Jump to content

Introduction to the Infinite Spongy Universe


bogie
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's not enough to be math and accompanying logic. It needs to be compared to something we can measure. Further, you haven't touched upon the significance of these numbers. What would it mean to change the quanta of action by 1 in an electron or proton? The quantized parameters in QM have distinct effects that one can measure.

 

Let's step through this. The estimate of the number of quanta in a wave-particle in my model is being compared to something we can measure, if you agree with the equivalence between mass and energy. Look here: https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/r/rest-energy.htm

"Based on relativity theory, it is concluded that an equivalence relation exists between mass and energy. The energy is equal to the product of mass and the square of light velocity: E = mc2. The rest energy E0 is also the energy equivalent of a resting, i.e. immobile particle. Therefore, the rest energy of a proton for example is 938.257 MeV. The rest energy of 1 g mass is about 2.5·107 kWh.

 

If you agree generally that 938.257 MeV is a reasonable figure for the rest energy of the proton, my ball park estimate of the numbers of quanta would be divided into the rest energy, to get the energy of a quantum at the level where quantum action plays out in my model (938.257 / 700,000,000,000 MeV). That tiny amount of energy represents the quantum, and the mass of a particle is the sum of the quanta that make up its complex standing wave pattern. That is a comparison with something we can measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the quantum of action is 1.34 meV. What does that mean in practical terms? What would it mean to change the quanta of action by 1 in an electron or proton?

 

You have twice mentioned "quantum of action". I have been long familiar with the term, and you are not understanding my model if you equate the quantum of action to a quantum in my model.

 

The quantum of action is very basic to QM, and has a precise definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

You know that though, do you not?

 

It is not the same thing as a quantum in my model. I hope you can tell that the micro level quantum in my model is a bit tinier than the Planck constant. Would you mind acknowledging that you understand that.

 

If you see the difference, then when I answer your question, "What would it mean to change the quanta of action by 1 in an electron or proton?", I will know that you get the vast difference in scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have twice mentioned "quantum of action". I have been long familiar with the term, and you are not understanding my model if you equate the quantum of action to a quantum in my model.

 

The quantum of action is very basic to QM, and has a precise definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

You know that though, do you not?

 

It is not the same thing as a quantum in my model. I hope you can tell that the micro level quantum in my model is a bit tinier than the Planck constant. Would you mind acknowledging that you understand that.

 

If you see the difference, then when I answer your question, "What would it mean to change the quanta of action by 1 in an electron or proton?", I will know that you get the vast difference in scale.

 

 

You've used the term quantum action on many, many occasions. Forgive my confusion.

 

In any event, stop tap-dancing and answer the question. What's the point of knowing that an electron contains 381,239,356 quanta? What happens when you add one more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've used the term quantum action on many, many occasions. Forgive my confusion.

 

I never used the term "quantum of action", and you were careless to equate the term with the processes of quantum action. I forgive your confusion because my model is quite Alternative.

In any event, stop tap-dancing and answer the question. What's the point of knowing that an electron contains 381,239,356 quanta?

 

Since you get the point about the vast difference in scale between our models, there is another point to mention here about what my figure represents. Not just the difference between quanta in my model vs. "quanta of action" in an electron or proton, and maybe more importantly in a photon. Also the point is that within the finite Planck space occupied by one particle in the standard model, there are hundreds of thousands, even hundreds of billions of quanta in my model.

What happens when you add one more?

 

The explanation involves the acknowledgement that when particles move relative to each other, they are moving through the existing background wave energy.

 

1) The amount of energy in any finite patch of existing background wave energy can be equated to an equivalent number of quanta, and there is a huge amount of energy in what some might think of as empty space. There is no empty space in my model, and the huge preponderance of the energy in our Big Bang arena is in the form of quanta in the space between particles and objects. The energy in space in the ISU is composed three parts, the foundational oscillating background that is defined as "otherwise waveless", the light and gravitational wave energy traversing the space between particles, which are the light and gravity waves traversing the "otherwise waveless" oscillating background, and the wave energy contained in the standing wave patterns of wave-particles and objects, which is where the numbers of quanta in an electron (381,239,356), and in a proton (699,955,457,517) at rest enter the picture of the energy in space.

