Casual question

[brain-in-a-vat]

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.

Thank you for your comments so far. I’ll look at your parting comments and I appreciate you sharing them.

 

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

 

Well, I did say it was simple math, actually basically just a formula that calculates the percentage of an energy quantum, whether at the quantum level of at the arena level, that is involved in the overlap at any particular point in the progress of the intersection of two expanding quanta.

 

The value of the formula is based on the idea that when an overlap proceeds to a particular point, a full quantum is accumulated in the overlap. A basic idea in QWC is that this event triggers an energy collapse into a high density spot if it occurs at the quantum level or into a big crunch if it occurs at the arena level.

 

Because the action at the two levels is so similar, the same equation works at both levels. When expanding spherical quantum waves within mass intersect and overlap the overlap proceeds until a new quantum forms and collapses into a high density spot. When expanding spherical arenas in the greater universe intersect and overlap the overlap proceeds until a enough energy to cause a big crunch is accumulated.

 

BTW, your comment about how vague my ideas are just possibly might be way I am here. I know I am “out there” with these speculations and am looking for input that either sets me straight, adds clarity, or even shows some interest if there ever is any. Not that my stuff will suddenly take on some clarity, but I did say it would take some time to get it all posted. I was almost getting excited when you took some interest so early in the game . I hope others will pick up where you leave off to keep my feet to the fire.

 

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

 

I have that if you can stand the word salad. To me the salad is a good first course. I’ll get to that early in my posting but I can’t cover it all in one post. No one would be able to get their arms around QWC if all of the courses are served in one big buffet. And to try to lay it all out at once would not be fair to me either because I want some input on the various ideas individually as I go. Later when it is pretty much all posted and IF anyone stays with it, then overall comments about QWC will be appreciated.

 

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

 

Well I don’t know how to respond. One, you said you aren’t good at imagining and speculation is akin to imagining. Two, I haven’t even gotten much more that a toe in the water .

 

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.

Thank you. I hate to have spelling errors and usually use spell check but somehow it seems a misspell slips through.

 

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

 

What causes it? The idea is that quantization is natural and occurs when a quantum of energy occupies a quantum-space. This natural event is supposedly happening at the scale of the quantum level and at the scale of the arena level. I know that is pretty vague.

 

How strong is it? I don’t know of any way to quantify it yet.

 

What does it do? It does QWC . Not to be cute but the natural quantization at the quantum level and at the arena level does it all, along with a thousand little details that accompany the big idea of "two levels of quantization".

 

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

 

Earlier I mentioned the gamma ray blasts, “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).”

 

I have animations of galaxies colliding and it isn’t a crash scene. They can almost pass right through each other. I would expect a few stars would collided and produce the gamma ray blasts but only when millions of galaxies pass through each other would we be likely to get a couple of galactic black holes colliding. That should be detectable many years later when the blast reaches us.

 

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

 

Yes, the “bounce” is part of LQG I believe. QWC is my concoction but I’m not the only one thinking about these things. LQG is a team effort sponsored by University and science grants. They have funding and computer equipment and in fact it was computer simulations of reverse entropy in the form of a collapse that lead the team to the “bounce”. The computer just kept on cranking out the simulation and the “bounce” was born. I wrote about it in another forum when it was published.

 

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?

 

Not at all. I said I accept most peer reviewed theory as the best we can do with the evidence and tools we have. I’m not going to post speculation that goes 180 degrees against the mainstream. I understand that current theory includes an “explosion of space” as you put it but there are alternatives that produce the same type of expansion, that themselves are not explosions.

 

My alternative is that the burst of a big crunch releases a ball of dense dark energy that was compressed in a big crunch. Dense energy is a state of energy inside a big crunch, and dark energy is the force of expansion (energy density equalization of the dense dark energy with the low energy denstiy of the greater universe). Dense dark energy is my term for the energy that expands out of the crunch before matter forms.

 

You know that we can’t really see space or an explosion of space; we see the galaxies as they move in space. The "inflation" you are talking about that occurs as expansion proceeds is the "evidence" that Hubble observed showing the red shift increases with the distance from us (in all directions).

 

That observed red shift would be observed from all points in the expanding arena because all galaxies, except for within some local groups, are moving away from each other.

 

My explanation is that matter formed after the dark energy had expanded the ball of dense dark energy until the density was low enough for matter to form. The matter formation is one of the thresholds of energy density that I mentioned earlier.

 

When matter begins to form, it forms within an expanding energy environment and expansion momentum is imparted to the matter as it forms from the dark energy. All matter that forms has expansion momentum, but the particles of dark matter are so close together at the time they form that gravity is stronger than expansion momentum and so clumping of particles occur. Atoms form, hydrogen especially, and as hydrogen clumps, hydrogen stars form, etc.

 

Nowhere is this in any way an explosion of matter. It is a burst of energy too dense for matter to exist. As the density declines matter forms while expansion of the energy is still occurring. The resulting galaxies (time passes) occupy a co-moving coordinate system which is exactly what we observe.

 

The galaxies are “riding” the expansion momentum from the big burst. Eventually, if I have my way, arenas will intersect .

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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.

Thank you for that. I promise you I will not discuss evolution or space aliens, at least it is not currently a part of QWC . Edited March 14, 2009 by brain-in-a-vat
Consecutive posts merged.

[brain-in-a-vat]

This is a warning, there is another big post coming . Whew, I spent the day writing and editing and as soon as I can get someone to proof read it I will post it. I'm hoping to create some suspense while you wait, given that since Skeptic backed out of the discussion, well ... there isn't anyone left . This post will contain another level of detail in a few areas, but of course with detail comes length and so be prepared for about three thousand more words.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Nucleosynthesis Begins

 

The initial cautions posted by members of the community were, “if you are asking for input, if you are saying, ‘here is my idea, what do you think’, if you don’t come across as if you insist you are right and expect a Nobel Prize, then the community might evaluate your ideas and give you feedback, especially if they find the ideas violate known science. “On the other hand, if you speculate about things that cannot be tested, then it will be treated as pseudoscience and for the most part ignored.”

 

And then there are my ideas that have a hint of being responsible and reasonable but where the “test” suggested is really a prediction that some solid evidence is coming, but maybe not in our lifetimes (or in any human’s lifetime for that matter). I realize that is exactly like what we are asked to believe by various religions, or even by cult groups who have dire predictions of doom. My effort in an earlier post was to distinguish my ideas from pseudoscience because the test/prediction cannot be performed or repeated in the short term.

 

So let me offer more detail for you to evaluate which might lead to some feedback about possible tests doable with today’s technology that I am not experienced enough to know about.

 

If you read this you will have to read about two thousand words just to get exposed to the new detail. It is not easy reading and I don’t claim to have the ability to express myself in an interesting way. This post has to do with nucleosynthesis and the energy-to matter-to energy (E-M-E) process. The thing that makes the E-M-E process available for us to evaluate in the present and at the quantum level of order (and for possible testing ideas) is that the M in E-M-E is matter and matter is said to form within every arena during its expansion phase from dense dark energy.

 

So if matter does form from dark energy then all particles we call “fundamental” will form out of the energy or as a result of interactions of those particles that do, i.e. there are no particles, not even quarks, in the burst of dense dark energy.

 

In addition to the dense dark energy producing the fundamental particles, there is a factor from outside of the initial dense dark energy ball that is considered to have a major role in the matter formation process. Remember that the big crunch formed as a result of the intersection and overlap of two or more expanding arenas. The energy environment outside the crunch is composed of the arena remnants that did not get caught up in the collapsing overlap of the expanding arenas. That “outside” energy begins to be incorporated into the expanding dense dark energy right from the instant of the burst.

 

It can be said that the dense dark energy is equalizing its energy density with the energy density of the surrounding energy environment as expansion progresses.

 

If we say that the burst contained an arena worth of energy (i.e. the total energy in the burst is the same for every burst; it could be called an arena-quantum), then the total energy in the expanding arena is increasing as this equalization occurs. The expanding arena contains the original arena-quantum of energy and it gains energy from the outside environment through the process of energy density equalization.

 

So with this description of the dual source of the energy content of the expanding arena, we have the constituent energy from which matter forms and the expanding environment within which it forms.

 

Let’s analyze the two constituents. The expanding energy ball referred to as dense dark energy has the word “dense” because it has been compressed to the maximum possible energy density inside the crunch and retains that label until its density declines to the matter formation threshold. The name contains the word “dark” not to say that there are no particles that are emitting electromagnetic radiation (there are no particles at all), but to say there is an unseen expansionary force there. That force is the result of what is called potential expansion energy that was built up as the energy was compressed beyond the upper matter functioning range, i.e. the “energy” part of the force that I called arena action earlier in the thread.

 

The other constituent of the energy content of the arena is the energy environment that surrounded the crunch at the time of the burst, and that is being incorporated into the dense dark energy as expansion occurs. That energy is called background energy and is made up of three main constituents, electromagnetic radiation, dark matter, and dark energy.

 

Electromagnetic radiation is coursing through space from all directions as the result of a history of arenas that have played out across the landscape of the greater universe. It is called cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The other two constituents of the background energy are quantized and unquantized dark energy. Both are energy remnants from the same history of arena action that gives us the CMB. Some of the dark energy becomes quantized during the matter formation process but does not get incorporated into the fundamental particles that form next; it is dark matter. The other part of the dark energy is simply the expanding remnant of the dark energy which continues to occupy space and files all voids after the matter formation period is completed; a period that is very brief in cosmic terms.

 

So that is the “soup” from which matter forms during the expansion phase of arena action.

 

I bet you are saying that you can’t understand this, but I know that understanding can be gained. You can envision things that are against your current understanding. I’m sure it is entirely possible for you to do that. But I also think that we can envision future discoveries and the process of discovery requires us to do so. I don’t know if you would agree that you need to understand what I am saying before you can debunk it, and it isn’t likely that you are thinking that I am envisioning future discovery. But never the less, there are certainly some laughs here if you have the right attitude. I would like to know what the laughable parts are, and I hope you think that is the right attitude on my part.

 

So let’s move to the part about what the temperature is of this pre-matter formation soup. Any process of nucleosynthesis must comply with the entire recipe, and temperature is just as important to the recipe as the constituents that go into the soup.

 

My prediction is that we have a “cold start” to the matter formation process. I know that goes against your current understanding and for that I apologize because I said I accept most peer-reviewed theory as the best we can do given the evidence and the tools. Briefly, my reasons for going with a “cold start” in Quantum Wave Cosmology are twofold. First, if matter ceases to function at some maximum level of energy density (required in the mechanics of the burst) then photons are not being emitted to heat things up. Second, the high energy photons, electrons, protons, X-Rays, cosmic rays and other particles already in existence and characteristic of the tremendous heat and radiation associated with the formation of a big crunch will be converted to dense dark energy. This conversion occurs just like the conversion of gravity and mass of the crunch that occurs at the moment of the negation of functioning matter.

 

How can heat be converted to dense dark energy? The process of heat generation is stopped in the core as gravity and mass are converted to dense state energy leaving no functioning particles to produce or absorb electromagnetic radiation. As the core grows it does not generate heat and it gradually diminishes the mass of the crunch (dense energy has no mass in QWC because mass is a process and all processes are halted). As the mass of the crunch is diminished, the gravitational emanation of the crunch is proportionally diminished.

 

The core consists of perfectly equalized energy density and the equalization is maintained throughout the core as it grows. The existing heat outside the core is at the maximum possible temperature which is associated with the maximum possible energy density that triggers the formation of the dense energy core. That heat energy is expended to drive the energy density over the threshold required for dense state energy to form. The heat is effectively converted to dense state energy in the process.

 

Two main differences between Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and big burst nucleosynthesis are the point at which heat begins to dissipate and the constituents of the soup from which matter forms.

 

So after the burst and after energy density equalization has lowered the energy density to the matter formation threshold we get rapid and abundant matter formation across the expanding arena. The phrase “rapid and abundant” means that matter forms almost simultaneously throughout the space encompassed by the arena.

 

I maintain that dark matter is the first matter to form. Dark matter is the first product of the quantization of energy. Quantization occurs as follows. When the density of the dense dark energy declines to the matter formation threshold it reaches the point in the range of energy densities where there is sufficient background intrusion from outside the arena to allow quantum action to occur. Remember quantum action was forced to stop due to the compression of energy in the big crunch.

 

A huge amount of mass, gravitational energy and heat energy was consumed to produce the dense state energy, and so it is expected that there will be a huge amount of dense dark energy consumed to produce dark matter and its associated gravity, i.e. it is an e=mc^2 type of relationship.

 

Dark matter is marked by the presence of energy quanta. Energy quanta exist when quantum action is taking place. So what is quantum action and what causes it to take place?

