A Perspective on God

We all have to ability to develop a personal perspective on God. This is mine:

A Perspective on God

If I consider God from the perspective of Quantum Wave Cosmology, i.e. that the universe has always existed, that finite active crunch-bang arenas pepper the infinite landscape, that life in the multiverse has always existed, and that physics is based on quantum energy of which all physical things are composed, my thinking is a follows:

Under those described circumstances there would have been no beginning so at all times past there would have been space, energy, physics, life and constant change.

Physical change is occurring at all times in all places down to an infinitesimal level where quantum waves reign. At the quantum level constant change is characteristic of how energy is used and of the process of restoring useful energy from the remnants left when energy is consumed; in such a setting entropy and the defeat of entropy play out forever in an infinite history of arenas where the energy - to matter - to life - to matter - to energy process is continuous.

My view is that under those circumstances life would have always existed in hospitable places across the infinite universe and would be generative and evolving to conscious, intelligent, self aware individuals who can and do think and act based on their own volition.

Given those circumstances humans have the capacity to observe and effect change from a unique vantage point as highly organized and complex entities composed of trillions upon trillions of quantum energy increments united and made possible by the physics of the universe. Such a vantage point along with the intelligence and maturity of each individual brings with it the awareness of the concept of God.

Belief in God would be by faith on an individual basis. Proof of God to one individual is not transferable, i.e. any individual who has faith in God based on what they consider adequate proof can influence others but they cannot prove that God exists to others. The decision to believe or not believe in God is personally justified and needs no approval from others.

My belief is that the universe is eternal, has always existed, and everything in it is composed of energy. If there is a God, God and the universe are one in the same.

My poem about it goes like this:

If at first there was nothing, not even God,
Then nothing could ever be.

But just look around at the many fine things,
As far as the eye can see.

I say with certainty one of two things,
that seem to make sense to proclaim;

God or the universe has always been here,
And Maybe they're one in the same.

Introduction to the Energy Background

Introduction to the Energy Background If you can accept that there is a single fundamental force behind everything, and that is a big IF, then you can accept that at that fundamental level, i.e. the smallest level of order where that force operates, there is a measurable increment of length that is the smallest possible measurable length. On the same basis you can also accept that at that fundamental level there is a smallest increment of time because it is a measure of the shortest possible measurable time. These are not the smallest things or the shortest times, but the smaller things and the shorter times are beyond measurement. In QWC, the point where our ability to measure has reached a limit in the infinitesimal quantum realm is called the fundamental quantum level. We can’t measure at that level yet, but conceptually, to measure below that level would be a greater advancement than the advancement now needed to reach the milestone where we can “observe” and measure at the quantum level. Therefore a quantum of energy in QWC is the tiniest amount of energy that can have any “noticeable” physical impact. If you read that carefully you can see that I anticipate that a level of order smaller than the quantum of energy is necessary in order to support the existence of the quantum level. I acknowledge that fact, and to enable a quantum of energy to exist I refer to the existence of sub-quanta, or fractional amounts of energy whose only ability is to become part of the smallest increment of energy that can have a noticeable or meaningful impact on what we recognize as the physical world. In QWC, anything physical refers to the quantum level of energy and quantum action at that level, while the sub-quanta world operates at a level below that, i.e. quantum wave intersections smaller than the quantum of energy are simply tiny energy density fluctuations too small to be observed and individually too insignificant to be measurable. That sub-quanta world is referred to in QWC as the energy background. The energy background cannot directly affect the physical world; its only role is to support the force that enables the physical world, i.e. the quantum energy increment that contains the quantum of energy and causes quantum action. Quantum action perpetuates the energy density fluctuations that exist in the background. So in QWC, the energy quantum is made up of energy sub-quanta which are wave ripples in the background. Reference to the sub-quanta is a reference to the tiny energy density fluctuations caused by those expanding and intersecting spherical ripples. The sub-quantum level is an intense interaction of energy in infinitesimal increments that would seem chaotic at any point in space at sub-quanta levels, but that has an order to it that makes it homogeneous and isotropic. When a quantum wave appears it is akin to a rogue ocean wave that is made up of a significant number of wavelets. The ocean surface wavelets are the energy background equivalent of sub-quanta “ripples”. Energy density determines the frequency of the quantum waves that appear from the background. Frequency in this sense is the number of occurrences within a given space in a given time and is not exactly the same thing as electromagnetic wave frequency (hf).