 

2) A simile is that particles moving through the existing local wave energy density is similar to particles moving through the CMB. However, it is not exactly the same. I have described what the oscillating wave energy background is, what it is composed of, the mechanics of how it works, and why it is of significance in my model. Motion through the CMB increases the local temperature of the moving particle. That increase in temperature equates to an increase in relative mass within the particle space between it and a rest particle. It is akin to when a particle in an accelerator gains mass relative to a rest position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The explanation involves the acknowledgement that when particles move relative to each other, they are moving through the existing background wave energy.

 

1) The amount of energy in any finite patch of existing background wave energy can be equated to an equivalent number of quanta, and there is a huge amount of energy in what some might think of as empty space. There is no empty space in my model, and the huge preponderance of the energy in our Big Bang arena is in the form of quanta in the space between particles and objects. The energy in space in the ISU is composed three parts, the foundational oscillating background that is defined as "otherwise waveless", the light and gravitational wave energy traversing the space between particles, which are the light and gravity waves traversing the "otherwise waveless" oscillating background, and the wave energy contained in the standing wave patterns of wave-particles and objects, which is where the numbers of quanta in an electron (381,239,356), and in a proton (699,955,457,517) at rest enter the picture of the energy in space.

 

2) A simile is that particles moving through the existing local wave energy density is similar to particles moving through the CMB. However, it is not exactly the same. I have described what the oscillating wave energy background is, what it is composed of, the mechanics of how it works, and why it is of significance in my model. Motion through the CMB increases the local temperature of the moving particle. That increase in temperature equates to an increase in relative mass within the particle space between it and a rest particle. It is akin to when a particle in an accelerator gains mass relative to a rest position.

 

 

It sounds like you can't explain what happens when you add or subtract one quantum. Nothing here is quantified in any measurable terms. A simile is no substitute for a model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you can't explain what happens when you add or subtract one quantum.

I can and did. I described, from the perspective of my model, how relative motion could add a quantum, or more appropriately multiple quanta, to the complex standing wave pattern that represents the presence of a wave-particle. I gave real examples. Do you refute them? So you are saying I can't explain what I already did.

 

Nothing here is quantified in any measurable terms. A simile is no substitute for a model.

 

Quantification of a very alternative model, that address many issues, is going to be a slow process, and people shouldn't be impatient. I would have liked to be working with you, and am fine with you being neutral, but you are clear about giving me the impression that you are being a headwind. However, progress is being made just in the fact that you now acknowledge that there is a vast difference in scale in my model vs what you are familiar with. My model is about a level of order below the level of the standard particle model, and you now realize that.

 

BTW, I don't want to let slip past, the fact that in my last post I pointed out that my model does address the vast amount of unexplained energy in the universe; the figure is 96% of the mass of the universe, and the issue is that it is unaccounted for. My explanation is that there is a huge amount of unaccounted for energy in space in the form of light and gravitational wave energy, not to mention the wave energy in the composition of the oscillating background which equates to the idea of quantum foam. Note that I gave examples to support the idea that space is filled with light and gravitational wave energy. Do you want to take a position on that? Look here: http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html

It is in line with the equivalence principle I mentioned this morning.

 

Something that did slip by; you might recall that few a days ago I offered an explanation for the hemispherical anisotropy in post #31 that was interesting: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104555-introduction-to-the-infinite-spongy-universe/?p=982531.

"There is motion of the the earth, as part of the solar system, that affects the local wave energy density of clocks on earth, and motion of the entire solar system that affects the wave energy density of the entire solar system relative to the galaxy. There is even relative motion between galaxies that could come into play also. Some scientists attribute the hemispherical anisotropy detected by WMAP and Planck sky surveys to the fact that our local group of galaxies is "speeding" toward some great attractor or great accumulation of galactic structure. My model attributes the hemispherical anisotropy to the speculation that our Big Bang arena had preconditions that involved the intersection and overlap of two "parent" Big Bang arenas, each with a somewhat different level of wave energy density, as could be evidenced by their potentially different cosmic microwave background temperatures before they converged. Mix those two different backgrounds and I speculate that you would get hemispherical anisotropy in our background."