 

Quantum action is the consequence when energy density falls from the dense state to within the range that accommodates the formation of matter. As the density of energy declines out of its dense state where it was perfectly equalized it is forced to give up its equalized state and it gives it up grudgingly. Microscopic low density holes form and the dense energy rushes in to fill them and to maintain the equalization state. But it is a futile effort and more and more holes of low energy density keep forming as arena expansion continues and the dense energy keeps filling them. What was once mostly dense dark energy quickly becomes mostly “holes” of low energy density and what is left of the dense dark energy is only able to find and maintain its dense state at the center of the holes.

 

By way of analogy, if you shot photons into expanding dense state energy then microscopic low density “holes” form in the dense state energy because the energy of a photon is lower than the density of dense state energy.

 

But that is only half of the picture because once the “holes” predominate, the low energy density of the holes surrounding the remaining bits of dense energy want to equalize with the bits of dense energy. As a result the bit of dense energy is forced to expand to fill the low energy density hole. This produces a spherically expanding quantum wave of energy and primes the process of repeating quantum action that occurs within mass.

 

Quantum action goes on at all times when the energy density of the arena is within the matter functioning range. The bit of dense dark energy in each “hole” has now become a quantum of energy and the force of quantum action that began as a struggle between the dense state energy and the intruding low energy density is now self-perpetuating process of overlapping energy quanta followed by the collapse of quanta of energy into high density spots. The spots in turn bust into expansion to perpetuate the process.

 

The formation of matter across the expanding environment quickly transforms the arena into a sea of dark matter and dark energy. It can be described as intersecting energy quanta closely packed across the expanding arena. All the while the entire arena sea is continually being intruded upon by the three constituents of the surrounding energy environment.

 

Gravity is extremely strong relative to expansion momentum at this stage in the E-M-E process. What unfolds in the arena from here is a result of the imbalance between gravity and expansion momentum. Expansion momentum will eventually win out but until then, fundamental particles of matter, electromagnetic radiation, atoms of hydrogen, neutrons, helium, and eventually stars, stellar nucleosynthesis, metallization, and galaxies will form.

 

We have dark matter in the form of energy quanta separating and moving away from each other due to the expansion momentum imparted to them as they formed, and also attracting each other with their new gravitational emanation. The expanding arena is now ready to start quanta clumping due to gravity, and the clumping is the source of many of the fundamental particles.

 

To be continued after the robust discussion to follow

[brain-in-a-vat]

OK, that is enough robust discussion .

 

I don't mean to sound ungrateful because though the feed back was brief and limited to my posts being found "too vague", I can appreciate how difficult my writing is to follow. Essentially I am asking the reviewer to forget all you know about standard theory for a moment and consider a view of the universe built from the bottom up. Also, when I make the claim that my speculations are "reasonable and responsible step by step speculations", I know that is a huge accusation on my part.

 

But because I realize these "problems" with being able to reach out to your community, I simply must express my gratitude for providing a forum where I can make my presentation.

 

Now it is time for someone to step forward and engage me with the questions that come into your mind.

 

Does anyone want to ask how I can seriously expect to be taken seriously?

 

Does anyone want to ask why I think the my speculations qualify as protoscience instead of non-science when no one in the scientific community has peer reviewed work that covers what I cover? Certainly there are those among you who maintain that if there was anything to what I propose, some much more qualified individuals would have come out with it long ago.

 

So why does no one point out my audacity and cut me down with the criticisms that I see offered to almost every thread in this forum?

 

Is it because no one can get themselves to actually read all the way through my stuff because it is so revolting? Or because it gets so vague too quickly to catch your interest? Or am I posting about a field of investigation that is outside of the interest of the group?

[brain-in-a-vat]

Let me try a different approach.

 

Does anyone agree that the physics of the known universe includes a concept of energy that encompasses a large body of knowledge and theory? And maybe the most important part of what we know about energy is the equivalence between mass and energy.

 

Agree or disagree?

 

Agree … good.

 

Equivalence between mass and energy is represented by Einstein’s equation e=mc^2. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Agree? … Good.

 

We know energy is a characteristic of mass and can be used by extracting it from mass, as in burning coal to boil water to turn a turbine to operate machinery. That process converts energy from coal to useful motion. Agree? … Good.

 

Does everyone agree that there is a precise equivalence instead of an imprecise casual variable type of relationship between energy contained within mass and the useful energy that is extracted from mass?

 

Is this precise equivalence, if it is true, enough evidence to support a concept of energy quantization? In other words, no matter how or when the mass got formed, while it has been in its present form, at a constant temperature, and unexcited by outside sources, it has always contained a precise amount of energy as in the equation e=mc^2 would indicate? Agreed? ... I hope so.

 

The implication I am getting at is that the fundamental particles of the standard particle model that have mass would all have an equivalent amount of energy relative to their mass, and if fundamental particles have different mass, they would have different energy equivalence.

 

And if energy quantization is the way that equivalence is achieved by nature, wouldn't it follow that the fundamental particles would contain energy in quantum increments, implying that the various fundamental particles all have something in common, and that commonality is energy quantization.

[brain-in-a-vat]

This is a tough crowd . Early on eight or ten people posted to give me encouragement and confidence to post my scenario of cosmology. It is not very likely that the only comment that is in the minds of any of you who have read the ideas is that it I am too vague.

 

My last post for example. I tried to be pretty specific about the idea of quantification of energy and the idea that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. Quantization is one point in the scenario of ideas where no tests have been proposed and so I have no theory, only protoscience. Can you argue against quantization of energy even if you aren't moved to comment on my suggestion that it is reasonable and responsible speculation?

[Klaynos]

Let me try a different approach.

 

Does anyone agree that the physics of the known universe includes a concept of energy that encompasses a large body of knowledge and theory? And maybe the most important part of what we know about energy is the equivalence between mass and energy.

 

Agree or disagree?

 

Agree … good.

 

I wouldn't say most important but we can go with that

 

Equivalence between mass and energy is represented by Einstein’s equation e=mc^2. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Agree? … Good.

 

Well actually no... The equation is:

 

E² = (mc²)² + p²c²

 

Which when the momentum is 0 it becomes what you quoted.

 

We know energy is a characteristic of mass and can be used by extracting it from mass, as in burning coal to boil water to turn a turbine to operate machinery.

 

Urmmm no, these are chemical energy reactions, NOT nuclear. The energy in these cases comes from chemical bonds, not mass differences.

 

That process converts energy from coal to useful motion. Agree? … Good.

 

Chemical energy to thermal energy to kinetic energy.

 

Does everyone agree that there is a precise equivalence instead of an imprecise casual variable type of relationship between energy contained within mass and the useful energy that is extracted from mass?

 

Yes.

 

Is this precise equivalence, if it is true, enough evidence to support a concept of energy quantization?

 

Energy quantisation is well understood.

 

In other words, no matter how or when the mass got formed, while it has been in its present form, at a constant temperature, and unexcited by outside sources, it has always contained a precise amount of energy as in the equation e=mc^2 would indicate? Agreed? ... I hope so.

 

No, and the simple answer is because the energy converted from whatever form into mass energy is not JUST converted into mass energy but into mass and kinetic energy, as the equation I wrote above shows....

 

The implication I am getting at is that the fundamental particles of the standard particle model that have mass would all have an equivalent amount of energy relative to their mass, and if fundamental particles have different mass, they would have different energy equivalence.

 

And if energy quantization is the way that equivalence is achieved by nature, wouldn't it follow that the fundamental particles would contain energy in quantum increments, implying that the various fundamental particles all have something in common, and that commonality is energy quantization.

 

This falls down because you're not considering the full form of the equation.

[Martin]

... I tried to be pretty specific about the idea of quantification of energy and the idea that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. Quantization is one point in the scenario of ideas where no tests have been proposed and so I have no theory, only protoscience. Can you argue against quantization of energy even if you aren't moved to comment on my suggestion that it is reasonable and responsible speculation?

 

The energy levels in a hydrogen atom are different from those in a helium atom.

 

Those levels are different from the levels in any other element you pick, and from the levels in an ion (say a nitrogen with one extra electron or one too few.) Or the levels in a molecule.

 

None of these are commensurate. There is no common unit that energy levels are multiples of. Even in the simplest system--a hydrogen atom---the levels are not integer multiples of a common unit.

 

There is no common unit if you go across species, like from copper to iron, as I mentioned.

 

In other words in any simple ordinary sense energy is not quantized.

 

What quantum mechanics does for you is discretize energy levels in specific situations (in ways which usually appear irregular but can sometimes be described by mathematics which is again specific to the particular atom or situation...)

====================

 

 

It sounded like you think that all energy comes in multiples of some fixed unit and that therefore (since particle rest mass is proportional to energy) you think particle rest masses should come in multiples of some fixed unit.

 

You asked for someone to argue against that kind of energy quantization. So I argued, at what I took to be your request.

 

If that is not what you had in mind, just ignore my post and don't bother to answer.

====================

 

In this kind of a thread my personal habit is to get hold of and reply only to short posts, if at all, short like the one here that I responded to. Not everybody reacts the same, however.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Martin

[swansont]

Urmmm no, these are chemical energy reactions, NOT nuclear. The energy in these cases comes from chemical bonds, not mass differences.

 

A nit: the masses will be different, but perhaps 6 orders of magnitude smaller than for nuclear reaction. Chemical bonds vs nuclear bonds. IOW, in chemistry, conservation of mass is a reasonable approximation that can be applied.

[Klaynos]

A nit: the masses will be different, but perhaps 6 orders of magnitude smaller than for nuclear reaction. Chemical bonds vs nuclear bonds. IOW, in chemistry, conservation of mass is a reasonable approximation that can be applied.

 

I was wondering that as I wrote it... Which is why I hadn't replied sooner was going to look it up but I haven't had the time :|

[lucaspa]

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"?

 

Yes. That rule is based on a refuted philosophy of science called Positivism. It held that entities had to be "verified" before they could be considered as existing. Entities included hypotheses/theories.

 

In actuality, in science nearly all hypotheses/theories are proposed without evidence! You propose them first and then go looking for the evidence to test them. The object of the testing is to show the idea to be wrong.

 

"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

 

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?

 

That would seem to be the case. Although that means that Martin Bojowald is not doing science.

 

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

 

No. I think the problem here is that too many people come here with "speculations" that are not tentative and that they are not willing to give up. How firmly comitted are you to this idea that space existed before the BB? If you are not willing to listen to evidence falsifying it, then conversation with you isn't going to be "fun". So the proscription may have been to at least make you test your idea a bit before you post it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

We know energy is a characteristic of mass and can be used by extracting it from mass, as in burning coal to boil water to turn a turbine to operate machinery. That process converts energy from coal to useful motion. Agree? … Good.

 

As several people noted, this is energy in chemical bonds, not differences in mass! If you want E = mc^2 to apply, you are into nuclear fission or fusion.

 

Does everyone agree that there is a precise equivalence instead of an imprecise casual variable type of relationship between energy contained within mass and the useful energy that is extracted from mass?

 

No. Now you are into entropy. When you say "useful energy" you are saying "energy available to do work". So now you are talking about entropy. There is not an "equivalence" but very precise equations relating the "useful energy" to the total energy.

 

And if energy quantization is the way that equivalence is achieved by nature, wouldn't it follow that the fundamental particles would contain energy in quantum increments, implying that the various fundamental particles all have something in common, and that commonality is energy quantization.

 

Fundamental particles do have something in common: they are composed of quarks.

 

At some level, energy in atoms is quantized, but not the energy of mass you are thinking about: http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/pt/allan/allan1a.htm

 

Atoms and electrons within atoms can exist only at particular quantized energy states. However, I have never heard of E = mc^2 + p^2c^2 being quantized. The energy we get from nuclear explosions or nuclear reactions does not seem to be quantized. That research -- nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors -- would be the place I'd start if I wanted to find evidence that E = mc^2 was quantized.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

the M in E-M-E is matter and matter is said to form within every arena during its expansion phase from dense dark energy.

 

So if matter does form from dark energy

 

You need citations to the scientific literature here. I have never seen anything that says matter arises from dark energy. Dark energy is the term used to describe the repulsive force that is responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

So, you need to document your "if". Everything after that depends on this being true, so you have to document that it is.

 

Remember that the big crunch formed as a result of the intersection and overlap of two or more expanding arenas.

 

All the evidence now says there was no "big crunch". The universe is just going to expand forever. Nor have I seen anything about "the intesection and overlap of two or more expanding arenas" Again, you need citations to the scientific literature. Without those this discussion stops dead in its tracks.

 

We have dark matter in the form of energy quanta separating and moving away from each other due to the expansion momentum imparted to them as they formed,

 

Again, the data I have seen contradicts this. Dark matter seems concentrated in galaxies and is not "moving away from each other". Again you must have a scientific citation to back this statement.

[brain-in-a-vat]

... Well actually no... The equation is:

 

E² = (mc²)² + p²c²

 

Which when the momentum is 0 it becomes what you quoted.

 

... Chemical energy to thermal energy to kinetic energy.

