bogie

To answer your question particles are field excitations. The pointlike characteristics is where the wavefunction is a quanta of energy. That is your particle. The wavelike characteristics is the probability distribution of finding the above quanta at a given location.

So when you get right down to it there is no need for Wave-particle duality once you treat the particle as a field excitation. Which is what the above paper is describing

!

Moderator Note

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

if your speculation is predictive, let's have the math, so we can look at the predictions.

 

Ok First define the wavefunction according to QM. Then define mathematically the particle. There is a specific reason I want you to look in detail on these two questions.

Wave-particle duality is a little sneaky when described in Heuristic terms. Your above is close but not quite right.

Hint "what is the definition of a particle under QM" ?

Maybe you can help me with the rules too. First, what am I obligated to by the rules, becauese for the Speculations sub-forums, they say this:

Rules: The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules:

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.

Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory.

Have fun.

End of rules.

Evidence is the results of the various single particle double slit experiments where the interference pattern developes after many particles.

I gave an explanation of why the interference pattern forms from the perspective of the speculative nature of the wave-particle.

Are there other rules I am expected to abide by?

You are basing this on the known fact that single particles can produce an interference pattern, for example. Would you have predicted this before the *scientific* theory did?

How does your idea explain delayed choice experiments?

Can it predict *anything*?

In this speculation, photons and other particles are described as wave-particles that can display both their wave and their particle nature at the same time. Yikes, I know. I am characterizing the photon wave-particle to have the particle portion (dense wave energy core) at the center of the particle space, surrounded by the wave portion which is a spherically out flow of wave energy form the dense core. This particle structure applies to particles that cause a wave interference pattern in single particle two slit experiments, including the delayed choice quantum erasure experiments like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment_of_Kim_et_al._.282000.29

This particular particle structure, if the speculation is true, makes understanding what is going on in the single particle two slit experiment a simple matter of the wave portion going through both slits, and interfering with the path of the core portion which goes through one or the other of the two slits. Some may think I am talking pilot wave theory, but I'm not and may differentiate between the two later.

It means that in the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment, there will always be an interference pattern developed on the detector after multiple single particles are sent through, if there is a path to that detector from both slits, as is the case with D1 and D2 in this image of the Kim et al setup:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg

The article pointed out the there is always an interference pattern at D1 and D2, but never at D3 and D4. Isn't the reason for that simple, if the photon is a wave-particle, i.e., a wave and a particle at the same time, as I speculate?

Here's the Kim et al team comment:

If an idler photon is recorded at detector D3, it can only have come from slit B.

If an idler photon is recorded at detector D4, it can only have come from slit A.

If an idler photon is detected at detector D1 or D2, it might have come from slit A or slit B.

Wouldn't you always get an interference pattern on the screen if the particle portion of the wave-particle went through either A or B, but the wave portion of the wave particle went through both A and B, creating the interference?

In the Kim et al. setup, that is exactly what the red and the blue paths show; if you have a red and blue path to the detector, you get interference on the screen pattern because you have wave energy reaching both D1 and D2 from each slit. You get no interference on D3 and D4 because those detectors never get wave energy from both slits, they always only get the wave energy that comes through the same slit as the particle comes through.

The wave-particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time, and that explains how a single particle two slit experiment can produce the wave interference pattern on the detect

or screen.

Here lets save timehttps://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_148435658654413&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&libId=ixwjkyqa010009we000MAki55j4ju&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-vacuum-fluctuation-myth-comments.892500%2Fpage-7&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D9%26ved%3D0ahUKEwiNgcSLubfRAhWogVQKHRtBBLEQFgg1MAg%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1204.4616%26usg%3DAFQjCNEqAKaDGcbyMG2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ%26sig2%3DOLrYE7fyEIHsA3zMw400rQ&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-vacuum-fluctuation-myth-comments.892500%2Fpage-6&title=The%20Vacuum%20Fluctuation%20Myth%20-%20Comments%20|%20Page%207%20|%20Physics%20Forums%20-%20The%20Fusion%20of%20Science%20and%20Community&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26amp%3Bsourc...G2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ%26amp%3Bsig2%3DOLrYE7fyEIHsA3zMw400rQ

"But the puzzle of wave-particle

duality in this experiment can be resolved by switching to an all-fields perspective"

The author of the above goes into good detail on the above quote

Give me a setup for a single particle two slit experiment, with or without the delayed choice, and I can predict if and where there will be an interference pattern on a detector and where there won't. My speculation is simple and better, IMHO.

I still interested in if there are more extensive rules than what I quoted?