 

Interesting concept, and the explanation is internally consistent with the action process I describe.

 

 

Add that to the number of cosmological issuers my model addresses, and the circumstantial evidence grows.

 

Ignoring a growing list of the cosmological questions that my model addresses is fine, but if you wave off my individual points, you are never seeing a growing body of ideas that my model supports, and offers wave energy mechanics to explain. I point out that the explanations are all internally consistent, and not inconsistent with observations and data, as far as I know.

 

So though one might conclude that my progress toward quantification is slow, a reasonable person would see there is effort that only started here a few days ago, and might also agree that the ideas that my model contains do address many issues in modern cosmology, making it worth a look.

 

I'll keep working on quantification as long as you allow it. You'll have it your way in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can and did. I described, from the perspective of my model, how relative motion could add a quantum, or more appropriately multiple quanta, to the complex standing wave pattern that represents the presence of a wave-particle. I gave real examples. Do you refute them? So you are saying I can't explain what I already did.

 

 

 

I continued with discussing measurements. That's what I meant by nothing explained. You can tell a story of what happens within your idea, but if it's not testable it's not worth much.

 

BTW, I don't want to let slip past, the fact that in my last post I pointed out that my model does address the vast amount of unexplained energy in the universe; the figure is 96% of the mass of the universe, and the issue is that it is unaccounted for. My explanation is that there is a huge amount of unaccounted for energy in space in the form of light and gravitational wave energy, not to mention the wave energy in the composition of the oscillating background which equates to the idea of quantum foam. Note that I gave examples to support the idea that space is filled with light and gravitational wave energy. Do you want to take a position on that? Look here: http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html

It is in line with the equivalence principle I mentioned this morning.

 

 

Unless you go so far as to explain details, e.g. the distribution of dark matter, you haven't really added anything. Did your model come up with the 96% number? Do you differentiate between dark matter and dark energy?

 

Explanations such as this remind me of a joke:

A crackpot is handed a graph of some experimental results. He says, "I can tell you exactly why there is a peak here..." Before he can continue, the person grabs the paper and says, You're holding it upside-down." Whereupon the crackpot says, "I can tell you exactly why there is a dip here..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I continued with discussing measurements. That's what I meant by nothing explained. You can tell a story of what happens within your idea, but if it's not testable it's not worth much.

 

Unless you go so far as to explain details, e.g. the distribution of dark matter, you haven't really added anything. Did your model come up with the 96% number? Do you differentiate between dark matter and dark energy?

 

Explanations such as this remind me of a joke:

A crackpot is handed a graph of some experimental results. He says, "I can tell you exactly why there is a peak here..." Before he can continue, the person grabs the paper and says, You're holding it upside-down." Whereupon the crackpot says, "I can tell you exactly why there is a dip here..."

 

Thanks for the quick response. If the discussion is to be about measurement, I told you early that I don't have any extraordinary evidence. If there is any merit to my model, other than the fact that I can pump out word salad, then it has to be quantified.

 

As for my model predicting 96%, not a chance. But as for making predictions, and explaining observations, I do like to think it is significant that my model so easily addresses hemispherical anisotropy, without having to resort of our local group of galaxies speeding at breakneck speed toward some great attractor, which is itself in question. Don't you think that the convergence of two or more expanding Big Bang arenas is reasonable?

 

There are the other cosmological issues addressed that are interesting and consistent with my action processes that you would run across if you looked. I do have a good post or two on dark energy that includes the idea that there is a "force" of wave energy density equalization. As our arena expands, the space it is expanding into contains cooling and expanding remnants of the parent arenas, which logically are still expanding into their own parent arenas farther out. So the conclusion is that the wave energy density of the space our arena is expanding into, is itself declining in density, which would account for the accelerating rate of expansion.

 

I have heard that joke.

 

I understand your position, and it is on me to contribute to the next step of quantification, so I will be contemplating it.

Edited by bogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your position, and it is on me to contribute to the next step of quantification, so I will be contemplating it.

 

!

Moderator Note

Just remember, we need a model at this point, so focus on that. I'm going to close this until you're ready. PM me when you're ready, or Report this post and a staff member will re-open it. So we can see your model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.