 

Energy quantisation is well understood.

 

No, and the simple answer is because the energy converted from whatever form into mass energy is not JUST converted into mass energy but into mass and kinetic energy, as the equation I wrote above shows....

 

This falls down because you're not considering the full form of the equation.

 

The energy levels in a hydrogen atom are different from those in a helium atom.

 

Those levels are different from the levels in any other element you pick, and from the levels in an ion (say a nitrogen with one extra electron or one too few.) Or the levels in a molecule.

 

None of these are commensurate. There is no common unit that energy levels are multiples of. Even in the simplest system--a hydrogen atom---the levels are not integer multiples of a common unit.

 

There is no common unit if you go across species, like from copper to iron, as I mentioned.

 

In other words in any simple ordinary sense energy is not quantized.

 

What quantum mechanics does for you is discretize energy levels in specific situations (in ways which usually appear irregular but can sometimes be described by mathematics which is again specific to the particular atom or situation...)

====================

 

 

It sounded like you think that all energy comes in multiples of some fixed unit and that therefore (since particle rest mass is proportional to energy) you think particle rest masses should come in multiples of some fixed unit.

 

You asked for someone to argue against that kind of energy quantization. So I argued, at what I took to be your request.

 

If that is not what you had in mind, just ignore my post and don't bother to answer.

====================

 

In this kind of a thread my personal habit is to get hold of and reply only to short posts, if at all, short like the one here that I responded to. Not everybody reacts the same, however.

 

Yes. That rule is based on a refuted philosophy of science called Positivism. It held that entities had to be "verified" before they could be considered as existing. Entities included hypotheses/theories.

 

In actuality, in science nearly all hypotheses/theories are proposed without evidence! You propose them first and then go looking for the evidence to test them. The object of the testing is to show the idea to be wrong.

 

"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

 

That would seem to be the case. Although that means that Martin Bojowald is not doing science.

 

No. I think the problem here is that too many people come here with "speculations" that are not tentative and that they are not willing to give up. How firmly comitted are you to this idea that space existed before the BB? If you are not willing to listen to evidence falsifying it, then conversation with you isn't going to be "fun". So the proscription may have been to at least make you test your idea a bit before you post it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

As several people noted, this is energy in chemical bonds, not differences in mass! If you want E = mc^2 to apply, you are into nuclear fission or fusion.

 

No. Now you are into entropy. When you say "useful energy" you are saying "energy available to do work". So now you are talking about entropy. There is not an "equivalence" but very precise equations relating the "useful energy" to the total energy.

 

Fundamental particles do have something in common: they are composed of quarks.

 

At some level, energy in atoms is quantized, but not the energy of mass you are thinking about: http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/pt/allan/allan1a.htm

 

Atoms and electrons within atoms can exist only at particular quantized energy states. However, I have never heard of E = mc^2 + p^2c^2 being quantized. The energy we get from nuclear explosions or nuclear reactions does not seem to be quantized. That research -- nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors -- would be the place I'd start if I wanted to find evidence that E = mc^2 was quantized.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

You need citations to the scientific literature here. I have never seen anything that says matter arises from dark energy. Dark energy is the term used to describe the repulsive force that is responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

So, you need to document your "if". Everything after that depends on this being true, so you have to document that it is.

 

All the evidence now says there was no "big crunch". The universe is just going to expand forever. Nor have I seen anything about "the intesection and overlap of two or more expanding arenas" Again, you need citations to the scientific literature. Without those this discussion stops dead in its tracks.

 

Again, the data I have seen contradicts this. Dark matter seems concentrated in galaxies and is not "moving away from each other". Again you must have a scientific citation to back this statement.

All of your comments are appreciated. They point out what I readily admit; my scenario goes beyond the mainstream, I have no proof, and I can’t point to a means of testing my scenario. I make a case for it being protoscience as opposed to pseudoscience on the basis that it is compatible with existing science and that technological advancement will allow for tests to be developed. Whether it is protoscience or not might boil down to each of our personal interpretations of the scientific method.

 

If you have the stick-to-itiveness to wade through the following you will see how I attempt to defend my position in response to your recent posts. I will be happy to address any specifics from your previous responses that you don’t feel are addressed below.

 

Energy defined in Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC):

(Summary level ... I can provide more detail on any point below to explain my ideas but it will still only be ideas and not qualified science so don't expect any proof or proposed means of testing the ideas for awhile.)

My scenario is that in our finite arena that we call our expanding universe there is a finite amount of energy that takes many forms. As the scenario goes, if there was a common unit in which we could describe all energy it would be called the energy quantum, a precise amount of energy that lies at the heart of the idea and concept of quantization that I am using as a means to account for energy in all of it forms and uses in QWC. The term quantum here is not the familiar usage of the term quantum as in the discrete energy packets of electromagnetic radiation or as in describing the quantum nature of the various fundamental particles. I am using the term quantum as a common denominator of all forms of energy, nuclear, thermal, kinetic, any form that energy can take. And I am proposing the idea (it is an idea and not science, maybe better call protoscience) that in our finite arena of space that we call our expanding universe, all of the energy when measured in this as yet un-quantified but consistent increment called the quantum, adds up to a finite but all inclusive amount of energy in our arena.

 

Note that quantization is a mechanism that allows energy to be “used” and to change form with perfect precision, in other words with perfect accounting for every quantum. It is this basic accounting that QWC sees in nature that supports the theory that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

Keep in mind that entropy is our enemy. Quantization may be perfect, but entropy measures the decline in “useful energy”; without reverse entropy the end result is the “heat death” of the universe or the “big rip” as described by current theories. If (and I say if even though it is contrary to QWC, if) our universe consists of only our finite expanding arena, then there seems to be no turning it around. Expansion is accelerating, the amount of useful energy is finite and declining as entropy increases, and there is no indication of a mechanism of reverse entropy in current theory (though there are various ideas about it that are not embraced by the scientific community). Unless there are other similar arenas throughout the greater universe (beyond our known expanding universe, our expanding arena will not be able to support life forever.

 

In my scenario, all space contains energy meaning that there is an additional form of energy, an aether that fills all space leaving no voids, and therefore at every point in space there is some level of energy density. Energy can be in the form of the aether, or it can be quantized as in mass and it can even be in another energy state called “dense state” energy at the core of a big crunch, so dense that mass cannot function at that level of compression. The energy that makes up the mass of the universe is in quantum increments and therefore mass is quantized energy that exists in a sea of aether.

 

Quantized mass is not static but is characterized by quantum action that is a very rapid and repetitive process of renewal of the presence of the energy quanta that make up all mass. Quantum action is a force that encompasses a quantum of energy and that describes a repetition that takes place each instant within mass. Quantum action involves the accumulation of a quantum of energy, the collapse of that quantum into a high density spot, the burst (bounce off of a limit of maximum energy density) of that energy into a spherically expanding quantum wave, all occurring within a brief instant. The intersecting and overlapping of quantum waves is what allows new quanta to form from the energy contained in spherically expanding quantum waves. They overlap, the energy that converges in the overlap collapses into a high density spot, the spot achieves the maximum possible energy density allowed by nature and “bounces” into a burst of energy that takes the shape of a spherically expanding quantum wave of energy thus perpetuating the process of quantum action.

 

I know this is vague but the exact amount of energy in a quantum, the exact amount of space occupied by a quantum of energy at its high density point, and the length of time it takes for one quantum action to occur are not known yet. I can only say that the energy increment is the smallest possible energy increment that can have a meaningful impact in the formation of mass, the space occupied by the high density spot phase of quantum action is the smallest possible space that can be described with any hope of quantification, and the length of time it takes for a “quantum action” to occur and re-occur is the shortest amount of time we can hope to ever measure because these quantities are the final limits of what we call “infinitesimal”.

 

It is from this context that I define the term energy in the cosmology that I am trying to describe. My definition is therefore much broader than the definition of energy that falls within the accepted scientific usage of the term.

 

This more inclusive definition, i.e. that the universe “is” energy, describes why I am mixing my energy terms and concepts when viewed from a mainstream perspective. To me useful energy and its relationship to entropy deals with the same energy as is contained in mass, as is represented by motion, as is a characteristic of electromagnetic radiation, thermal radiation, as is a characteristic of chemical reactions, as is the medium of space called the aether, and as is the sole component of the universe that can take so many forms. There is perfect conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed, and all of the energy in the universe has always existed and is continually participating in the processes of quantum action and arena action.

 

In addition to our finite arena (which we call our expanding universe), there is a greater universe that encompasses a potentially infinite number of arenas of the same amount of energy, i.e. quantized at the arena level of order. Some are expanding arenas and some are contracting arenas, but all are in a greater universe where entropy is defeated by the arena process that is characterized by energy-to matter- to energy process. This process centers around the formation of high density big crunches, the burst of crunches into expanding balls of dark energy, the formation of mass within the expanding dark energy, and the eventual formation of galaxies that are separating from each other in all directions. This separation of galaxies in a co-moving coordinate system occurs because expansion momentum is imparted to mass as it forms and momentum is conserved as mass clumps into particles, atoms, stars and galaxies. In QWC there will be an eventual overlap of the galactic expansions of two or more arenas (two or more co-moving coordinate systems) to form new arenas which collapse into big crunches. It is a perpetual process called “arena action” of which our expanding arena is a small and passing part.

 

And to round out the energy picture in my scenario, in what I call Quantum Wave Cosmology, the arena process (“arena action”) that takes place in the landscape of the greater universe is very similar to what I describe as “quantum action” that I described as taking place at the infinitesimal level of order. The major difference is that at the infinitesimal level of order there is insufficient compression surrounding the high density spots and so the high density spots bounce immediately into spherically expanding quantum waves as soon as the maximum energy density is achieved. On the other end of the energy density spectrum, when a big crunch forms, compression is present and builds until the crunch reaches maximum internal energy density and is finally defeated from within leading to the burst and the resulting spherically expanding ball of dense dark energy.

 

So yes, I have a laymen’s understanding of the mainstream view of energy and its various forms, and yes, I understand the mainstream view of entropy, and of electromagnetic radiation, thermal radiation, rest energy, relativistic energy, kinetic energy, energy released in chemical reactions, and even potential energy. I understand that energy and force go together. I understand that no aether has been detected and the concept of aether is called “superseded scientific theory” since it was not discovered as predicted. But to define energy in QWC, all of the above must be taken into account.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I had to add a merged post to get access to do some editing to the above post to correct spelling and add some phrasing about the difference between quantum action at the micro and macro levels.

Edited April 20, 2009 by brain-in-a-vat
Consecutive posts merged.

[lucaspa]

All of your comments are appreciated. They point out what I readily admit; my scenario goes beyond the mainstream, I have no proof, and I can’t point to a means of testing my scenario. I make a case for it being protoscience as opposed to pseudoscience on the basis that it is compatible with existing science and that technological advancement will allow for tests to be developed.

 

You need to go back and look at the responses more. Several people are giving you evidence that contradicts your scenario. That means your scenario is not "compatible with existing science".

 

Whether it is protoscience or not might boil down to each of our personal interpretations of the scientific method.

 

There are no "personal interpretations" involved. I notice you did not document any of the "ifs" on which your logic hung. Without that you have nothing and your deductive logic can't be trusted.

 

What it looks like you did is take some of the words we used -- such as "entropy" -- and just irrelevantly included them into your scenario.

 

My scenario is that in our finite arena that we call our expanding universe there is a finite amount of energy that takes many forms.

 

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that there is a finite amount of energy no matter how you define our universe.

 

As the scenario goes, if there was a common unit in which we could describe all energy it would be called the energy quantum, a precise amount of energy that lies at the heart of the idea and concept of quantization that I am using as a means to account for energy in all of it forms and uses in QWC.

 

The problem is that many experiments with energy show that energy is not quantized in and of itself. Instead, the "quantization" comes from electrons dropping from higher electron orbits to lower ones, discrete chemical bonds formed or broken, and discrete amounts of matter converted to energy in nuclear fission and fusion. IF energy itself were quantized, there would be a common quanta in which each of these would be integers of that quantum. The data I have seen contradicts that. For instance, if an electron drops from a 2p to a 1p electron orbital, you get one quanta of energy. But if it drops from 2s to 1s, you get a different one that is not related by an integer to the first. If your scenario were correct, this should be the case.

 

The term quantum here is not the familiar usage of the term quantum as in the discrete energy packets of electromagnetic radiation or as in describing the quantum nature of the various fundamental particles. I am using the term quantum as a common denominator of all forms of energy, nuclear, thermal, kinetic, any form that energy can take. And I am proposing the idea (it is an idea and not science, maybe better call protoscience) that in our finite arena of space that we call our expanding universe, all of the energy when measured in this as yet un-quantified but consistent increment called the quantum, adds up to a finite but all inclusive amount of energy in our arena.

 

Then you are not saying anything new! I advise you to look at the First Law of Thermodynamics. We're done.

