Wulphstein

Does anyone think that the initial conditions of big were were a net zero energy event, \Delta U(gravitational potential) + Energy (big bang) = 0.

If the neuro"science" community cared about humanity,  they would make a public announcement saying they don't know what the Hell a soul is, don't know how to make humanity happy, and turn that job back over to religious leaders, psychics, and those who understand human nature and the nature of consciousness. 

30 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It embodies the set of neural processes that occur within a brain and supplemented with signals from other parts of the body.

Is that it?  So what can I do with this "valuable" knowledge from the highly esteemed scientific community whom we are supposed to emulate and look to for a vision of the future? 

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Quit trolling.

So what do you think is the nature of consciousness? 

We're still not talking about consciousness or what it is. 

5 minutes ago, Eise said:

You may say what you want, as long it does not offend anybody, but if you want to make methodologically valid truth claims, you should be prepared to give arguments that transcend your own experiences. The only methodology I recognise with you is, 'I experienced it', or 'my intuition tells me so'. And this methodology is debunked by the simple arising of science and the technology derived from it.

This thread is about consciousness.  Experience and intuition are major parts of it.  So your argument about "valid claims" is silly. 

14 minutes ago, Eise said:

Pretty much, I think, you are in the philosophy section. Personally however, I think you should give arguments, why your profound 'thoughts' should be valid for others. Otherwise your thoughts are just descriptions of how you experience the world. There is nothing wrong with telling us, but without arguments that might be valid for others, your 'thoughts' contain no truth-claim, and therefore have nothing to do with philosophy and even less with science.

I'm starting to understand what it's like to live in a dictatorship.  Can't really say what I want to say without offending the administrators, breaking the rules or referring to a topic that is closed by the administrators.  I can't use certain words unless I have mastery of the topic.  It's like walking on egg shells in this forum.  The truly wondrous things that other people express to me, they warm my heart about what reality is really like.  I'm starting to understand what our forefathers were probably dealing with.  Yes, I support freedom of speech.

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And what you write about them; although I'm a little fuzzy about whats unclear about that sentence.

You can experience anything you like and it's entirely for you to do decide how profound you think it is; but when you post those thoughts on a public forum, I'm entitled to reply (within the rules of the site).

BTW 4 negs in a row for no reason is bad form, so lets put this behind us and get back to the topic. 

The topic is about:  life and consciousness (what is consciousness).  What are we allowed to say about consciousness that is within the rules of this forum?

36 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's for your peers to decide.

Your communication is a little fuzzy.  I can't quite make it out.  It sounds like you're claiming the right to disparage someone's profound experience to satisfy....  Can you please clarify.  Why would you want to?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The profundity of your thoughts are not for you to decide. 

What do you mean?

The r vector is a radius vector of the pre photon that is described with the wave function above as [latex] r = ct  [/latex].

Did I mention that when pre-photons are emitted from points A and B, their momentum states  will eventually mix.

It's the quantum momentum states that are key to the acceleration of gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum_operator

The plane wave solution to the Schrodinger equation is,

[latex] \psi = e^{\frac {i}{\hbar}(\vec {p} . \vec{r} - Et)}   [/latex]

The momentum operator is [latex]\vec {p} = -i \hbar \vec{ \nabla}  [/latex]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Where? You keep promising, but not delivering.

What about these states is quantized? (you said there is no energy, and no matter)

Where?  Look at the picture of the photon.  I call them pre-photons instead of virtual photons.  Do you see where it says "wavelength"?  That's a ruler.  In 3D, It creates the geometry of space-time.  Do you see where it says frequency?  Well that's a clock.  Since they're built into the same object, a pre-photon, then together, they are a mechanism of spacetime.  They are literally tied to [latex] c = \lambda \nu [/latex].

If it was part of a quantum system, lets say an infinite potential well of length L, it would be quantized as shown in the figure below.  The pre-photon is a place to put energy, a particle, momentum.  So if there is a charge near by, the pre-photon has a place to put electromagnetic energy, and consequently could interact with the charge like a virtual photon.  Just looking at the pictures makes one think that a quantum system could contain n pre-photons.  They are not a conserved quantity, so it's not a problem.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

But spacetime isn’t charged. These are states with no energy and no matter (you said so) so how can charge be a part of the description?

Spacetime is made out of clocks and rulers.  Those clocks and rulers are the phase of the pre-photon(s) that fill all space will wavelength states (in 3 dimensions), which is 3D geometry, and frequency states.  A pre-photon doesn't have a particular frequency or energy.  It obeys [latex] E = h\nu [/latex].  It has all of the available frequency states, and lays down those states at the speed of light in all directions of 3D. 

Only standard model particles can carry charge. Only particle creation/annihilation processes can create standard model particles.  Particle + anti-particle --> hv. 

In quantum field theory, there is a field for every kind of particle.  There is an electron field, quark field, gluon field, every kind of particle.  I don't know how a pre-photon becomes an electron field, etc. 

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Which means, it doesn't matter how profound you think your thought was, you might as well be pissing into the wind, if you don't understand the weather forecast.

Certainly the purpose of life is to experience how profound the world is.  It would be a better life if we could have a profound thought without someone disparaging it for fun.

