This is how I think I understand the universe.

The universe started from a singularity that was uniform and arguably infinite in scale or density. I guess really as there was no scale or density when in this original state.

The singularity to me seems to be a primeval quantum field with as above no defined character, however without any limiting factor this field was free to both expand and collapse in any way it could.

The evolution of this quantum field giving rise to the universe where stable entities that emerged from this chaotic period began to propagate.

At different frequencies within this field other entities could exist and interact, and at variable densities within each frequency of this evolving field such entities find a path of least resistance. (This would equate to light can travel through the field on a frequency that allows such light to do so, but where heavier particle such as matter fall or a constrained to frequencies that are in essence thicker, more sticky.

This provides an ocean of a single expanding and probable in ways contracting quantum field, where all energies and particles are inherently entangled as a morpheus whole while still maintaining their local characteristics.

Within this field everything is linked and relative as technically the field as a whole has no scale, any scale is defined by what is occurring through the field. Matter or at least the constituent parts being denser packets of energy where relatively the field has collapsed into stable forms.

I think all energy within this field is governed by potential. This would mean gravity is an emergent property as the more matter collects it has more potential to interact and where the further away two masses are the greater their potential gravitation energy gets.

Hugh Everetts theory of multi worlds I think in this universe only exists on the miro-scale any why we see quantum entanglement being more achievable at these scales, but we introduce more matter we limit the possible wave functions of the system (at relative scales) which i think is called decoherence. It this therefore this decoherence that provides for the more stable interaction of matter and energy to form the classical universe described by relativity.

In other words the universe is not made from building blocks and forces, they are all emergent properties that have evolved from this singularity and where we see rules, we are only witnessing the reality of this process.

Think thats enough for now, my head hurts writing all that :)

17 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

The singularity to me seems to be a primeval quantum field with as above no defined character, however without any limiting factor this field was free to both expand and collapse in any way it could.

Just a sample of your nonsense statements.

Why is this not self contradictory ?

You say your 'field' has no defined characteristics, yet you already specified two -- quantum and primeval.

This is just chucking imposing sounding words about for effect.

Edited September 16Sep 16 by studiot

No I didn't think so, sorry if my eloquence is not up to par with you magnificence but I think what I am trying to say is clear. I am obviously talking about the singularity that led to the big bang. I think that fits, the state before all others we know of in the observable universe and the perspective this singularity might be very uniform, and very dense to the point it might be infinitely so.

If something uniform of this nature were to change, due to quantum fluctuations and an inherent potential for change, could you explain how it would change and how you would describe that relative to the uniform state. To me it expands, stretches, inflates as well as collapses, shrink in every way until in this chaos more stable forms and energies emerge.

i agree in a pure sense the only contradiction comes from expanding and collapsing at the same time is relative with the overall effect being a stretching, but even that seem contradictory as to stretch something infinitely dense would still equate to infinitely dense. So as i said it is a relative process driven by potential.

12 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

but I think what I am trying to say is clear.

If if was clear I wouldn't need to challenge it.

34 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

I think all energy within this field is governed by potential.

What do you mean by this. ?

Potential has a very specific meaning in science.

Ahhh well yes, then there would be some confusion.

By potential I am probably not using it in the scientific way as evident by how I have described it.

Potential in this description would mean something similar to (oh this is a bit to “philisophical” for a scientific discourse) the buddhist way of thinking the closer to 0, or the less something is already, the greater potential it has to become a many number of things. The clay to make a cup, the rock to sculpt a statue.

Therefore in this case the potential would be inherent in such a singularity to diversify and become i guess more complex. I think this is inherent in all things, and all things have the inherent potential to be likewise, but as the evolved universe had already evolved as it has, everything within it has such potential limited by not only the local environment but by the whole.

Might need a little more clarification but I think that gives you an idea.

41 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

By potential I am probably not using it in the scientific way as evident by how I have described it.

How would you feel ? What would you think ?

If I walked into your Bhuddist Temple and started spouting Shiva this and And Vishnu that to the monks there ?

I fear your speculation is not going to reach the standard required here.

But this been a civilsed, not unpleasant, discussion.

As a Buddhist I would not mind at all whatever religion you wished to discuss, but I am not Buddhist so I have no temple, and I am not sure this is YOUR temple either. Science is not a religion last time I heard it.

My understanding might not be the standard you are used to, or maybe too used to and find it easy to dismiss, but surely if you are a scientist and understand the subject more than I. Are you unable to help those of us with less knowledge to understand if our imaginations might be somewhat correct. Not sure but someone said imagination is more important than knowledge, i guess as without it knowledge cannot evolve, so even my seemingly neolithic grasp of the subject might prove of value. It is the civilised thing to do.