[brain-in-a-vat]

You need to go back and look at the responses more. Several people are giving you evidence that contradicts your scenario. That means your scenario is not "compatible with existing science".

Can you be specific by using the quote function to highlight evidence that contradicts my scenario and that also means my scenario is not compatible with existing science? I read the comments pretty carefully, and I'm pretty familiar with everything that was mentioned, and I have responses that generally resolve the incompatibilities that you imply have been “evidenced”.

 

 

 

There are no "personal interpretations" involved. I notice you did not document any of the "ifs" on which your logic hung. Without that you have nothing and your deductive logic can't be trusted.

I would be glad to give my view on any of the “ifs” that you want to address specifically.

 

 

 

What it looks like you did is take some of the words we used -- such as "entropy" -- and just irrelevantly included them into your scenario.

That is not the case. I have mentioned my previous threads on other forums where I have presented this scenario in more detail. Instead of the accusations that I am gaming those who were kind enough to respond, why not try to understand where I am coming from. I haven’t tried to hide the fact that this is speculation, but I am quite sure that speculation has a place in the development of science. If I am wrong on that you might want to address the thousands of Google links that come up when you Google “science speculation”. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=science+speculation&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

 

 

 

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that there is a finite amount of energy no matter how you define our universe.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=First+Law+of+Thermodynamics+&btnG=Search

Less than a million links on Google for this search. Please show me where any of them define the parameters of our universe or say that there has to be a finite amount of energy in the universe.

 

 

 

 

The problem is that many experiments with energy show that energy is not quantized in and of itself. Instead, the "quantization" comes from electrons dropping from higher electron orbits to lower ones, discrete chemical bonds formed or broken, and discrete amounts of matter converted to energy in nuclear fission and fusion. IF energy itself were quantized, there would be a common quanta in which each of these would be integers of that quantum. The data I have seen contradicts that. For instance, if an electron drops from a 2p to a 1p electron orbital, you get one quanta of energy. But if it drops from 2s to 1s, you get a different one that is not related by an integer to the first. If your scenario were correct, this should be the case.

I mentioned the usage of quantization that you are referring to. I explained that the quantization that I am referring to takes place at a level that is undetectable by our current level of technology. That is why this is speculation. You might understand what I mean when I say that as our technology improves we may someday be able to observe what goes on at the infinitesimal level of order.

 

 

 

Then you are not saying anything new! I advise you to look at the First Law of Thermodynamics.

My challenge from above still stands. I gave you over 700,000 Google links on 1LT. Show me what I missed that supports your statement.

 

I am uncomfortable getting into this kind of challenge and counter challenge, but if I shy away from it am I admitting that I hadn’t already done my homework and hadn’t been made aware of an argument and that it really overturns my scenario. From what you have said, I feel bad to have to stand up for my scenario because you have made a sincere effort to enlighten me, but so far I have already covered the territory that you bring up as I developed this scenario and I am ready to address any of the issues you mention in more detail if you give me a chance.

 

 

We're done.

Darn it, I wish you wouldn’t go until you address this response. I’m just a free and unabashed thinker who is more than willing to be corrected. You should be able to follow through on your comments and get me corrected if you are right.

***************

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I went back to see if I had mentioned that I was Quantum_wave over on SciForums and if I had mentioned this thread over there. I noticed that I didn't give the link before and thought I should since I refer to the detail that is posted there. At least it will help anyone who wants to look at some of my past posts about this scenario.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

...

The problem is that many experiments with energy show that energy is not quantized in and of itself. Instead, the "quantization" comes from electrons dropping from higher electron orbits to lower ones, discrete chemical bonds formed or broken, and discrete amounts of matter converted to energy in nuclear fission and fusion. IF energy itself were quantized, there would be a common quanta in which each of these would be integers of that quantum. The data I have seen contradicts that. For instance, if an electron drops from a 2p to a 1p electron orbital, you get one quanta of energy. But if it drops from 2s to 1s, you get a different one that is not related by an integer to the first. If your scenario were correct, this should be the case.

...

I would like to respond to this paragraph in addition to my previous post where I challenged you on what you said about thermodynamics.

 

I see that you do understand how I am using the concept of quantization because you do refer to how various discrete packets of energy related to photon emission and the quantum leaps involved with electromagnetic radiation would have to be integer values of the quantum.

 

What your example did was explain how the various electron drops are not of equal energy and so you conclude that there is no quantum value that would always produce an integer count of quanta.

 

In QWC though, the electron drops from one orbital to another are multiple quanta events. For example, I brainstormed in another forum about how many quanta there might be in a proton, or an electron (and therefore in various quarks). One possible approach to quantifying the energy in protons and electrons took several speculations together. The idea was related to the measurements that shows the energy of an electron is ~1/1836 of a proton.

 

One speculation that was interesting was that the surface of the proton consisted of the same number of quanta as the entire electron. There were ideas about nucleosynthesis that used this relationship to describe the formation of quarks, protons, and electrons but that deserves another post by itself which I have done elsewhere and would be over kill here at the present.

 

Equating the surface of a proton to the surface of a sphere I was able to calculate a supposed number of energy quanta in the electron and the proton.

 

The calculation was based on the relationship between the area of the surface of a sphere, and the volume of a sphere.

 

Area/Volume = (4 pi r2)/(4/3 pi r3) = 3/r = 1/1836,

therefore r = 3*1836 = 5508

 

4/3 pi r^3 using a radius of 5508 quanta gives us 699,955,457,517 quanta in a proton, and dividing by 1836 gives us 381,239,356 quanta in an electron (at rest).

 

Admittedly there are several reasons why these calculations aren't right on, but they do point to the possibility that there are a huge number of energy quanta involved in an electron.

 

So when I use the phrase that matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, I mean that protons might contain ~700 billion quanta and electrons might contain 381 million quanta. Putting these quantities into the perspective of the movement of an electron from one ring or orbital to the next and you can see that because of the tiny energy involved in a quantum it is entirely feasible that there is an integer value of quanta for the jumps even though the jumps are themselves of differing energy values.

 

I would welcome any comments on this post (especially since I don't think there is anything I could say to bring lucaspa back, darn it. I didn't mean to seem unappreciative or offensive but I know that I do seem that way when I defend speculations without evidence. I have been working very hard on these ideas because I know there are answers to three questions, what is the cause of mass, what is the cause of gravity, and what caused the Big Bang. Though we don't have the answers yet, we should be able to look to the future. I know that the science professionals are always working on moving the science forward. However nowhere will you see something for the layman with all of the pieces of a cosmology that describes the main areas being addressed by the professional, i.e. the cause of mass, the cause of gravity, and the cause of the Big Bang in one readable, responsible scenario which mine is and of which I have only presented some basic ideas about it here so far, hoping to find some interest on this forum).

Edited April 23, 2009 by brain-in-a-vat
Consecutive posts merged.

[brain-in-a-vat]

My plan was to present my cosmology for discussion and input and I appreciate the feed back I have gotten so far. Since the aether is a part of Quantum Wave Cosmology I should add an introductory post about that as a way to move forward. I call this post aether, mass and gravity because of the connections between them, and because I hope to follow this post with an introductory post about mass and gravity from the QWC perspective. These are ideas and not theory so keep that in mind.

 

Aether, mass and gravity in QWC

 

(Originally posted at SciForums so the threads I refer to are there under the ID=Quantum_Wave) I have spoken about the aether in my “Mass *has*gravity” thread in the pseudoscience forum, the first Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) thread on the forum. I made a case for moving QWC out of pseudoscience on the basis that is was protoscience and the rules of the Pseudoscience Forum address that possibility. I took up my discussion of QWC in the Cosmology Forum in the “QWC’s Niche” thread, and have mentioned the aether in passing there as well. In the mainstream there is a reference to a “luminiferous aether” that was not found by careful experiments. Luminiferous aether is referred to as superseded scientific theory since it was not discovered as predicted. That is not the same aether that QWC describes as being “connected” with mass and gravity.

 

In any discussion of the aether in QWC, its connection to mass and gravity must be also be part of that discussion. All three are intimately connected to enable mass to exist, enable gravity, and to determine the path that mass takes as it moves. Those connections are discussed in the following paragraphs.

 

In QWC the aether emanates from mass in the form of spherically expanding waves of energy. These waves originate within mass as the result of the force of quantum action. Quantum action is the force that represents the presence of a quantum of energy within mass. Quantum action is characterized by the collapse of a quantum of energy into a high density spot with location and momentum, and the burst of that spot into a spherically expanding quantum wave. The collapse of the quantum of energy is triggered by the presence of a quantum of energy within the intersection where quantum waves overlap. The convergence of energy that produces a quantum of energy within the small space required for quantum action to occur is the trigger for quantum action. The volume of the triggering space depends on the energy density of the immediate environment. The volume of space occupied by the high density spot is invariant and always equal to the smallest meaningful space and an invariant energy density that is required to produce quantum action. A quantum of energy is the smallest meaningful increment of energy. Mass is made up of energy in quantum increments and there is a repetitive sequence of quantum action within mass for every quanta that makes up the mass. The period of repetition is the shortest meaningful increment of time. When quantum action causes energy to emanate from mass that energy is added to the aether. The energy thus added to the aether is the same amount of energy that is absorbed from the aether by mass to replace the energy within the mass so that the equivalence between mass and energy is maintained on a quantum for quantum basis. The aether is therefore connected to mass and gravity. The term, “dragged” by mass is correct in QWC but the meaning of “dragged” differs from the meaning used in the various experiments that tested for luminiferous aether “dragging” and found none.

 

The aether is required in QWC to maintain the equivalence between mass and energy, and because the cause of mass and gravity depends on it. The aether, like the universe, has always existed, but it is ever changing. The aether is continually refreshed by the existence of mass since the source of the aether is quantum action. Likewise the aether is the source of energy required to replace the energy of gravity that emanates from mass as a result of that same quantum action. The aether transmits gravity. The spherically expanding quantum waves that emanate from mass are what give gravity its infinite reach.

 

You can quickly see the dual nature of the aether connection to mass and gravity in that 1) it emanates from mass and is absorbed back into mass to continually refresh the presence of the exact number of quanta that make up the mass, and 2) it transmits gravity across the distance between bodies of mass.

 

The aether is connected to mass by an out flow of “push” energy that emanates from all mass and that has an infinite reach across space by way of the spherically expanding quantum waves that are produced by quantum action within mass. The aether is also connected to mass by a flow of “pull” energy into mass as the collapse of energy quanta occurs during formation of the high density spots within mass. For any given mass the push and pull are equivalent for each quantum time increment.

 

The aether is connected to gravity since at any point in space the aether has energy density that is the product of all pushes and pulls of gravity from all mass in the universe. Therefore the path that mass takes through the aether is determined by the path of lowest energy density surrounding the mass.

 

The energy of mass remains equivalent to the energy of the quantum increments that make up the mass but that energy is maintained because the gravitational energy that is emanated by mass is completely replaced by the gravitational energy from other mass that is absorbed to replace the emanated gravitational energy. Quantum action pulls energy into mass as high density spots form and the burst of those high density spots pushes energy out of mass. It is a balanced, continuous process of quantum action in mass that occurs repetitively for every quantum increment that makes up the mass. The amount absorbed by a given mass always equals the energy value of the energy emanating from mass in the form of gravity.

 

QWC presents a physical picture that enables you to envision the dynamics of the aether, what causes mass and gravity, and how the path of mass through space is determined. Since it is still only protoscience there is no quantification.

 

We don’t know the amount of energy in a quantum.

We don’t know the amount of space required to trigger the collapse of a quantum of energy into a high density spot.

We don’t know the energy density range required of the environment to maintain the process of quantum action within mass.

We don’t know the maximum energy density achieved within a high density spot before it bursts.

We don’t know the volume of space occupied by a high density spot at its peak energy density.

We don’t know the average period of time between quantum action events that occur repetitively to maintain mass.

We don’t know for sure that the radius of the spherically expanding quantum wave increases at the speed of light as expected.

We don’t know if the process of quantum action at the quantum scale really equates to the process of the formation and burst of big crunches on the arena scale of the greater universe but I find that aspect of QWC interesting. Visualizing quantum action that takes place within mass, and visualizing the formation and burst of big crunches at the arena level as differing only on scale gives us two perspectives from which we can draw on to describe the natural force of quantum action.

 

 

Notwithstanding what we don’t know about QWC, it provides ideas that are subject to possible quantification as the technology of scientific measurement advances. Those advances are required in order for science to fulfill its quest for a unifying theory, and QWC is anticipating those advancements.

[brain-in-a-vat]

The key to the aether flow is the force of quantum action. These are the ideas about quantum action.