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's the thing about causality, we don't know what it will lead to. 

Which means, it doesn't matter how profound you think your thought was, you might as well be pissing into the wind, if you don't understand the weather forecast.

Do people piss in the wind?

10 hours ago, Eise said:

What you call metaphysics will be physics by then. Or refuted by it...

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Thanks.

Though I don’t see how this fits with Wulphstein’s conjecture, as he is insisting that the states are “quantum states of spacetime” and I don’t think his idea has even sniffed gauge invariance

The connection between spacetime geometry and quantum states is there.  The minimum requirement for spacetime geometry to exist is that a clock and a ruler must exist for every inertial frame; but those clocks have to the be tied to the invariant speed of light.  A photon (both virtual and real) has wavelength and frequency in the relationship [latex] c = \lambda \nu [/latex].  It looks like this.

What do you notice exists within the photon?  Electromagnetism.  [\latex] c^2 \mu \epsilont = 1 [latex].  If there was  a potential energy made of electron charge, it would cause photons (both real and virtual) to interact with it because photons have electromagnetic fields. 

In many cases, the solution to the Schrodinger equation has a potential energy term that is often made of charges.  The solution is the wave function which I have often stated (without a mathematical derivation) is describing a virtual photon. 

I had to start with an "event" in spacetime and talk about the spacetime interval (many inertial frames whose rulers and clocks are invariant to the speed of light); then I had to make a logical argument that any event would have to update the rest of the universe at the speed of light.  I don't know what it is that has both properties of virtual photons and spacetime geometry, so I called it a pre-photon. Graviton?

In 500 years, physicists will probably be more comfortable with metaphysics. 

It has been argued that every event that occurs creates a spherical wavefront made of quantum states and space-time geometry, that transmits its causality at the speed of light to update the rest of the universe.  Even something as small as an ant wiggling it butt would generate a causal wavefront.  The little things are not expected to effect curvature of spacetime.  But a distinctive signal could still persist as a field that hangs around for a while.  A particularly distinctive thought is an event sufficient enough to emit a spherical wavefront.  A thought could make a difference, existing as a field.

The purpose of life is to exploit nuances in the laws of physics

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

You need to apply the correct formulas that coincide with what you wish to describe. You have yet to post a correctly applied wavefunction.

Model building is great but you need to do it properly otherwise your not accomplishing anything.

Well, a Bessel function is a solution to a differential in spherical coordinates.  The only problem is, I don't know how to solve something like this that is expanding with time, and also has a time element. 

Incidentally, can you think of any quantum gravity theories that have the feature of point quantum gravity events expanding at the speed of light in all directions?  Even gravitons aren't described this way. 

I get the feeling that point events might start out normalized, but would be impossible to normalize very quickly.  But that doesn't mean nature wouldn't update spacetime this way.  

There is also a logical consequence of what happens when things expand at the speed of light.  They get big.  In one second, they're already 6x10⁸ meters wide.  It shouldn't go unnoticed that spacetime is big, really big. 

The geometry of the line cone seems to suggest that something is getting bigger at the speed of light.

2 hours ago, Proan said:

I have a theory for discussion that time is created by the expansion of space.

I propose that every point of space in the universe is expanding at the speed of light and time as we perceive it is the measurement of the potential to move into the space created. This creates a reality horizon. A physical barrier if you like which is light speed.

When you travel in space you are closer to the horizon in the direction you are moving meaning that space in front is effectively expanding slower creating a time dilation for the object in motion. Travelling at the speed of light would mean that space would not be expanding in the direction of travel at all so there would be no movement through time. You can't travel faster as there is no "new" space expansion in that direction to travel in to.

I also propose that as space expands through mass it is slowed down.

The point at the centre of the mass, as with all points, wants to expand at the speed of light but is restricted by the mass so expands slower. As it moves through the mass and the mass ahead reduces it speeds up until reaching open space where it then expands at light speed again. It is still "behind" where it should be creating a gravitational drag. This proportional deficit would reduce the further away that point gets from the mass explaining why gravity recedes with distance but never disappears.

Black holes where the mass is so compacted as to stop the expansion of space are outside of the reality horizon, and would have a surrounding region with no time.

I'm probably off the mark but appreciate some comments please

When we look at the derivation of special relativity, there is the path that light inside of the moving object, and then the path that light takes when an observer sees the light while looking in the window of the moving object.  There is a right triangle calculation involving two paths of light, and then suddenly we're talking about time dilation and length contraction.  You don't even need light for special relativity to happen, just something that has the speed of light, c.  So why wouldn't someone wonder if there is something moving at the speed of light to facilitate the "invariance of c". 

24 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You need to apply the correct formulas that coincide with what you wish to describe. You have yet to post a correctly applied wavefunction.

Model building is great but you need to do it properly otherwise your not accomplishing anything.

A friend of mine at work who is smarter than all of us listened to my idea and said I was describing a "ghost" particle. Since all of its quantum states are empty of energy and matter. I'm still not sure if I'm describing a graviton. I was hoping that "expand at the speed of light" would paint a picture. That would explain a transition from "quantum scale" to "gravitational scale". If you didn't understand and still want a model, I confess that I don't know how to explain it any better. 