In QWC the cause of the Big Bang was:

So here is the cause of the Big Bang; but of course if there was a cause of the Big Bang then we will have to rename Big Bang Theory. The new name will have to represent a cosmology that enables our big bang universe but which also explains the “before” and “beyond” the Big Bang. So first, why do I think the Big Bang even had or needed a cause? It is not so much that Big Bang Theory doesn't mention the cause, which it doesn't. It is more that the law of inertia requires a force to set the universe into motion. So I think the expansion that we observe needed a force. That force seems to have been applied to whatever composed our arena which is now the observable universe. It was a force that occurred before BBT picks up and goes into inflation and nucleosynthesis. General Relativity Theory, a pillar of BBT, backtracks to a zero volume universe if you go back 13.7 billion years ago. And if you consider the mass and energy now displayed in the observable universe you have to realize that it would have all been contained in that zero volume of space. That means that GR implies a start point of zero volume and infinite density that is referred to as a singularity. It is called a singularity because the math, and GR is a mathematical model, fails at the start point. That is why BBT starts the instant after that singularity would have come into our “look back”. The theory calls it an event horizon and we just can't look back to before that point in time using GR or BBT as described by Sean Carroll in this blog at Cosmic Variance. Many possibilities have been explored. The most believable are models that deal with a universe before the big bang as one of decreasing entropy. Without some unforeseen changes, the entropy of our current known universe follows the arrow of time forward to complete entropy where there is no useful energy left and life and circumstances as we know them have long since dissolved into an infinite fineness, referred to as a de Sitter universe (Note: De Sitter, one of Einstein's associates, predicted dark matter and developed a solution to Einstein's field equations that assumed a universe with a positive expansion and only dark matter.) One possibility mentioned by Carroll is Quantum Loop Gravity (LQG). The math of LQG, one of the reverse entropy models with math that describes a universe before the Big Bang, is able to avoid the singularity of General Relativity Theory by defining a finite universe at the instant of the big bang. This approach describes a big "bounce" that marks the end of a period of reverse entropy that preceded our expanding universe. Critics argue that this bounce either seems too convenient or too inconvenient as interpreted from Sean Carroll's response to a blog at Bad Astronomy by Phil Plait. I include his quote below but first, the important thing about LQG is the math that accomplishes the astonishing feat of surviving the singularity produced by the math of GR. The disappointing thing about this reverse entropy model is the uncertainty about what such a prior universe might be like. I didn't use the word uncertainty just to imply that we aren't sure, which of course we are not. I used the word uncertainty because it appears that the reason Carroll and I'm sure others have trouble with the reverse entropy cosmologies in general and LQG in particular is because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which has become a pillar of modern quantum mechanics. Maybe the Uncertainty Principle is necessary to explain the quantum realm; I see how it could block the road to reason beyond BBT. It blocks the vary reasoning that we will need more than ever to work our way back into the reverse entropy models. It threatens to apply that same road block that BBT applied for several decades that kept science from breaking the Big Bang singularity barrier to reach reverse entropy models. It says that by breaking the singularity barrier we enter a universe that existed before our universe and concludes that because of the uncertainty principle applied to the bounce point of minimum entropy, we cannot be sure of anything about what such a prior universe might be like. Sounds the same as we heard from BBT, "Why talk about before the Big Bang since we can't know anything about it due to the event horizon", doesn't it? In Quantum Wave Cosmology the cause of the Big Bang was the burst of a big crunch. Does that make QWC a reverse entropy model? Yes. But that does not mean that QWC is disappointing like the LQG model as described by Sean Carroll. I mentioned this comment above, "The real problem with all such models is that, from the point of view of the other side of the bounce, the entropy is decreasing as the universe collapses, which seems crazily finely-tuned. Either that, or the entropy is at a minimum at the bounce, for no especially good reason. Singularities are going to have to be resolved somehow, but reality is likely to be quite a bit more complicated than simple bounce models." That is why Quantum Wave Cosmology exists. It solves the entropy problem without being fine tuned at all in the sense of what causes the collapse into a big crunch. And there is good reason why entropy at the bounce is at a minimum. QWC is not a simple bounce model, and not simply a reverse entropy model. So this is where I scrap that particular application of the Uncertainty Principle. This is where I let reasonable and responsible speculation take over from it. This is where we go not "before" the Big Bang, not back into a "prior" universe, but out into the greater universe of Quantum Wave Cosmology within which our expanding universe is just a tiny and temporary arena in a greater universe, an infinite universe that has always existed.