 

Quantum action is the collapse of a quantum of energy into a spot of the highest possible energy density in a smallest possible volume of space. In QWC the energy density of the spot is the maximum energy density that can be attained. The volume of the spot is the tiniest volume of space that can contain a quantum of energy at maximum energy density. We have a high density spot. From a few posts ago there was mention of some brainstorming that came up with an idea that put the possible amount of energy in a high density spot at 1/700 billionth of the energy in a single proton.

 

The collapse of a quantum of energy into a high density spot is preceded by circumstances that lead to the collapse. Quantum action within mass is ongoing and it perpetuates the presence of the mass by causing the high density spots to occur in a repetitive process. (Quantum action is a repetitive process where a force consisting of the collapse and burst of a high density spot generates quantum waves.) The ongoing process includes expanding eneergy quanta (quantum waves) that intersect and overlap.

 

As nearby spherically expanding quantum waves intersect there are overlaps where their energy is combined. When the combined energy in an overlap reaches the quantum amount, the expansion of the space it occupies is interrupted. When the accumulation equals the quantum, the inturruption occurs and that quantum will collapse into a high density spot. All this is according to these ideas about what causes mass and gravity in the quantum action realm, a realm where the action takes place in such small increments that we cannot detect it with current technology.

 

When the collapse occurs it will continue until the maximum possible energy density is achieved in the tiniest possible space. When the maximum energy density is achieved the spot experiences a quantum bounce. The collapse is halted by reaching the maximum energy density threshold and the momentum of the collapse is converted into expansion energy. Both the collapse and the bounce into expansion are supposed to be or at least are discussed in QWC as spherical (the spherical cow concept perhaps) and the radius of the sphere is changing at the speed of light.

 

The quantum of energy expands spherically as it bounces off of the maximum possible energy density achieved by the collapse. As it expands its internal energy density decreases and the volume increases. As long as the expansion continues uninterrupted there will be a process of equalization of the energy density within the sphere. The quantum wave of energy will expand until it is interrupted by intersecting with similarly expanding quantum waves. How long it takes for an intersection to occur is determined by the energy density of the wider space occupied by multiple expanding quantum waves within mass. Of course if the radius of expansion is occurring at the speed of light, it doesn't take long for intersections and overlaps to form.

 

When the intersection of quantum waves occurs there is an overlap formed and the energy density in the overlap is the combination of the energy density of the intersecting spherical waves. When the amount of energy in the overlap reaches a quantum of energy, the overlap will collapse (due to natural causes) into a high density spot. This is considered to be a natural phenomenon that causes the quantization of energy. Mass is therefore composed of energy in quantum increments according to the scenario.

 

That is quantum action.

 

The collapse of the energy into a high density spot is the "pull" action of quantum action that casues gravity, and the quantum bounce and spherical expansion of the quantum wave is the "push" action of quantum action that establishes the presence of mass in a location where it occurs.

 

This pull not only causes gravity, but it pulls energy into mass to enable the continuation of quantum action. The push forces energy out of mass to feed the aether flow. There is a continual exchange of energy between mass and the aether and so the connection between mass, gravity and the aether is pervasive. The energy flowing into mass originated from the emanation of energy from distant mass, and the outflow of energy from mass comes from the high density spots that are always forming from the collapses. Quantum waves from the bounce and burst of high density spots will expand through the aether until they reach and are absorbed by distant mass as part of the same process that is taking place in that mass.

 

The scenario is talking about trillions of quanta participating in quantum action to account for even the smallest of masses. They combine to establish the presence of mass in the form of high density spots, and they cause gravity during the collapse of the energy quanta into high density spots.

Edited April 30, 2009 by brain-in-a-vat

[brain-in-a-vat]

In Quantum Wave Cosmology, negative energy emanates from each mass (represented by the curved lines between the two masses in the graphic). Where the negative emanation spheres intersect, the energy density is combined and the combination of two negative energy density spheres in an overlap has the sum of the two negative densities.

 

Therefore the lowest energy density forms along a line drawn at the point where negative waves intersect.

 

Since the masses in this graphic have directional momentum directly toward each other, the path of lowest energy density is a straight line between them.

 

They will follow that path of lowest energy density and collide.

 

The path of lowest energy density would cause the objects to follow a curved path if the direction of the momentum was not directly toward each other.

 

In the next graphic the direction of momentum was sufficiently altered so the curved paths of the objects would avoid the collision.

Notice that there is a focal point at the point of intersection of the negative energy emanations. The focal point remains fixes as the objects move toward the path of lowest energy density between them.

 

Negative energy emanations from mass make the aether a map of the history of mass. The emanations are continual and always imprint the aether with all of the history of the mass. As the mass moves, the emanations are being refreshed every instant and therefore accompany the mass where ever it goes. The emanations spread out into the aether with an infinite reach spreading at the speed of light.

 

This means that the aether is a dynamic record of the location and movement of all mass.

The aether emanates from mass as negative energy density at all times.

Mass moves toward the path of lowest energy density.

 

Any discussion from the community?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

In QWC every point in space has a level of energy density. The dividing line between positive energy density and negative energy density is the dividing line between mass and aether. All mass is positive energy density and all aether is negative energy density.

 

Quantum action maintains the boundary between positive energy density and negative energy density. The positive energy in mass equals the negative energy in the aether. But positive and negative energy density are relative terms. At first it would seem like I am saying that in total there is zero energy but that is far from what I am saying. There is a huge (infinite in QWC terms) amount of positive energy in the universe. The reference to positive and negative energy density in QWC is a reference to the deviation from the average energy density of the space.

 

The idea is that all space contains energy density, space is infinite, and so there is an infinite amount of positive energy. When you consider the supposition that QWC fails because eventually all of the “useful energy” would be used, that is right if there is no way to reverse entropy and if the supply of energy to the aether from mass was a one way street. Obviously such a process could not be maintained very long. The result would be that all mass would be “emanated” into the aether and then that would mark complete entropy. But the distinction between positive energy and negative energy and the “traffic cop” called quantum action makes for perfect conservation of energy, quanta by quanta, in and out of mass, and in and out of the aether; the symmetry of a perfect division between positive energy in mass and negative energy in aether.

 

I’m saying that the aether contains negative energy that emanates from mass as a product of quantum action (I’m going to do a post on “quantum action” to help you understand Quantum Wave Cosmology). The aether orchestrates gravity by way of the negative energy density fluctuations in space caused by mass. The energy density in any patch of space is always changing because negative energy emanations from mass are always readjusting the energy density to record the movement of mass. That movement leaves spherically expanding low energy density corridors that other masses pass through and are influenced by.

 

All mass is in motion and the path that mass takes is determined by the energy density surrounding it. Refer to the graphics in the post above for an idea of how negative energy density determines the path that mass takes through space according to Quantum Wave Cosmology.

 

Ask a question if you want.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

 

 

 

I thought that a few graphics would help you see the idea. Do they help?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From a QWC discussion posted 5-7-2009 at SciForums

Give one phenomenon you can model to within 10% of measured experimental results ...

The scientific community hasn't been able to quantify anything in QWC yet. We don't have the tools yet to look at things at the level where I suggest quantum action occurs and so they are ideas that we don't know how to falsify yet.

... and demonstrate how you derive such dynamics from the base postulates of QWC.

I think this is answered by the fact that we can't make observations at the level where quantum action would have to be taking place in order to confirm or falsify that quantum action exists.

Infact, what are the base postulates of QWC?

Here are some of the basic ideas of Quantum Wave Cosmology. Tell me if any of them could be considered postulates IYHO.

 

The presence of mass is established and maintained by quantum action within the mass.

 

Mass is established and maintained by the high density spot phase of quantum action.

 

Gravity is caused by the process of quantum action and emanates from mass as negative energy density.

 

Gravity is caused by the precipitous reduction of space occupied by a quantum of energy that accumulates in the overlap of spherically expanding quantum waves. Those quantum waves emanate from the high density spots that establish the presence of mass.

 

Positive energy density and negative energy density are relative terms that represent deviations from the average energy density of space. The total energy in any space is always positive.

 

The presence of mass is positive energy density represented by high density spots that form during the process of quantum action.

 

Gravity is caused by negative energy density that emanates from mass and expands spherically away from mass (presumably at the speed of light).

 

The negative energy density emanating from mass leaves an expanding low energy density corridor in space as the mass moves through space. The corridors represent the history of the movement of mass through space. The corridors of different objects passing through space overlap and the overlaps combine the negative energy densities creating a lower energy density in the space where they overlap.

 

As mass moves through space and encounters these combined low energy density corridors, the movement of that mass is affected because mass moves toward the path of lowest energy density in space.

 

You keep mentioning waves, density, things spreading out and you've provided diagrams. Give some justification for them, what quantitative stuff do you have backing that up? If you don't have anything quantitative explain why anything you say in terms of derived results can be trusted, given qualitative wordy logic is by its very nature imprecise and known to be flawed. For example, qualitatively Newton's gravity explains the motion of Mercury. Quantitatively it's out by a factor of 2 in terms of the precession of the planet. Details are essential.

Justification? Because of the clear relationship between mass and gravity I think there is a common explanation for the cause of mass and the cause of gravity. Logically, quantum action provides a possible common cause for both phenomena.

 

You want "quantitative stuff" as you say? I am presenting these ideas to the community in hopes that some brainstorming with smart people will lead to some ways to quantify or falsify QWC.

 

"Explain why anything I say in terms of derived results can be trusted ..."? My interest here is to present some ideas for discussion, and make a word salad case for them that interests members of the community enough to stimulate discussion of the ideas.

 

- - - - -

 

Are you saying that the history of the movement of other objects in space influences the movement of Mercury but only if gravity is caused by curved spacetime?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How is the connection between aether, mass and gravity explained?

 

 

The aether is energy. It is not quantized energy, but instead it is the product of energy quantization. Energy quantization takes place within mass.

 

The presence of mass is established and maintained by the high density spots that are produced during the process of quantum action. The energy that makes up the aether is made up of quantum waves with negative energy density that corresponds with the positive energy of mass. That negative energy has emanated from mass at the speed of light in all directions in the form of spherically expanding quantum waves.

 

Quantization within mass has a push and a pull phase. The wave form has a trough of negative energy from the pull phase and a peak of positive energy from the push phase.

 

 

This “pull and push” is a spherical wave form emanated during one complete quantum action. The pull trough precedes the push crest, and when the wave from emanates from mass it is quickly netted into the energy density of the aether surrounding the mass. The aether surrounding the mass is the emanating negative energy from the mass as well as the negative energy density finally arriving at the mass from distant masses. It is all netted out right there in the space surrounding the mass. The path of lowest energy density surrounding the mass is the path that mass takes through space.

 

The net is always negative energy because during each quantum period of action within the mass enough energy to maintain the mass is extracted from the push energy and the aether. The quantum period of the mass is the length of time it takes for the entire mass to be refreshed as a new set of high density spots forms; one quantum period. But since some energy is emanated during that quantum period from absorbed aether in a previous quantum period, the amount of energy need to refresh all of the high density spots must supplemented by pulling in aether to replace the emanation. The mass always owes a debt of energy to the aether to repay it for the energy it needs to maintain itself.

 

As said, the aether contribution to the refreshing of these high density spots during a single quantum period equals the negative energy emanation. Though the net energy of a single quantum action is zero (+e represents one quantum in the high density spot which comes from –e which means one quantum of energy was contained in the collapse that creates the high density spot) the net energy of the emanation during a single quantum period is negative because of subsequent containment of the quantum waves as they pass through the mass. See the recap of “quantum action” (below) that mentions the time delay associated with containment.

 

 

Recap/update of Quantum Action

 

The presence of mass is established and maintained by a force called quantum action. Quantum action is a process in nature going on in the infinitesimal realm where we can’t see it. Quantum action has six distinct phases that utilize energy, space and time to cause mass and gravity.

 

Phase one is formation. Within mass, a quantum of energy forms from the overlap of preceding quantum waves. That quantum of energy occupies an initial volume of space defined by the overlap.

 

The second phase is quantum collapse. This is attributed to natural causes operating at the quantum level of order that are undetectable. The collapse is characterized by a precipitous decline in the volume of space occupied by the quantum of energy. This is the pull phase. The energy in the initial space collapses into a high density spot that occupies an infinitesimal space. The effect of the collapse is to pull the energy from the surrounding space into the potential void left by the collapse. When I think of this I visualize the pull to have an infinite reach as if a tiny sink hole has formed in the universe and the universe starts to fall into it until the high density spot forms. The collapse forms the trough of the quantum wave form, referred to as negative energy in QWC.

 

The third phase is marked by a point in time when the collapse ends and the expansion begins. This point in time occurs when the energy participating in the collapse reaches a limit of energy density. As the effective radius of the collapsing quantum declines, the energy density in the collapsing quantum space increases precipitously as it approaches the maximum possible energy density. The phase three point in time occurs simultaneously with the attainment of maximum energy density. At this phase three point in time the collapse bounces into expansion. It is said to bounce off of the limit of maximum energy density in nature because infinite energy density is the other alternative and infinite energy density is impossible in QWC.

