that if you post something within about a day and before anyone else puts another post, the forum rules automatically merges them and allow you to edit again.

 

Mr Skeptic, I have pulled the pieces from our several exchanges that relate to the arena landscape of the greater universe. This portion of our discussion is about the process of energy-to matter-to energy that is characteristic of “arena action”. Arena action is a force at the arena level that is strikingly similar to the force of quantum action in the quantum realm, so that is why I isolated that part of the discussion.

 

But how strong is it? What does it do? What causes it?

 

If you can envision the expansion momentum of expanding arenas being interrupted when two arenas intersect, then you can envision what happens when quantum waves at the quantum level intersect and overlap.

 

They'd just crash each other, no? I'm actually not very familiar with quantum.

 

There is a corresponding set of mechanics at the quantum level except the equivalent to the big crunch is called a high density spot at the quantum level, and the burst of a big crunch is called a “bounce off of a maximum limit of energy density” in the quantum realm.

 

I think someone mentioned something similar elsewhere, it is called loop quantum gravity. Some PhD level work, I think.

 

Two expanding universes could expand into each other, i.e. intersect and overlap. The mechanism or reason by which they overlap is twofold. First they both exist separately in "contiguous" space meaning that space exists independent of the expansion of the arenas (I propose that space has always existed and is not created as inflation occurs).

 

But doesn't that mean that you now can't explain the Hubble law and cosmic redshift? In fact, that you would predict the expansion from the Big Bang to look like an explosion in space, rather than an explosion of space?

[foodchain]

If its not established scientific fact or something being seriously studied typically all one has is speculation on the subject, be it how many angels fit on a pin head or if decoherence can lead to the genesis of life, its not proven or even seriously studied outside some word of mouth conjecture by some, so therefore its nothing more then speculation. I have no problem accepting such as at one point most anything was little more then speculation. I think the more major issue is people taken offense with having whatever speculation they do hold being posted in such threads. I mean sure its easy to link chemical evolution to the formation of life on earth, but how this actually happened currently is still not figured out, and such also has many different hypothesis surrounding how such worked. So with that if you have some idea, go ahead and post it, try to support it with science and just be happy this forum has a place where you can put your ideas that aliens put life here on earth to make a galactic television show.