So apart from retrofitting an explanation to things we already know (I.e. predicted by theory) does your idea have any use? For example, can you predict (quantitatively) anything?And how does this fit with delayed choice experiments?

What did I say that is already known; can you quote the part of my post that your are referring to as retrofitting, and what exactly are you claiming that is known that I am retrofitting?

Wave-Particle Speculation

Speculation: Particles have both a wave nature which is out flowing waves (the wave portion) and a particle nature (the dense core), making them wave-particles. Individual wave-particles can display both their wave and particle nature at that same time in single particle two slit experiments.

In the single particle two slit experiments, there is a wave pattern that forms on the screen after many single particles are sent through the slits, giving some evidence that both the wave portion and the particle core portion of the wave-particle are both in evidence in the space between the slits and the screen.

Explanation: The wave portion of the wave-particle goes through both slits, and the particle portion goes through one or the other. The wave interference pattern is caused as the out flowing wave energy from the particle core passes through both slits. The interference pattern has peaks and valleys of wave energy density which influence the path of the particle between the slits and the detector.

Yes, correct. I see the difference. It brings to mind the peculiar velocity, doesn't it?

It is a moot point as to whether the effects you are talking about actually matter in any current practical sense. The effect is enormously tiny, if that makes sense. Of course, if you actually travelled a few hundred light years to another star, the error would add up. However, I cannot see myself undergoing such a journey in the near future...

Gravity lensing makes it possible to see multiple images of the same object.

It also can magnify the object. This graphic is exagerated to show the magnifying affect; the link describes it.

And Rog came back with:

I believe this is roughly what happens if you were to shine a light out from inside the event horizon of a black hole (although to be honest I’ve never met anyone who’s done this) i.e. the light is unable to escape and follows the extreme curved space back into the hole. However' date=' black holes are almost unimaginably dense – a teaspoon of material might weigh billions of tons. On the other hand the matter in the universe as a whole is incredibly sparse. If you model the matter in the known universe as a sphere with a density and radius being the current best estimates for the known universe and put it into empty space the gravity (and the associated curvature of space) surrounding the sphere would be tiny. Although the total amount of matter in the sphere is large the average distance of each particle of matter from any point on the surface of the sphere is huge (equivalent to having all the mass concentrated at the center of the sphere) and as you mentioned gravity diminishes with the *square* of distance. Any light beam emitted in an outward direction from near the edge of the sphere would just travel straight outwards into empty space.

 

R[/quote']Your logic is irrefutable.

 

But light emitted from a galaxy at the supposed “edge” of the known universe would be emitted in all directions. Much of the light would be emitted inward, some would be along the edge, and somewhat tangent, and some would emitted only slightly inward or slightly outward. These are the photons that are the best candidates to be curved back at us.

 

There is also a compounding factor when dealing at the edge. The area of the surface of a sphere means that there is an enormous source for the tangential light. Beams emitted at a low angle relative to the surface from anywhere near this vast surface area could be captured and redirected back into the sphere at any other point on the sphere.

 

The extremely low density of the universe is certainly a fact. The extremely weak curvature in the vicinity of the surface is certainly a fact. But if the returned photons emitted by surface or near surface galaxies equals only 54% lets say of the emitted light, there would still be highly red-shifted return light that would appear to be coming from a place that is actually empty space. If we were looking into that empty space we would see highly red-shifted light from galaxies that are actually around the bend.

 

I haven’t thought much about the particle horizon as to how it might affect this scenario. Do you think there could be some effect that the horizon particle environment could play in bending light back toward the known universe?

To relate what Rog replied from another board:

Not quite sure what you are getting at' date=' so just to recap: The view of big bang cosmology is that the universe does not have an edge or a center, because if it did it would not be homogeneous and isotropic. The three possible topologies are explained on many web sites – Wikipedia has a good article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe.

 

If the universe has no edge then it doesn’t need to expand into existing space or create new space to expand into but rather its increased volume comes only from the swelling of its internal space as described in my previous post.

 

If the universe did have an edge how would space differ on either side of the edge? What would cause the curvature of space to be extreme close to the edge as you mention - Wouldn’t that imply a much greater mass density near the edge of the universe than in the centre? Also I note that the current best guess from observations is that the universe is flat or very close to flat and so has no/little overall curvature.

 

R[/quote'] Stick it out with me until one of us gets through to the other.