 

The fourth phase of quantum action is spherical expansion. When the bounce occurs, the dense state energy of the high density spot utilizes its potential expansion energy that was built up during the collapse to send the quantum of energy into spherical expansion at the speed of light. This phase four spherical expansion leads to the fifth phase of quantum action.

 

The fifth phase is containment. Containment is a subsequent event that affects the energy content of the expanding spherical wave. As the wave traverses the distance through the mass toward the aether surrounding the mass it encounters subsequent quantum actions that are occurring in its path. Some of the energy of the expanding quantum wave is caught up in the quantum collapses that are occurring as the wave passes and so some of our original quantum of energy is delayed, i.e. contained in subsequent quantum action.

 

The sixth phase of quantum action occurs as the remnant of the energy in our quantum wave emanates from mass and is merged with the net energy emanation from the mass into the aether in all directions.

1, 2, and 3 represent energy quanta within a tiny mass. #3 is the freshest quantum and is expanding and overlapping with 1 & 2 which are quantum wave remnants from which #3 it formed. The aether plays a role in supplying the energy to the new high density spots that form. The aether overlaps with expanding waves from the mass, and aether intrusion occurs where aether is pulled into high density spots during the collapse phase of quantum action.

- - - - -

 

The Earth does not just move through the aether, it moves in the path of the lowest energy density surrounding the mass. Most of the low energy density is emanating from the mass itself in real time, but the contribution to the surrounding aether that is arriving in the corridors of negative energy density reaching the mass from distant masses determines the low energy density path.

 

I helps to explain that in QWC, energy has always existed but no mass has always existed. The energy that establishes the presence of mass came from the aether during a period of matter formation that takes place in every expanding arena. Ultimately, all mass is finally negated back into energy and when that occurs, the exact amount of energy that existed to maintain the presence of the mass is returned to the aether as dense state energy. All of the energy in the form of mass that enters into the composition of a big crunch is negated meaning it is converted back to dense state energy in a big crunch.

 

While the mass exists, the net emanation is negative because of the time delay while quantum action takes place. Energy enters the mass from the aether to feed the high density spots that form within mass due to quantum action and then that energy experiences a delay before it is emanated back to the aether. The length of the net time delay within mass is equal to the energy in the mass and equal to the total energy extracted from the aether which accumulated as the mass formed. Larger mass has a longer delay and a larger negative energy emanation into the aether.

[brain-in-a-vat]

Quantum Wave Cosmology and Gravity Aether

 

I know some of the clichés about who cares and who doesn’t care what I think, and I acknowledge the position that forum members are taking. It can simply be summarized by saying that under current theory there is no need for aether and the fact that is has not been detected after carefully designed experiments means that there is no detectible aether using the current tools we have to look for it.

 

I acknowledge that. The part that there is no need for it is true if mass curves space time. If mass does not curve spacetime it is not true.

 

My threads approach the issue of aether from the fall back position that mass does not curve spacetime and therefore the need for gravity aether is renewed.

 

No one else describes gravity aether like I do as far as I know. That alone is maybe cause for disbelief. But gravity aether (and the central characteristic of the process of quantum action that creates the gravity aether) is logical, it makes connections between mass and gravity that no one else is making, it describes a mechanism that could guide mass through space in the same way that curved spacetime does, and it does much more.

 

On the surface then QWC is based on a force involving energy quantization that establishes and continually refreshes the presence of mass. That idea when explored with thought explains the movement of mass as simply the relocation of the high density spot of every energy quanta in the mass (quantum action at work) as the presence of mass is re-established every quantum period (every instant) in a slightly different place. The change in the focal point of the quanta, i.e. the change in the location of the mass is determined by the energy density of the aether surrounding the mass. During each quantum period (the length of time it takes for all quanta within mass to be refreshed once) the momentum of the mass has caused movement. That movement is determined by the momentum and the energy density surrounding the mass. Momentum carries mass through space in the path of lowest energy density. The net of the low energy density emanating from every mass in the universe exists at all points in aether that occupies space and reaches every other mass. As our mass moves based on its momentum, the place that it move to next is the path of lowest energy density in the aether surrounding the mass.

 

I am smart enough to know that is not a dumb idea. You can’t understand the detail from such a brief overview, but if you were to talk with me about it and ask questions pertinent to it, maybe it would seem less than dumb to you too. Or maybe by using valid arguments about why it can’t work or why it can’t even stand on its own merits you would actually be setting me free.

 

It isn’t hard to understand why aether theories got moved to the back seat of the buss. After Einstein came up with the field equations that are still the best we can do at predicting gravitational effects, the physical need for aether was removed. It didn’t matter if there was aether because we can predict gravity from the GR perspective with curved spacetime.

 

And I can accept curved spacetime if I know what causes it to curve. I know; mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. But how? What is it that transmits the presence of mass to other mass across space, or what is it about the energy that lets it reach out to occupy space around mass. What is the nature of that energy? QWC deals with gravity as if there was aether composed of energy density and the energy density is emanated from the mass and has an infinite reach as the quantum waves that carry the energy expand spherically across space. (I hate to make analogies because they never stand up, but an analogy is that mass sucks in aether as part of the process of quantum action, consumes part of it to re-establish all of the high density spots caused by quantum action, thus moving and maintaining the presence of mass, and emits the unused, i.e. lower energy density aether back into space with a time delay that occurs while the aether is being distributed throughout the mass).

 

I don’t claim to understand spacetime math but there is really some pretty sophisticated math involved that takes the events that occur as time passes (i.e. motion) and ties them to the space that is occupied by mass. It is an ingenious way to put the physical universe into a 4-D geometrical coordinate system where math can be used to tie the history of motion to the time frame of the motion. Do that for multiple objects and you can relate the combined motion to the effect it has on individual objects in the coordinate system. It is quite beautiful and I certainly understand how mathematicians can make a career out of it and how theorist can do whatever they want with it to test theories and the like. None of that is going away even if there is gravity aether.

 

My point about the mainstream theory of gravity is that it says what gravity does, but not how it does it. QWC says how it does it and accepts the EFEs as the best we can do to say what it does.

[Klaynos]

The issue is two fold:

 

Firstly you ignored my comments on that E=mc² is not the full equation so any of your conclusions are based on a false premise and can be ignroed.

 

Secondly, you have some pretty pictures with some lines, now if this was actually a theory and not just a nice little story, those lines should have been predicted by some maths, derived from some sensible starting position. This would allow you to make falsifiable mathematical predictions.

[brain-in-a-vat]

The issue is two fold:

 

Firstly you ignored my comments on that E=mc² is not the full equation so any of your conclusions are based on a false premise and can be ignroed.

I knew what the full formula was, and the premise was equivalence, the short cut reference was to E=mc^2. Sorry I didn't respond but what could I have said other that what I just said?

 

Secondly, you have some pretty pictures …

 

Do you think the pics are pretty good, regardless of the merit of the ideas?

…with some lines, now if this was actually a theory and not just a nice little story, those lines should have been predicted by some maths, derived from some sensible starting position. This would allow you to make falsifiable mathematical predictions.

 

I go through this with every smart scientific type and that is not a put down or a criticism, just an observation of forum life . It is not a theory. I usually ask people who want it reduced to math and falsifiable tests, where it is that I said it was theory. I can show you several places where I say it is not theory but ideas, and that I want to talk about the ideas. That is why I go to the trouble to distinguish between ideas and theory, i.e. between protoscience and science.

 

My last merged post had a paragraph in it that nicely stated a summary of the ideas. If we could get to the intent of my posting here, you could actually address the ideas:

1) Gravity aether is not necessary if space and time are physically connected and if a four dimensional geometric coordinate system faithfully represents space, time and mass. Do you agree?

 

Then I acknowledge that … 2) General Relativity and the EFEs are extremely accurate because every event meaning the history of the motion of an object and the current momentum and location of the object are defined mathematically using points in that coordinate system (remember I don't claim to understand the EFEs but I'd say that the tensors deal with all of the forces acting on a point in the coordinate system from all other locations). That mathematical description of mass and motion works because the motion that mass follows is quite accurately represented in the EFEs. It says how mass will move but not how mass and energy curves spacetime, in other words it does not say what causes spacetime to curve.

 

I'm not trying to define the mathematics of the motion of objects. Einstein did a pretty good job of that. I am questioning that GR tells us how mass curves spacetime.

 

Don’t get mad, but can you tell me how spacetime gets physically curved? The hardest part in explaining spacetime is the problem of how physical objects can faithfully and completely be defined mathematically. Are you so certain that the correspondence between the physical mass and the geometrical description of the mass are perfect? They are very good but the physical mass is the real mass and the GR spacetime representation is a construct. How does a mathematical construct affect the physical space and time? It doesn't. Space and time have to themselves be physically connected not mathematically connected.

 

3) So as I said in my last merged post this morning, if mass and energy physically curve spacetime then the idea of gravity aether is not necessary but if not, there is still a need for gravity aether. Mine is a fallback position and is a set of ideas that could explain mass and gravity if spacetime doesn’t actually have an answer to how the physical space and time are coupled and curved. No one has offered an answer on that yet and I have asked many smart people to tell me. That is not intended t be a criticism.

 

4) Just like you have to accept that mass and energy can physically curve spacetime in GR, you have to be prepared to think about an alternative force that lies at the heart of QWC. It is the process of quantum action. Both GR and QWC require some as yet unexplained and undetected physics. GR does not say what the physics are and QWC says what they are, quantization of energy and quantum action that establishes the presence and movement of mass and emanates low energy density into the aether in direct proportion to the energy of the mass. The idea is that mass follows the path of lowest energy density in the aether surrounding it. The aether is composed of spherically expanding corridors that reach our mass. Each corridor represents the distant mass in a time delayed fashion that can be translated and prioritized by our mass based on the net energy density that surrounds our mass and that net, at every physical point surrounding our mass has a different energy density based on the distant time delayed mass. For example say two different sized objects with different masses are the same distance from our mass. The greater mass will have a greater effect on our mass because it has the greater negative energy density emanation.

 

5) I offer to answer questions about these ideas. I encourage discussion of these ideas. If you stick with me you may find that though there is no test yet envisioned, and it is not theory because the force of quantum action is so tiny that we cannot yet detect it, I maintain that when compared to the cause of the curvature of physical spacetime, quantum action provides a mechanism that would orchestrate the movement of mass the same way, and does much more.

 

If you don’t think talking about such ideas is scientific, then I ask you where science starts in your mind. I say science starts with ideas, and discussion of the ideas usually is all it takes to falsify them. I need help to do that.

 

If you are saying that talking about ideas that have not been developed by a professional scientist/mathematician is nonsense to your mind, then I am asking you to rethink that position. Re-read the steps posted earlier if you didn’t realize I was serious of if you didn’t understand the ideas. If you can blow the ideas out of the water you would then get me off your forum the right way.

 

6) The process of quantum action establishes the presence of mass at the instant that the high density spots form during quantum action. The spot has physical location and momentum. The process of quantum action is continual, and as the high density spot bounces into expansion there is a spherically expanding quantum wave emanating through the mass and out into the aether.

 

7) The process of quantum action causes mass to move and the movement is established because the momentum of the previous set of high density spots, one for each quantum of energy in the mass, carries the mass to a slightly different location during one quantum period. The mass is then refreshed in that new location by the next complete set of quantum actions which establishes the mass again in a whole new set of high density spots in that slightly changed location.

 

8) During that one quantum period, the direction of the movement is influenced by the momentum of the set of high density spots, and the energy density of the aether surrounding the mass. The direction can change ever-so-slightly due to that path of lowest energy density in the aether surrounding the mass.

 

The EFEs describe that motion to the best ability of man, and the mathematics of GR down to the Plank regime where GR breaks down faithfully describe the same motion that quantum action and gravity aether cause.

 

This is where you bow out, or where you actually read what I am saying, think about the ideas and why I even have these ideas, and enter into a discussion. I’m not being critical or pessimistic, I am challenging you.

[lucaspa]

I acknowledge that. The part that there is no need for it is true if mass curves space time. If mass does not curve spacetime it is not true.

 

My threads approach the issue of aether from the fall back position that mass does not curve spacetime and therefore the need for gravity aether is renewed.

 

Is the fallback position valid? What you have supposedly done is eliminate all possible experimental data for "mass curves spacetime" when you say " it describes a mechanism that could guide mass through space in the same way that curved spacetime does"

 

We need to see those equations or whatever, because, as you should know, one of the very strong supporting pieces of data for Relativity and bending of spacetime is the displacement of the apparent positions of stars during the 1919 eclipse. The positions were displaced because the path of the light was bent in the spacetime around the sun. So, it would help you case if you could show the calculations from your theory that gives the same apparent displacement of those stars as was observed then.

 

Or, for other examples, see this site: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_experiments

 

it does much more.