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

As a Buddhist I would not mind at all whatever religion you wished to discuss, but I am not Buddhist so I have no temple, and I am not sure this is YOUR temple either. Science is not a religion last time I heard it.

My understanding might not be the standard you are used to, or maybe too used to and find it easy to dismiss, but surely if you are a scientist and understand the subject more than I. Are you unable to help those of us with less knowledge to understand if our imaginations might be somewhat correct. Not sure but someone said imagination is more important than knowledge, i guess as without it knowledge cannot evolve, so even my seemingly neolithic grasp of the subject might prove of value. It is the civilised thing to do.

I do not really want to discuss religion at all.

But you seem to want to drag religion into the discussion.

For your information we have a member who after teaching himself advanvance theoretical Physics , became a buddhist monk.
He successfully manages to combine the two, without letting one subvert the other.

If you want to know some Science or are looking for a simple rundown on some part - simply you only have to.... ask.

Do not commit the error of two and half thousand years ago where they thought that everything could be discerned from the comfort of a slave supported armchair and notions of 'how things ough to be'.

And please do not preach Science to Scientists, any more than I would dream of preaching religion to a Bhuddist.

Here is an example of what I am referring to.

4 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

This provides an ocean of a single expanding and probable in ways contracting quantum field, where all energies and particles are inherently entangled as a morpheus whole while still maintaining their local characteristics.

Edited September 16Sep 16 by studiot

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

. Not sure but someone said imagination is more important than knowledge,

No. You need knowledge first, otherwise you are just making stuff up.

4 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

No. You need knowledge first, otherwise you are just making stuff up.

+1

Here is some of the knowledge you need :-

Essential

The difference between an Hypothesis and a Theory.

An outline of the Scientific Method.

The difference between proof in Law, Mathematics and Science.

The difference between Axioms in Mathematics and Principles in Science

Desireable

The meaning of energy and probability.

6 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

The universe started from a singularity that was uniform and arguably infinite in scale or density. I guess really as there was no scale or density when in this original state.

the time 're-winding' of the universe back to a singular state, is a purely classical exercise, and fails for the same reasons as the gravitational collapse of a star to a singularity in a Black Hole. When you get close to singular states, Quantum effects become non-trivial.
General Relativity itself, being strictly classical, is not applicable in that domain; that is what the singular state, with its attendant infinities, signifies.

What actually happens during stellar collapse, or the time re-winding of universal evolution, has to be modified by Quantum effects at small enough separations and high enough energies. And we currently don't have the know-how to handle such situations.

Unless you have such know-how, you are simply making sh*t up.
( as other members have told you )

6 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

The universe started from a singularity

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

the time 're-winding' of the universe back to a singular state

It would also be useful to understand the meaning of 'singularity'.

But it's rather technical and I don't think the definition as 'a point where a function ceases to be analytic' will help much until you know quite a few more supporting technical terms.

Edited September 16Sep 16 by studiot

Thx again. I will hold my hands up and say I don't think this is the right place to ask.

I thought this group was speculation, and that would not need rigorous scientific knowledge but was a fair place to express an idea that scientist might find useful when it seems to make sense me but am unsure because of my lack of knowledge.

The person who said imagination being more important than knowledge was a guy called Albert Einstein.

I have started reading and learning the math n theory, so one day I might be able to propose this idea more rigorously i fear the complexity could only be simulated on a quantum computer that doesn't exist yet.

You have shut down the idea with only reference to my lack of know-how, and ‘you are simply making sh*t up’. Sad you express it that way. I only posted the idea, as I have said in the chance it may have some resonance with you scientists.

I take it it is either, the way I have described this is not enough for you to put it into a scientific context or understand what I mean (my failure), it is enough but IS total sh**t (again my failure) or it is enough but you lack the imagination to take what I have described and realise it (as I do) and put it in a scientific way that I am unable to do.

Out of those three I am guessing it is total Sh**t, but the the take away for me is I don’t know why as it sh**t as from what I do understand it fits very well into both my understanding of both classical physics and quantum mechanics. That said I probably have both of these wrong too.

Please leave this in speculation as when I have the tools to come back and redefine it in a way that you can agree with I will either come back and say, sh**t you guys were right i was talking bolx back then, or prove myself right (which i doubt but would be nice) apart from that….

yes please…..