 

Let me rephrase your recap and see if you agree. The view of the big bang cosmology is that the known universe does not appear to have an edge or a center. It appears homogeneous and isotropic because it looks very much the same on a large scale from any vantage point within it. Based on the cosmological principle, also known as the vacuum energy density of the known universe, the shape of the universe is either open like a saddle, flat, or closed like a sphere.

 

Based on General Relativity, mass/energy in motion causes a curvature of space around the mass that is often referred to as gravity. More massive objects curve space to a greater degree.

 

Even though the curvature diminishes, like gravity diminishes, based on the square of the distance, two bodies orbiting each other create a combined curvature. Multiple bodies like a solar system plot out a complex curvature as the orientation of objects in the system move. A galaxy curves space around itself as a result of the complicated pattern of the curvatures of objects in the galaxy.

 

If you think of our known universe as a whole, the curvature of space around it would be great, especially relative to the zero curvature of empty space. The empty space outside the known universe would express no curvature because there is no mass.

 

Now bear with me while I talk about a galaxy near the outer edge of the known universe. Light from such a galaxy would try to head out into empty space, but light bends with the curvature of space. The light that tries to head out to empty space would be curved right back into the known universe. By the time that light is observed from within the known universe it has traveled and returned on a circuitous path. The long curved path of the light as it returns to the observer in the known universe will appear red-shifted and will appear to be coming from a place that doesn’t actually exist, and from a direction far removed from the location of the galaxy where the light originated.

 

So we could be looking out into empty space beyond the known universe and see light coming to us that was so red-shifted that we would think that the objects were billions of light years out there in the direction we were looking. It is an illusion due to the curvature of space and the characteristic of light to bend.

Let's revisit the earlier premise about whether space exists outside the big bang or not.

On another board, Rog posted:

As I understand it the universe behaves like a plum pudding so that the dough (space) of the pudding expands whilst the plums just move with the dough. So in this scenario the galaxies in the universe move with space rather than through space. If' date=' however, the universe is expanding into already existing space then the galaxies would be moving through space with respect to each other. This relative motion would have the effect of breaking time symmetry so that the time would be desynchronized in different galaxies and it would be meaningless to talk about the age of the universe since no two galaxies would agree from their own perspectives. Also galaxies would increase in speed through space the further they were away from us so that galaxies a certain distance from us would recede at speeds greater than the speed of light which is ruled out by special relativity.

 

R[/quote']I agree with all that. From within the big bang there is no detectable center or edge. Galaxies are moving apart consistently in all directions.

 

The reason it appears that way is due to the curvature of space. Galaxies are moving away from each other in curved paths due to the mass/energy/motion of the rest of the finite universe. Light coming to us from those galaxies is curved as well.

 

Because the universe is expanding, it is increasing in volume, and any volume has dimensions. We just can’t see the surface (edge) or detect a center because of the curvature of spacetime. There is an edge or surface leading the expansion. The curvature of space at the “edge” is so great that light coming from there covers an arc and is red-shifted so it appears further from us than it really is.

 

It wouldn’t matter if we were expanding into existing empty space or if space was being “created” by the expansion. It would look the same from inside.

 

If anybody can refute this with a link from an accredited source or even a brief explanation of why it is not plausible, I would appreciate it.

As I understand it the universe behaves like a plum pudding so that the dough (space) of the pudding expands whilst the plums just move with the dough. So in this scenario the galaxies in the universe move with space rather than through space. If' date=' however, the universe is expanding into already existing space then the galaxies would be moving through space with respect to each other. This relative motion would have the effect of breaking time symmetry so that the time would be desynchronized in different galaxies and it would be meaningless to talk about the age of the universe since no two galaxies would agree from their own perspectives. Also galaxies would increase in speed through space the further they were away from us so that galaxies a certain distance from us would recede at speeds greater than the speed of light which is ruled out by special relativity.

 

R[/quote']I agree with all that. From within the big bang there is no detectable center or edge. Galaxies are moving apart consistently in all directions.

 

The reason it appears that way is due to the curvature of space. Galaxies are moving away from each other in curved paths due to the mass/energy/motion of the rest of the finite universe. Light coming to us from those galaxies is curved as well.

 

Because the universe is expanding, it is increasing in volume, and any volume has dimensions. We just can’t see the surface (edge) or detect a center because of the curvature of spacetime. There is an edge or surface leading the expansion. The curvature of space at the “edge” is so great that light coming from there covers an arc and is red-shifted so it appears further from us than it really is.

 

It wouldn’t matter if we were expanding into existing empty space or if space was being “created” by the expansion. It would look the same from inside.

 

If anybody can refute this with a link from an accredited source or even a brief explanation of why it is not plausible, I would appreciate it.