 

What more? Please be specific. It would help if you could give quantitative predictions of data we should find if your theory is correct. Data that would be different than we would find with General Relativity.

 

After Einstein came up with the field equations that are still the best we can do at predicting gravitational effects, the physical need for aether was removed.

 

Your idea needs to have equations that are better at predicting gravitational effects. So what are those equations from your theory?

 

On the surface then QWC is based on a force involving energy quantization that establishes and continually refreshes the presence of mass.

 

Gravity so far has resisted every attempt to quantize it. What is the quantization of the mass?

 

The change in the focal point of the quanta, i.e. the change in the location of the mass is determined by the energy density of the aether surrounding the mass.

 

How does the mass of the aether change? What happened to friction in an atmosphere? Also, let's take a rocket in vacuum. The rocket is emitting reaction mass and the velocity or the change in location in the mass seems to be determined by the amount and velocity of the emitted reaction mass. After all, in the same general location in the universe, the energy density of the aether would be the same, but the change in location of the mass can be changed by increasing the velocity of the emitted reaction mass. That seems to falsify your theory.

[brain-in-a-vat]

Is the fallback position valid? What you have supposedly done is eliminate all possible experimental data for "mass curves spacetime" when you say " it describes a mechanism that could guide mass through space in the same way that curved spacetime does"

 

We need to see those equations or whatever, because, as you should know, one of the very strong supporting pieces of data for Relativity and bending of spacetime is the displacement of the apparent positions of stars during the 1919 eclipse. The positions were displaced because the path of the light was bent in the spacetime around the sun. So, it would help your case if you could show the calculations from your theory that gives the same apparent displacement of those stars as was observed then.

 

Or, for other examples, see this site: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_experiments

 

Are we just talking now or are you expecting equations and quantification? You are right, I do know about the predictions of the deflection of light around the sun from distant stars, and about the detection of deflection during the total eclipse. If I think my ideas might provide an alternative to curved spacetime I would have to already have addressed this subject since I have been building my ideas over several years on various forums. I used to call it the Infinite Spongy Universe, and the operative particle was a pulsing elemental energy particle (EEP). That endeavor developed into Quantum Wave Cosmology with its quantum action in place of the EEP.

 

To answer your question about how I account for the deflection in my ideas if I don’t attribute it to curved spacetime, my idea is that photons have a tiny amount of mass. That would mean in QWC that they feel gravity. But since they travel at the speed of light, and I suppose that quantum waves from mass expand spherically at the speed of light, the gravitational effect of light passing the sun differs from the movement of non-relativistic particles and objects. I don’t have equations for this but I believe that the idea could be put into mathematical terms but not by me. I even asked for help doing that on one thread in another forum but no luck.

 

 

 

What more? Please be specific. It would help if you could give quantitative predictions of data we should find if your theory is correct. Data that would be different than we would find with General Relativity.

 

You have referred to my posts as theory and as you may note I have never called it theory, only ideas, and I tell each person who reads it as theory that it is not. It is ideas for discussion and that is exactly how I view your response. I feel like we are discussing ideas that go against the mainstream. I am a lone individual with no credentials, no formal higher math training, and nothing other than five or six years of searching popular web sites, media science, etc., a Wikipedia type of understanding that would make it nonsense if I thought I could do theory.

 

My way of learning is to test my ideas in the cauldron of the forums, learn and revise, and keep an updated version of my personal cosmology; a laughable cosmology to anyone else but I was an accountant and my way of growing my understanding is to document it and update it as it changes from input over the forums.

 

Your idea needs to have equations that are better at predicting gravitational effects. So what are those equations from your theory?

If I had it crafted into a theory I would have to either do a better job of predicting gravitational effects, or it would have to better explain the connection between gravity and mass.

 

If I am not mistaken, GR and the EFEs translated mass into a 4-D coordinate system where time is considered a series of events attributed to the movement of mass. Spacetime involves the correspondence between the physical mass, physical space and the passing of time, and mathematical construct of the 4-D coordinate system. Amateurish explanation for sure, but it makes spacetime a mathematical construct that is supposed to be able to stand in for the physical universe in the EFEs.

 

I don't portray these ideas as theory, but to my understanding, it there was some theory that exactly duplicated the predictions of GR, and also made better connections between gravity and mass by explaining the cause of mass, then that theory would be better.

 

Gravity so far has resisted every attempt to quantize it. What is the quantization of the mass?

The idea I am using is that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. Those quantum increments are all equal in the amount of energy they contain, i.e. they are quantum, but the quantity of energy in a quantum cannot be determined with our current technology. Only wild ass guesses are available and no one will claim they are very close (say a half a billion quanta in an electron). Quantization of energy in these unknown increments is part of the ideas because it allows mass and energy to be equivalent, it allows for a gatekeeper process for energy that goes into and out of mass, i.e. all changes to mass occur in quantum increments that are almost unimaginable tiny and cannot be observed with our current tools.

 

The process of quantization is described as a natural process that involves various phases. The phase that causes the presence of mass to be maintained is the high density spot phase. The spot is the result of the precipitous collapse of space occupied by a quantum of energy that accumulates in the overlap of intersecting quantum waves. The quantum waves are also a product of quantum action because the compressed high density spot that forms from the collapse cannot be sustained by the surrounding energy density and the collapse turns into a bounce off of the maximum possible level of energy density that nature allows. The bounce sends the quantum of energy into spherical expansion as a quantum wave.

 

This process is ongoing within mass and every time the quanta in the entire mass have been refreshed by the formation of a new set of high density spots, the mass has moved slightly. The movement of the mass is a combination of the momentum of the mass, and the lowest energy density path through the aether.

 

How does the mass of the aether change?

 

Aether does not have mass but is composed of quantum waves emanating from mass. The aether is made up from the quantum waves that are generated by quantum action within mass. The waves that emerge from the bounce of the high density spots and bounce into spherical expansion, pass through the mass and out into the aether. As they pass through mass they encounter other quantum actions in their path and so some the the quantum of energy in the wave is delayed and gets contained in other high density spots. Of course those spots burst into expansion so ultimately all of the energy that it takes to form one complete set of high density spots eventually (there is a slight time delay) makes its way into the aether.

 

By the time that all of the energy in one set of spots is finally emanated, energy has been pulled into the mass as a result of the pull of the void of space created during the collapse of each energy quantum. during quantum action. So during one complete quantum period, the exact amount of energy that has been emanated into the aether equals the amount of energy that has been pulled into the mass from the aether. The time delay is directly related to the mass of the object. It is a pumping action where the energy of the mass is continually refreshed, and as it is refreshed, the new location of each of the high density spots equates to motion of the mass.

 

From the perspective of the aether, the mass is emanating “negative” energy density in exact proportion to the positive energy required to maintain the mass via the high density spots, one for each quantum of energy in the mass. Negative and positive energy are relative terms and relate to a deviation from the average energy density of space counting both the aether and the mass.

 

The emanation from mass into the aether is a continual emanation for every quantum period (every instant) and the same amount of energy is pulled into the mass from the aether as is emanated. The energy pulled in comes from distant mass and arrives in the form of expanding quantum waves that were emanated from mass throughout the entire universe for the entire past history of mass. As the emanation of a particular mass enters the aether, it is an expanding corridor of negative energy density expanding at supposedly the speed of light so the emanation leaves a history of the movement and mass of the object.

 

Every point in space includes the expanded corridor of every mass whose corridor has expanded to that point in space. So you can see that the energy density arriving at and thus surrounding a given mass has different energy density at all points around the mass. The ideas is that the surrounding energy density has a low energy density point and the movement of the mass is influenced toward that point.

 

That is a brief description of the aether in QWC.

 

What happened to friction in an atmosphere?

It might not sound responsive to you but the idea is that there is no friction between anything with mass and the aether. The mass does not move through the aether. The aether determines the path that mass moves by exposing the mass to a varying energy density in all directions and the mass tends toward the low energy density path by pulling in aether. The idea as to the mechanics is that the aether is lower density in one path and so the mass moves that way to satisfy its attempt to an pull equal amounts of aether from every direction.

 

Also, let's take a rocket in vacuum. The rocket is emitting reaction mass and the velocity or the change in location in the mass seems to be determined by the amount and velocity of the emitted reaction mass. After all, in the same general location in the universe, the energy density of the aether would be the same, but the change in location of the mass can be changed by increasing the velocity of the emitted reaction mass. That seems to falsify your theory.

If the rocket has mass, it is pulling in aether and emanating aether as it moves. There is no vacuum if you mean the absence of aether. The movement of a rocket is influenced by the motion of the rocket, the path of lowest energy density, and by the propulsion added. The low energy density path is so insignificant in the face of any other force, that it can be dropped for all intents and purposes.

 

And the energy density would not be the same throughout a general area though that would have very little impact on your example. The energy density is different at every point in space because the history of the movement of all mass gives each point its own individual energy density and the energy density is constantly fluctuating as the quantum waves from all mass course through it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just a few amendments to that last post:

 

Though the EFEs are the best mankind can do to predict the motion of objects in space, the reason they do what they do according to General Relativity is that mass curves spacetime. But GR is a mathematical representation of geometry of space and time, and corresponds to the physical space and time. There is nothing in spacetime that says how the physical mass, energy, space and time are physically connected into curved spacetime. GR is a wonderful mathematical construct of a 4-D coordinate system but it is incomplete in telling us how mass and energy curve spacetime.

 

QWC is ideas about the physical cause of gravity. It concludes that objects under the influence of gravity always move in curve paths because of the gravitational time delay. The path that objects follow through space is always affected by all other bodies in space, but by the time the information about the mass, location and momentum of the distant objects travels at the speed of light to the other objects, all of the objects have moved. The result is that the gravitational effect is always pointing behind the objects that are causing the effect. Since all objects are moving, the path of all objects is always curved.

 

Another note is that in QWC, mass has gravity, but aether takes the form of energy in space and has no mass. This is different than in GR where both mass and energy have gravity. But in GR there is no aether so the difference is not easy to quantify.

 

The presence of mass requires quantum action to be taking in place to quantize the energy. The process of quantization is called “quantum action” and is a six phase process that includes a phase where a quantum of energy collapses into a high density spot in space. Mass is caused by those high density spots, and the spots very rarely form in aether space, only within mass (an exception is that dark matter has enough energy density to maintain ongoing quantum action). Formation of the high density spot requires the high energy density of mass in order to form and for the process of quantum action to maintain their repetition. Each repetition of quantum action generates new high density spots that again represent the presence of mass.

 

In QWC, dark matter is quantized mass that has not been incorporated into the known and detectable fundamental particles.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

QWC ideas vs. theory

 

Two members have recently approached their discussion of my ideas from the perspective that I have a theory here, and then they request the predictions, means of testing and/or quantification, and suggest that QWC is a good example of pseudoscience.

 

Maybe QWC could be put in terms of theory and falsified, thus resolving the issue. There are a couple of predictions that might be tested by the LHC. I’m not really ready to claim any theory here but I am interested in moving forward in two areas.

 

First, the math of QWC will be alien to the math of mainstream theories in the respect that the energy of particles with mass is composed of quantum energy increments, the force of quantum action is necessary to maintain the presence of mass, and the extreme energy density of a big crunch negates mass into dense state energy that has no mass and does not emanate nor does it feel gravity. If the physical description of QWC is falsified by inconsistent physical phenomena that it describes, that would end it.

 

I don’t know how the EFEs work but I plan to find someone who does and who will talk freely with me about the differences between the EFEs and the math that would accrue from the physical picture that I describe of the motion of objects in the gravity aether of QWC.

 

Second, it seems to me that the LHC at CERN will be conducting experiments that could falsify QWC. For example, if the Higgs particle itself is found and shows that the LHC can produce the extreme energy density of the earliest moments of expansion where the Higgs particle itself appears before it decays, then QWC is falsified. QWC contends that energy at the maximum possible energy density has no mass, so the existence of a massive particle like the Higgs would show that QWC is fatally flawed.

 

If only the Higgs mechanism is found in the remnants of a pattern associated with the decay of the Higgs particle, then I will not yet know if the resulting array of particles is decay of the Higgs particle or the formation of particles from the extreme energy density. QWC contends that after the burst of a big crunch, sufficient expansion must take place in order for matter to form from the dense dark energy. I am not familiar enough with the experiments and have not quantified matter formation within QWC, so I can’t claim any theory about the meaning of the discovery of a pattern of particles without the discovery of Higgs particle itself. I don’t know anyone who is familiar enough with the LHC experiments and who would be willing to talk about the poorly presented ideas of QWC in relation to the meanings of the data that the LHC will produce.

 

Almost certainly the individuals I am referring to do not exist and so short of me getting off of “stupid” somehow, no theory of QWC will emerge. As it stands there is that one possibility that I would think falsifies QWC; that being the discovery of the Higgs particle itself. On the other hand, if no Higgs mechanism is detected and if the energy density achieved by the LHC can be considered energetic enough to falsify Higgs Theory, then that would leave open the possibilities conveyed in the ideas of QWC.