I still welcome questions. 

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

This wave equation is for a two dimensional Hilbert space it only applies in the x y coordinates with the wave propagation along the x axis. 

ψ=eiϕ you can immediately recognize that detail by the indices. Ie your measuring it on a screen.

See the plot here

https://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+\psi+%3D+e^{i+\phi}

That plot does not represent a photon or any particle. There are no finite boundaries.

Were you thinking of spherical geometry? How do you describe a 3d+1 set of quantum states expanding at the speed of light?

4 hours ago, swansont said:

When are you going to post it?

what experiments will confirm it, to the exclusion of other models?

You don’t get to take term used in mainstream physics and give it your own definition. There is no assurance that your definition will be consistent with anything other than your own speculation 

Are you referring to the term "physics information "? I don't remember Leonard Suskind defining it. Do you have a definition?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

When are you going to post it?

what experiments will confirm it, to the exclusion of other models?

You don’t get to take term used in mainstream physics and give it your own definition. There is no assurance that your definition will be consistent with anything other than your own speculation 

Mordred 

If the stagnation in physics could be fixed by a mathematical model, we would have unified GR with QM, and know how to build a curvature generator, anti gravity by now using particles that exist.

You need to look at physics from another point of view. You don't need a mathematical model to figure out that spacetime is updated by a spherical wavefront that is emitted by an event in spacetime.  

That should also tell you that quantum states are related to spacetime geometry in some way, that I wasn't able to articulate mathematically.  Don't you think that causality also travels outward at the speed of light? 

If there is one mechanism that emits at the speed of light from an event, don't you think spacetime geometry will be one of its features?

There is too much to explain how quantum mechanics has detected quantum states. You don't see the connection.  But quantum states and geometry of spacetime both exist in a mechanism that expands at c, from an event. 

You can't get this picture from mathematics.  It would explain how gr,qm are unified, c invariance is occurring,  geometry is implemented,  time is implemented. 

Look at physics from another point of view, like pieces to a puzzle. 

All those quantum states hidden away in spacetime have momentum and energy states. Spacetime achieves equilibrium with mass-energy by adjusting those energy-momentum states. The inevitable result is that the wavelength and frequency states, which control time and distance, are changed as well.  Resulting in curvature and gravitational time dilation. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You’re thinking of pop-sci reporting. A model and evidence is what the physics community will understand, and wants. 

I want to thank you for taking the time to look at my model.

My model is based on some common sense assumptions assumptions,  that the spacetime continuum is updated constantly by events. Those updates are made of spacetime geometry and quantum states. The pre photon mechanism is the best choice to give common sense insight that could lead to productive directions for research. The current mathematical models lead the physics community away from a common sense understanding of nature. Examples include unmeasureable particles. It leads our attention away from things that do exist, like virtual photons,  that could have deeper mechanisms. 

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

 Gravity waves has a spin 2 quadrupole waveform. Photons has a spin 1 Dipolar waveform. The two do not match. Their waveforms are different. Photons only has two polarity states while gravity waves has four. LIGO would not have been able to detect a GW wave if gravity was prephotons whatever that means. Theory falsified by observational data.

Ignoring that distinction will not result is an error.  Pre photons are a mechanism to update space with spacetime geometry,  quantum states  and allows for physics information about events to be distributed.  Prephotons can serve as wave functions,  virtual photons, real photons. Or be used to contain standard model particles. 

Pre photons weigh nothing. 

They can spin, possibly subject to nh, integer times Planck constant. 

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Analogies are not evidence.

An analogy is required to make the physics community understand what is happening.  That's why the physics community thinks that quantum entanglements are made out of worm holes, and crazy stuff like that.  You NEED analogies.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Yiu==ou are jumping the gun. You need to establish that it's actually made of something.

Spacetime is 3+1 geometry spread out over the whole universe.  It is constantly updated by events that express their effect through the stress-energy tensor, which effects the geodesic.   The analogy is,  spacetime continuum:prephotons::ocean:water molecules.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it travels no faster than the speed of light.

Pre-photons update the rest of spacetime at the speed of light, with changes to the spacetime continuum.  The particles of an exploding fire cracker might travel slower than c, but pre-photons are constantly emitting from the slow moving debris.  Pre-photons are like updates to the spacetime continuum.  They are made out of spacetime geometry themselves and quantum states that carry information about events.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

You don't get to define it.

?

4 hours ago, swansont said:

How can it exist everywhere in space if it is limited to propagate at c?

What is an "oscillation as a phase"? What, specifically, is conserved?

The pre-photons of the big bang fill all space and time.  All pre-photons after that are still catching up, expanding at the speed of light. 

At the time that I realized it, it was strange; it will no doubt be hard to convince you.  The oscillations of a photon are electromagnetic oscillations with frequency [latex] \omega = \frac {\partial\phi}{\partial t} {/latex}.  Over time, from t₁ to t₂, the phase that is laid down, in the form of an electromagnetic field, is [latex] \int \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} dt = \phi(t_2) - \phi(t_1) [/latex]