 

Could "wait and see" be considered enough to make a theory that posits a greater universe testable?

It has to do with the density of the known universe and the balance between the density of matter in the universe with the density of vacuum energy. If there is no such thing as vacuum energy, then the matter energy of the universe equals one. If there is vacuum energy then the sum of the matter energy and vacuum energy equals one and each of the two components make up a percentage of the total.

"The recent matter density ΩM and vacuum energy density ΩL for current data from supernovae (Knop et al. 2003), cluster measurements (based on Allen et al. 2003), and CMB data with H_0 priors (outer contours: Lange et al. 2001, inner: Spergel et al. 2003). These results rule out a simple flat ΩM=1, ΩL=0 cosmology, and indeed the supernovae data rule out cosmologies without vacuum energy. Their consistent overlap is a strong indicator for dark energy dominating the universe with some 70% of the energy density. Also shown is the expected confidence region from just the SNAP supernova program, for ΩM=0.28, ΩL=0.72."

Now science is thinking that this "dark" energy exists within the known universe and is offsetting, in fact more that offsetting the force of gravity in the known universe, resulting in the acceleration of the expansion.

The SNAP project, if it gets funded, will be able to more accurately measure the rate of expansion of the universe and will provide a wealth of new information about "dark" energy.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the "dark" energy is now being suggested as 1) the reason why galaxies aren't collapsing faster, and 2) at the same time it is the reason why the known universe is expanding faster (accelerating).

[Edit] Actually the question with galaxies might be why they aren't flying apart faster due to their rotational energy. The answer to that question would be the negative pressure caused by the outward rotation as matter is displaced away from the center of the galaixes. This negative pressure or "dark energy" would slow the outward movement.

They think that "dark" energy within the known universe causes the expansion of the known universe to accelerate and a "dark matter" effect slows the outward expansion of galaxies. Makes sense doesn't it? I think that the dark matter and dark energy are one in the same. Dark energy outside the expansion, or inside the expansion would have the same effect as dark matter. It is just that the operative force of dark energy is negative pressure, and the operative force of dark matter is gravity.

My thinking is that the cause of both the slowing the expansion or the collapse of galaxies and the acceleration of the expansion of the known universe is in fact due to this "dark" energy (the negative pressure of vacuum energy is the same as dark energy), but the cause of the "dark" energy is the displacement of matter energy, not some fixed mix of the two. I suggest that displacement of matter energy due to the relativistic curvature of space and the resulting attraction of bodies in space leaves "dark" energy or call it vacuum energy or negative pressure in the area from which the body was displaced.

If my thinking is correct, the slowing of the collapse of galaxies is due to vacuum energy (negative pressure) caused by the inward displacement of the in-swirling (or just accumulation toward the center) matter energy in the galaxy. If so, the resulting negative pressure due to displacement would slow the collapse.

Also, if my thinking is correct, the acceleration of the expansion of the known universe is caused by this same kind of negative pressure that was caused by the accumulation (inward displacement of matter energy) of a big crunch that might have preceded the Big Bang.

If my thinking is correct, then there is a greater universe within which there was a big crunch that lead to our big bang, and the formation of that big crunch left negative pressure (vacuum energy) as it accumulated. Our known universe is now expanding back into the area (call it an arena) from which it was accumulated, and the vacuum energy that was caused by the earlier inward crunch (inward displacement) is now the cause of the acceleration in the expansion that has recently been noticed.

Do you see the subtle difference between "dark" energy existing within the known universe, and "dark" energy existing outside the known universe? Do you at the same time see the subtle difference between "dark" energy existing within a collapsing galaxy, and "dark" energy existing outside of a collapsing galaxy?

Now to add to the confusion , as the known universe expands, matter energy is being displaced outward, and that displacement is causing "dark" energy within the expansion. The only difference is that "dark" energy within the expansion is growing and will eventually offset the negative pressure of the "dark" energy outside, and the expansion will begin to slow.

Thus, another test of a greater universe would be the acceleration of the expansion while the outside "dark" energy was greater than the inside "dark" energy (like now), and then the gradual slowing of the expansion as the inside "dark" energy grows and the outside dark energy gets "used up" (the prediction).

Unfortunately again it is a "wait and see" test, though it should occur before the predicted merging and mingling predicted earlier.

I'm wondering if the Big Bang could be an event preceded by a big crunch that formed in the greater universe?

I guess the answer to the question posed in the OP (Could there be a greater universe outside our known universe) is, it depends.

If you believe in the view that spacetime is being created as the universe expands, then there was and is no spacetime before or beyond the Big Bang, and the answer to the question is no.