Edited May 12, 2009 by brain-in-a-vat
Consecutive posts merged, and spelling

[Klaynos]

To answer your question about how I account for the deflection in my ideas if I don’t attribute it to curved spacetime, my idea is that photons have a tiny amount of mass.

 

 

Here we hit a MASSIVE problem, photons are massless, there is a phenomenal amount of evidence for this. Our measurements are so accurate of this that there is no way they could have enough mass to be deflected by the amount we measure.

 

Hypothesis disproved...

[lucaspa]

Are we just talking now or are you expecting equations and quantification?

 

I thought I was crystal clear: I am talking equations and quantification. That's what Einstein had. Supposely you "have been building my ideas over several years on various forums" but you don't have the equations and quantification for known data? Boy, have you wasted not only your time but everyone else's! No offence, but you have.

 

I don’t have equations for this but I believe that the idea could be put into mathematical terms but not by me. I even asked for help doing that on one thread in another forum but no luck.

 

It must be done by you. Learn the math!

 

You have referred to my posts as theory and as you may note I have never called it theory, only ideas, and I tell each person who reads it as theory that it is not.

 

It's a theory. Hypotheses/theories are statements about the physical universe. You are making statements about the physical universe: photons have mass; space is not curved, etc. There is no hierarchy of certainty as you go from idea to hypothesis to theory. Each of those can be 1) untested, 2) falsified, or 3) supported.

 

What Klaynos and I are doing is testing your theory against known data. That data, so far, is falsifying the theory.

 

My way of learning is to test my ideas in the cauldron of the forums,

 

Not the way to test your ideas. What you want to do is deduce consequences from your ideas and then test those consequences against known data in an attempt to show your idea to be wrong. You need to be your harshest critic. Try your best to show that your theory is wrong. That's how theories/ideas are tested in science.

 

If I had it crafted into a theory I would have to either do a better job of predicting gravitational effects, or it would have to better explain the connection between gravity and mass.

 

As an idea it still has to do this. After all, that is how we are testing the idea: to see how well it predicts (accounts for) the known data of gravitation effects. Until your theory can do this, it's nothing.

 

The idea I am using is that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. Those quantum increments are all equal in the amount of energy they contain, i.e. they are quantum, but the quantity of energy in a quantum cannot be determined with our current technology.

 

Sorry, but energy has already been quantized. Have you ever heard of Planck's Constant? Energy is quantized at 6.63 * 10E-34 Js. However, this has not allowed anyone to quantize gravity.

 

Quantization of energy in these unknown increments is part of the ideas because it allows mass and energy to be equivalent,

 

Been done. Ever hear of E = mc^2?

 

Now, I'm going to skip over your contradictory discussion about the rocket. Remember when I said you test your theory against existing data in an attempt to falsify it?

 

To answer your question about how I account for the deflection in my ideas if I don’t attribute it to curved spacetime, my idea is that photons have a tiny amount of mass.

 

What mass do photons have? And give me a precise number! After all, if you have been working on your theory for several years, you should at least have gotten that far. However, as Klaynos has noted, all the experimental evidence says photons are massless. There is no way that we would not have detected mass in them. Your theory has a false consequence: therefore your theory is falsified. Sorry, but get used to it. We're done.

[brain-in-a-vat]

Here we hit a MASSIVE problem, photons are massless, there is a phenomenal amount of evidence for this. Our measurements are so accurate of this that there is no way they could have enough mass to be deflected by the amount we measure.

 

Hypothesis disproved...

Well, thank you? But I am thinking alternatives to mainstream here. I am familiar with what you say about the mass of the photon from the mainstream perspective. There are some extenuating differences between the physical environments where the testing that you refer to has taken place and where I am thinking tiny mass. Those differences make your answer seem right to you and wrong to me. Do you know what I have been saying is different in the set of ideas I am talking about and in the environment, and why I even am looking at alternatives?

 

I would like to restate that the mainstream answers to the cause of mass and gravity are not connected, and they deal with theories that aren’t compatible. I am not satisfied by that and would like to consider ideas that show a connection between mass and gravity for example. I’m old and a long time ago I started asking questions and looking at what the answers were from a mainstream perspective.

 

The source of mass in our universe according to Higgs theory is a very massive particle that decays into fundamental particles that we recognize (over simplified but I am not teaching you about HT, just acknowledging it). Big money and many reputations are at stake with the performance of the LHC as everyone agrees. If we can’t find the Higgs mechanism, then does that make us rethink the source of mass? You can probably tell that I am anticipating that we don’t find it, but to mainstream that is like playing “don’t pass” in craps.

 

Do you even consider it possible that there is a realm where physical phenomena occur that affect the lowest level that we can detect? And if there was such a level do you consider that it would negate much of what we think we know. Science is tentative, and science must connect things that seem to be connected if it can. Current views on the cause of mass (Higgs) and the cause of gravity (spacetime) are not connected and are not even completely compatible. Do you see that as a concern that maybe there is more to learn?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I have reread your post and my reply. I know you won’t be satisfied and I am sorry. I understand why we are not able to communicate, and I don’t like it any more than you do.

I thought I was crystal clear: I am talking equations and quantification. That's what Einstein had. Supposedly you "have been building my ideas over several years on various forums" but you don't have the equations and quantification for known data? Boy, have you wasted not only your time but everyone else's! No offence, but you have.

No need to try to get you to look at these ideas any further is there? You display the expected mainstream attitude which is not a criticism, but an observation. You think I am wasting everyone’s time, while I think that if you are satisfied with the mainstream thinking and are not open to alternative thinking, then you are wasting my time just as much as I am yours.

It must be done by you. Learn the math!

It will come. Let me ask you if you think that the physical picture that I have described (we are both wasting each other’s time if you have no clue what I mean by the physical picture) can be quantified, since that is what you are asking for? What do you think the amount of an energy quantum is in the realm that I am trying to discuss? Just for perspective, if an electron has a half a billion quanta, it would be a tiny amount of energy. If that was true, do you think that it would have an impact on the math of existing theory? What kind of impact? You don’t know any more than I do about how things would change except that we both know it would change everything.

 

It's a theory. Hypotheses/theories are statements about the physical universe. You are making statements about the physical universe: photons have mass; space is not curved, etc. There is no hierarchy of certainty as you go from idea to hypothesis to theory. Each of those can be 1) untested, 2) falsified, or 3) supported.

Science has to always be looked at as tentative. Do you at least agree with that? I am off the charts as far as you are concerned when it comes to the scale where I am talking about quantization taking place. If you deal with me by giving me mainstream answers, you are happy, you are satisfied because you have given me the chance of say, “OMG, I didn’t know what the mainstream says about mass and gravity, forget all my ideas”.

 

At the same time I am saying, “There goes another satisfied mainstream customer.” Remember, I am not satisfied with mainstream; I know the scientific method and am applying it. You are certain I am a crank, while I am certain that it does no harm to the mainstream to suggest that there really are as yet undetected levels of order in physics. If ideas about a lower level yield the most far fetched ideas, but there is some reason to pursue them because they are internally consistent (you may have no clue what I mean) and show a way that mass and gravity could be connected, then I want the idea explored.

We cannot yet detect any such level of order so either I drop it in the face of your flat rejection from a mainstream perspective that I am already well aware of, or you deal with ideas that suggest a flawed mainstream.

 

If you go your way, you have to find the Higgs or go fish, and you have to ignore the shortcomings of GR and spacetime. The curvature of spacetime is a mathematical representation of the geometry of space and time. Though the correspondence to the physical space and time accurately predicts the movement of mass through space, there is nothing in spacetime that says how mass, energy, space and time are physically connected into curved spacetime. GR is a wonderful mathematical construct of a 4-D coordinate system but it is incomplete in telling us how mass and energy physically curves spacetime.

 

I am probably going to look for ideas of how it is possible to couple mass and gravity instead of accepting that a mathematical construct can affect the physical universe. You probably believe that spacetime are coupled and that there is true correspondence between physical world and the 4-D geometry of spacetime, and I probably believe that it is possible that we just haven’t arrived at the consistency between mass and gravity that should be expected.

 

 

What Klaynos and I are doing is testing your theory against known data. That data, so far, is falsifying the theory.

True from the mainstream perspective but like I say, it is not theory so can you acknowledge that there can be ideas before they either are confirmed or quantified? You want the cart before the horse so to speak.

Not the way to test your ideas. What you want to do is deduce consequences from your ideas and then test those consequences against known data in an attempt to show your idea to be wrong. You need to be your harshest critic. Try your best to show that your theory is wrong. That's how theories/ideas are tested in science.

The scientific method has to start with ideas. If the ideas are pertinent to a completely different set of circumstances, the known data from the wrong environment doesn’t apply.

Do you understand that my view is alien to yours, and I know yours much better than you know mine? You can disqualify my ideas from your perspective with data that is non-responsive to the circumstances I am describing, but can you think alternatively if the goal is to advance science.

 

Do you see the connection that my ideas make between mass and gravity? If so, just say what you think that connection is. Maybe I haven’t been clear about it. If that simple cause and effect could be achieved by quantization at a level we cannot yet detect, how would you set out to test it. What data would you turn to that applies I wonder?

 

As an idea it still has to do this. After all, that is how we are testing the idea: to see how well it predicts (accounts for) the known data of gravitation effects. Until your theory can do this, it's nothing.

Like I was saying, the gravitational effects as described by the EFEs are adequate but the physical description of the cause of those effects gives me pause. Are you satisfied with how GR says mass curves spacetime? Can you explain it to me so I can realize how the answers were right there in the mainstream all along and I just miss it? Don’t worry about that rhetorical question, I know you can’t.

Sorry, but energy has already been quantized. Have you ever heard of Planck's Constant? Energy is quantized at 6.63 * 10E-34 Js. However, this has not allowed anyone to quantize gravity.

 

Now wait. I don’t think you are telling me that the measures of the Planck regime are measures of a quantum increment of energy. They are measures of various aspects of the smallest realm that can be addressed in science, and that are helpful to use to do the math. But there isn’t actually a physical quantum of anything that is described by the Planck constants. Measures of the physical aspects that each Planck measure is used to describe, true, but a real identifiable entity, I don’t think so.

Been done. Ever hear of E = mc^2?

As was discussed a couple of posts back, no one is disputing equivalence. But if you think that E = mc^2 is explicit enough to addresses a precise unit of energy of which all mass is composed, then again, I missed that in the mainstream science. I am aware btw of the Standard Particle Model of particle theory and it addresses fundamental particles and forces. You aren’t saying that there is a common increment of energy common to all particles with mass, I’m sure. I am talking about the idea that there is such an energy increment and an associated force that connects the cause of mass and the cause of gravity.

Now, I'm going to skip over your contradictory discussion about the rocket. Remember when I said you test your theory against existing data in an attempt to falsify it?

Here is a case of you wanting to rush away from what I am trying to talk about by not pointing out where I was being contradictory. Did you for an instant think that you understood what I was saying well enough to see a contradiction? If so, why not say, “Hey biav, you said this and it sounds contradictory, can you explain why it isn’t contradictory?”

What mass do photons have? And give me a precise number! After all, if you have been working on your theory for several years, you should at least have gotten that far. However, as Klaynos has noted, all the experimental evidence says photons are massless. There is no way that we would not have detected mass in them. Your theory has a false consequence: therefore your theory is falsified. Sorry, but get used to it. We're done.

What mass? Did you miss where I said there is no quantification of the energy quantum, and there is no way to say what the mass of a photon is in an environment that has different parameters than the environment used by mainstream to address to possibility of photon mass?

 

Did you really say, “give me a precise number”? So you think by now, if I have been looking at the ideas for awhile, I should be able to have postulates, hypotheses, valid tests, test results and quantification? I am dragging my feet then.

 

You have not solved the problems of what causes mass, gravity and the initial expansion of the universe. If the answers could be given by the mainstream theories that you are saying falsify my ideas, I would have had the answers long ago.

 

You show no interest in my ideas. They start from the departure points where mainstream theories stop. The cause of mass? Will the LHC find the Higgs particle or even remnants of the decay which would show the Higgs mechanism? I don’t think there is a Higgs, so if a few years from now the data do not confirm the source of mass, maybe then mainstream thinkers will have to take another look.

 

If the Higgs is confirmed then QWC is falsified.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here we hit a MASSIVE problem, photons are massless, there is a phenomenal amount of evidence for this. Our measurements are so accurate of this that there is no way they could have enough mass to be deflected by the amount we measure.

 

Hypothesis disproved...

 

Check this out. http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/01/light-deflection-at-sun.html

Edited May 14, 2009 by brain-in-a-vat
Consecutive posts merged.

[Klaynos]

Mainstream or not, experimental evidence is still true.

 

Your link, we are discussing your idea not that one...