‘If you want to know some Science or are looking for a simple rundown on some part - simply you only have to.... ask.’

Please explain if a single quantum field could contain all of time and space, or be space time?

4 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

I thought this group was speculation, and that would not need rigorous scientific knowledge but was a fair place to express an idea that scientist might find useful when it seems to make sense me but am unsure because of my lack of knowledge.

We have rules about what we expect from speculations, and it requires some amount of rigor. Our position reflects the idea that someone who lacks knowledge should be asking questions, rather than proposing answers.

19 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

The universe started from a singularity that was uniform and arguably infinite in scale or density.

What does it mean to be "infinite in scale"?

I cannot process the "or". It produced in me the intellectual equivalent of a blood clot.

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

What does it mean to be "infinite in scale"?

I cannot process the "or". It produced in me the intellectual equivalent of a blood clot.

Infinite in scale or density, i guess and would be better.

I see that if something is in such a state it is uniform throughout. So if you were inside the singularity no matter how much smaller you became relative to your original size (ie smaller than an electron in your fingernail), their would be no change is the singularity at that scale (that scale only being relative to yourself before shrinking as in this environment that could be the only that scale the singularity having none) and the same if you grew so your original self was not the size of an electron in your fingernail in you enlarged self. This process being infinite as no matter how large or small the singularity remains constant.

is singularity the right term?

Sorry i need to check my typing better….

….only the scale, the singularity having none)

…if you grew so your original self became the size of an electron in your fingernail in your larger self.

This process being infinite as no matter how large or small one becomes the singularity remains constant.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

‘…….someone who lacks knowledge should be asking questions, rather than proposing answers.

Tbh I was asking not telling. I have already admitted I am of that ignorant ilk.

15 hours ago, studiot said:

I do not really want to discuss religion at all.

But you seem to want to drag religion into the discussion.

Nope i only referenced Buddhism as it was the closest way of describing what I meant, not using Buddhism as a validation or validating Buddhism in any way. I agree this is not a religious discussion. Nor one of aliens, higher dimensional beings, fractal quantum simulations of stacked universes or unicorns etc.

53 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Please explain if a single quantum field could contain all of time and space, or be space time?

That's the way.

Did you notice I did not include either quantum or field in my basic list ?

What did you make of the list ?

I don't know what you think a field is but in Science it is a name for a region of space in which some property ( or collection of properties) has specific values at every point in that region.

The value may be zero and , of course, a field where the value is zero everywhere is not very interesting.

The field may be real like an electric field or a magnetic field or it may be totally abstract as in a direction field.

Obviously in order to specify values we must have a way of referring to each point and equation(s) telling us the value at that point.

If these equations fail at a few points the we say there is a singularity at that point and we cannot then determine the desired values.

Now the point of knowing all this is that a field, for example a magnetic field, can interact with other objects, in particular material objects.

For example magnetic materials will align themselves with a magnetic field.

It may be that the equations that describe these interactions yield discrete or stepped solutions.

This is called quantisation.

So it is the interaction between the field and something else that is 'quantum' and leads to quantum theory.

There is no such thing as a 'quantum field' by itself.

I mentioned 'principles' and energy because our understanding of The Principle of Least Energy is what underlies quantum theory and much else of the processes of the universe.

Edited September 17Sep 17 by studiot

50 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

I see that if something is in such a state it is uniform throughout.

A singularity is a point in time, if you look carefully at a Penrose diagram in GR. How can a singularity be "uniform throughout"?

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

The person who said imagination being more important than knowledge was a guy called Albert Einstein.

I don't think he ever said that, but if he did it would be understandable, as he already had the 'knowledge'.

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

You have shut down the idea with only reference to my lack of know-how

With some basic knowledge, you become aware of the bounds and limitations imposed by the laws and principles of Physics.
Your imagination needs to take those laws and principles into consideration, or else you are proposing fairy tales.

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

ease explain if a single quantum field could contain all of time and space, or be space time?

The geometry of space-time is considered to be the gravitational field, in GR, and it is often referred to as a geometric field theory.
It has, however, resisted all attempts at quantization, so far; that is the know-how the scientific world, and you, lack.
Even if an advanced theoretical Physicist was to propose your 'theory' ( he wouldn't ), he would be 'making sh*t up', as the know-how currently does not exist ( if ever ).

Some of the terms you use have specific meanings in physics and Math. If you use them in non-standard form, without further defining what you mean by them, we can only take them as the standard definition, which leads to confusion, dismissal of your ideas, and accusations of writing 'word salad'.
Either learn the proper definitions of the terms you use, or clearly define what you mean for each term used in a non-standard way.