If you believe that the curvature of spacetime that makes it impossible to determine if there is an outside universe, then the answer to the question is you don't know.

That is where I am. I don't know. I don’t think we can know until new evidence is uncovered.

The test of any theory that posits a greater universe as opposed to an endlessly expanding known universe lies in the eventual outcome. Do we expand and create spacetime until the universe suffers complete entropy where all useful energy has been spent, or do we expand until the known universe encounters the matter/energy of the posited outside universe.

Such an encounter would be cataclysmic as our galaxies merged and mingled with the older colder objects that would likely occupy a greater universe capable of generating our known universe from its constituents; maybe an outside universe spatially infinite and infinite in matter/energy.

Such cataclysms would create bursts of gamma rays and cosmic rays which would be clues to the encounter. The signature of those bursts, their frequency, and their widely dispersed direction may eventually give scientists the clues they need to confirm the existence of an outside universe.

So if there is an outside universe the proof would be in the encounter between our known universe and the fringes of that greater universe. We just have to wait and see I guess.

Could "wait and see" be considered enough to make a theory that posits a greater universe testable?

You can get "less dense" space? (im not sure' date=' isnt density a property of matter?)

[/quote']

Density is associated with matter, in fact D = M/V (density equals matter divided by volume).

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

 

As I understand it, in space, there is a vacuum density and there is matter/energy density. The cosmological principle says that spacetime can be defined by the relationship between vacuum energy and matter/energy density. The cosmological constant is referred to as the vacuum energy density of the universe. That constant defines the "shape" of the universe, i.e. open, flat, or closed.

 

My OP acknowledges that our known finite universe is expanding and the expansion seems to be accelerating. The acceleration could be due to the difference in the density of the matter/energy of the known universe, and the vacuum energy or negative pressure surrounding the known universe.

 

My point was it seems that from within our know universe we cannot determine whether the big bang universe is creating spacetime as it expands, or if it is expanding into less dense space (negative pressure of vacuum energy). Either way the curvature of spacetime in the known universe would make it impossible to detect a center or an edge and everything would appear to be receding from us no matter which way we looked.

 

And if we are expanding into an area of negative pressure, then there might be a greater universe in which our known universe exists and expands.

 

I was hoping someone could confirm that the fact that we can't detect a center or an edge to the known universe does not exclude the possibility that we are expanding within a greater universe.

 

I'm wondering if the Big Bang could be an event preceded by a big crunch that formed in the greater universe?

This is speculation and I thought if I posted it here someone might let me know that it has been examined and rejected, or why it can’t be true because …

I have read some of the forums and there are quite a few posters who are knowledgeable in the areas that I am speculating about, and I am hoping to find someone who is willing to be helpful.

You can refer to me as a fringe character because I have no credentials, no formal training in science, and only internet exposure about physics and cosmology gained over the past two or three years. My imagination often gets me thinking about why can’t things be “such and such” a way, and if they were, wouldn’t “something that I can imagine” follow from that.

Clearly we are in an expanding known universe, and recent evidence shows that the rate of expansion seems to be accelerating. The expansion is consistently the same no matter where we look, and everything is receding in such a way that there appears to be no center or leading surface or edge to the known universe.

I have read about why this is the case and the standard cosmology seems to represent this effect as being the result of the idea that as the known universe expands, it is making its own spacetime as it goes (the raisin bread rising in the oven analogy). Therefore, and in accord with general relativity and the cosmological principle, the curvature of the known universe, whether open or closed (probably open), curves the light traveling to us from all directions so there is really no “straight” line of sight.

I am thinking that the exact same thing would happen if, instead of the universe creating spacetime as it expands, it was expanding into a much less dense space surrounding the known universe. Spacetime would be just about as curved as if it was creating spacetime as it goes, and there would still be no detectible center or edge or surface of expansion due to the relativistic curvature of spacetime.

The expansion into a less dense space, meaning substantially empty space, would still provide an environment where the curvature of the known universe would not be interfered with from the surrounding outside area, and light coming to us from within the known universe would be curved just the same.

If this is the case, I can imagine a greater universe out there that our known universe is expanding within. Other thoughts come to mind that I would like to speculate about here if this idea is not already proven to be wrong or calculated to be impossible.

Can someone help me understand if my idea is acceptable or not even though it can’t be proven, or even tested, i.e. is anyone likely to be interested in talking about it?

I wouldn't mind vetting my ideas by PM with anyone who would be willing to give them a "once" over before I post them in a forum.