Big Bang Theory and selected comments

These are selected post from a thread at SciForum titled "The Cause of the Big Bang". I entered the thread after eight pages and jumped in to put in my thoughts: quantum_wave 08-02-08 05:07 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did try to read the whole thread but when I took a peek at the last page I saw the convenient summary by my buddy honcho and decided to skip the "you suck" sh$t and jump in since the cause of the BB is one of my favorite topics :shrug:. Lately you are becoming a part of a rare breed if you insist that BBT shouldn't be questioned, and especially if you insist the on a zero volume infinitely dense onetime starting point 13.7 billion years ago. What ever started the Big Bang expansion or what ever the pre-conditions were, our complete universe as an infinitely dense zero volume singularity is pretty hard to substantiate. My position is that students should be taught BBT, General Relativity, the Cosmological Principle as part of their general science education. Fine, because BBT is the standard and most widely supported theory, the best science can do without speculating about new physics, new evidence, etc. But my position also is that there isn't any great pillar of BBT that isn't without its problems. You name the pillar whether it is GR, the Cosmological Principle, CMBR, WMAP, inflation, nucleosynthesis, the red shift and Hubble constant, the cause of the big bang, the cause of expansion, the cause of accelerating expansion, and the explanation or lack thereof of galaxy formation and movement. As an observer my opinion is that there will be a solution to the incompatibility of GR and quantum mechanics someday so maybe we will all know if there was a "before" the big bang or the cause of the expansion and accelerating expansion that we observe. Let me address the question of new space, i.e. the volume of space increasing as expansion of the big bang universe proceeds. The big argument for this premise is that it is the only plausible explanation for the kind of expansion that we observe, i.e. everything is moving away from everything else at the galactic level (aside from some local clusters of galaxies). That premise might very well be true and if it is then BBT might very well be correct and new space is being created by the expansion, but there is another explanation for the co-moving expansion that is observed that supports the premise that space already existed and that the observable universe is expanding into space that was already there. Prior to matter formation and gravity being exerted by mass there was supposed to be exponential expansion of the budding universe. This inflation is necessary to make a connection between the causal event and what we observe today. Without exponential expansion in the first instant, before the matter formation and the start of photon emissions from matter, there wouldn't have been enough time passed yet to cause the consistent background temperature of the cosmic microwave background. So if expansion was underway when matter formed then when matter formed it had relative momentum imparted to it as it formed. Even though local gravity affected local matter, all structure that formed from the first matter would have the momentum of the initial expansion imparted to it, so all structure like say galaxies that formed would be moving away from all other galaxies because of the conservation of the initial momentum of matter. This means that the space that the galaxies are expanding into could have always existed. I’m not saying there is any proof, but the evidence of expansion supports this scenario even if the Big Bang and nucleosynthesis happened as the standard theory predicts. Maybe space was already there when the expansion began and when the CMBR was emitted :eek:. quantum_wave 08-03-08 01:48 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me address another pillar of Big Bang Theory, the Cosmological Principle. It fits nicely with General Relativity to form a solid basis for BBT. Simply put, the Cosmological Principle states that the entire universe looks pretty much the same everywhere and no matter where you are in it, everything seems to be moving away from everything else in a similar fashion at the overall galactic level. Though it is true that some very large scale is delectable in the cosmic microwave background that structure can be attributed to quantum fluctuations in the early universe and could have resulted in a variety of large scale structure patterns, so the pattern that we observe has no special significance and doesn't detract from the overall homogeneity. Even with the coincidental large structure that we observe, everything is moving away from everything else and we cannot detect an edge or a center of expansion. Under these circumstances which are in accord with BBT, the Cosmological Principle is in tact. But if my alternative premise to the "new space" pillar of BBT as stated in the previous post were correct, then would the Cosmological Principle apply to the greater universe that consists of infinite space that has always existed? We don't have much to go on but our observable universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. The expansion is thought to have begun 13.7 billion years ago and the expanding universe, our arena in infinite space as it then would be, is considered finite in content. General Relativity is track-able and when backtracked it reaches its tiniest dimensions about 13.7 billion years ago. Under the premise that space