My apologies if I was a little rude in calling your ideas 'sh*t'.

Edited September 17Sep 17 by MigL

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

Did you notice I did not include either quantum or field in my basic list ?

What did you make of it ?

It seemed like a realistic list. Essential and Desirable though? Is this relevant to discussions here, or to the scientific method.

My understanding of fields is basic as well as the quantum, but I was under the impression that quantum fluctuations in the early universe when it was uniform gave rise to slight variations that became larger structures because of inflation and evident in the microwave background. This is unproven theory with some possible evidence, or an observation of evidence with a hypothesis to explain it.

In the context of your other points I guess in my ‘idea’

1 hour ago, studiot said:

in Science it is a name for a region of space in which some property ( or collection of properties) has specific values at every point in that region.

The value may be zero and , of course, a field where the value is zero everywhere is not very interesting.

Obviously in order to specify values we must have a way of referring to each point and equation(s) telling us the value at that point.

If these equations fail at a few points the we say there is a singularity at that point and we cannot then determine the desired values.

‘In science a field is a region of space’… in my ‘idea’, the field is all of space so the difficulty as i was saying is, (and without some for of energy, like that causing the differences in the microwave background), there are no points, such points would not exist ‘yet’ or infinite in number, so this part of it is beyond scientific enquiry,

however akin to the quantum effects that are meant to cause the variations in the CMB, it would be such a force inherent within the field that is the driving force for change.

Now I guess a question to add is , and to answer…

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

A singularity is a point in time, if you look carefully at a Penrose diagram in GR. How can a singularity be "uniform throughout"?

If such a field existed, before any divergent force that caused any change, there would be no time, and therefore it would be a point of infinite time, and time would become emergent relative to the evolution from this point onwards.

I will get more stick no doubt but I am a stubborn thick skinned primate, so I can easily look past someone calling my rantings sh**t in any form.

I get your frustration, you probably deal with hundreds of us bedroom know-it-alls trying to tell you their crackpot ideas as if they are right. I however don't mind admitting I know sh*t atm, stress atm and am on a steep learning curve.

oh it was Albert that said that… and many things scientific were called fairy tails, it is just also the case there are many other things that are not scientific but pretend to be. Opinion without fact is one of those, and I expect better from a scientist. I have the excuse of not being one by profession.

Edited September 17Sep 17 by BuddhasDragon23

5 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

The person who said imagination being more important than knowledge was a guy called Albert Einstein

Comparing yourself to Einstein is probably not the smartest move.

Let's say you are not doing that, at the least it is a misconception that Einstein was just a genius maverick patent clerk. He was a trained academic who had completed his physics degree, obtained a doctorate and was immersing himself in the available published literature available at that time. When he wrote up some of his most famous ideas, he submitted them to recognized journals.

Just now, pinball1970 said:

Comparing yourself to Einstein is probably not the smartest move.

Let's say you are not doing that, at the least it is a misconception that Einstein was just a genius maverick patent clerk. He was a trained academic who had completed his physics degree, obtained a doctorate and was immersing himself in the available published literature available at that time. When he wrote up some of his most famous ideas, he submitted them to recognized journals.

Who is comparing me to Einstein? Not me. Read on please.

1 minute ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Who is comparing me to Einstein? Not me. Read on please.

What did you mean by quoting him then?

Before we disappear down an einstinian rabbit squabble hole, I'm pretty sure he did say something like the quote, though I am not sure those were his exact words.

Einstein was renouned for his intuitive understanding of Physics, a skill which greatly assisted his progress.

He did say something like get the Physics right and the Maths will follow, though I haven't got the exact quote to hand.

But then he was also wrong sometimes and had the grace to admit it.

indeed (General) Relativity started out without the lambda term, but that is another story.

Imagination can be a route to a viable idea even with a lack of knowledge.

I think Einstein himself would say without his ability to imagine the physics based on his knowledge, he would have found it harder to then use his knowledge to formulate his theories.

What are you trying to achieve with your posts. At least the others are criticising constructively.

Hey, given the true way he said it and I have been accused of comparing myself to him, even with my limited knowledge, im gonna go out on a limb and say, my intuition says I am right and I won’t be surprised when it turns out after science can test it that I am right. Just it won’t be my theory it will be a scientist with the knowledge to see the same as I and knows how to test it.This does NOT mean I think I am right, just my intuition says I am.

Edited September 17Sep 17 by BuddhasDragon23