already existed then the entire arena of our known universe occupied the tiniest of spaces within the existing infinite space, a big crunch. That would not comply with the Cosmological principle because a single tiny infinitely dense entity like our arena some 13.7 billion years ago, sitting alone in space, would actually have to be considered inhomogeneous and not isotropic. You might even have to consider it the center of the universe. But the thing that brings the Cosmological Principle back into play is the finite nature of our arena (our expanding universe). If infinite space was very much like the space that contains our expanding universe, then it would still be homogeneous if every where we looked we could see other similar arenas playing out where some were contracting into big crunches, some crunches had burst into expansion, and some had experienced the complete disbursal of their contents in the form of receding galaxies out into the greater universe. Under those homogeneous conditions, isotropy would again come into play because in all directions we would see crunches forming, bursting and disbursing without any preferred direction, without any edge, and without any detectable center in the greater universe. quantum_wave 08-04-08 09:33 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While I’m at it I may as well mention vacuum energy known as negative energy density and better known as the cosmological constant. The current debate among BBT enthusiasts is what the value of lambda (the cosmological constant) is. If the universe was flat, i.e. meaning it will not collapse and it will not proceed to a Big Rip, then the value of lambda would be 1. Current estimates based on the apparent accelerating expansion indicate a positive lambda and a negative overall energy density. The interesting thing about lambda is that it is a constant and as the universe expands and the energy density of the universe declines, the constant remains … well, constant. The implication is that if we are expanding due to a positive lambda, we will continue to expand until the ultimate fate of expansion is realized in the form of what is called the Big Rip or the heat death of the universe. It is a chilling prospect but it would take a long time so we talk about it in a kind of unconcerned acknowledgment. If what I posted about the creation of space, and if the theory that new space comes into existence as the universe expands then there is nothing to stop expansion, the energy density of the universe will continue to decline and will approach the limit of zero. Yikes, really cold. On the other hand, if space always existed and we simply occupy an arena of finite matter and energy expanding into existing space there still would be a Big Rip in our future. But if the suggestion that I made about our finite arena being only one of a potentially infinite number of arenas within infinite space that had always existed, then we can forget about a Big Rip because the complete entropy of the rip would be defeated by the infinite landscape of the greater universe. That would make the universe capable of continuing to support life forever, and would also imply that it has always existed and probably then would have always supported life. kaneda 08-04-08 11:12 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by quantum_wave (Post 1950922) Maybe space was already there when the expansion began and when the CMBR was emitted :eek:. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A number of BB problems would be solved if there has been a previous universe which didn't fully collapse before it expanded again. quantum_wave 08-04-08 11:23 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by kaneda (Post 1954558) A number of BB problems would be solved if there has been a previous universe which didn't fully collapse before it expanded again. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is true. That is what you and I understand and what I tried to show with my few posts on this thread. Anyone who won't acknowledge that a greater universe exists surrounding our expanding observable universe is pretty much stuck in BBT. Probably a good place for them given its eventually outcome :). quantum_wave 08-04-08 05:43 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course the primary pillar of the Big Bang Theory is General Relativity. It is a thing of beauty in its ability to explain the movement of objects in spacetime and to predict those movements. It features the coupling of space and time, it describes mass in terms of its energy equivalent, and it uses the curvature of spacetime associated with mass to define the effect of gravity and predict the movements of objects in space. It is a mathematical model that tracks the Big Bang universe from the instant after the Big Bang until now and into the future as far as you might want to go. It can be described as a co-moving coordinate system that displays the inflation of the universe as new space is added to the universe as it expands. I have supported BBT as the standard cosmology and have supported it being taught as part of a student’s basic science education. I also pointed out that it was the best science could do with the current evidence and without speculating about as yet undiscovered physics. But I also support teaching it as theory and mentioning alternative theories. In that regard I made three recent posts on this thread about the pillars of Big Bang Theory where I suggested alternatives. I pointed out an alternative to the creation of new space and that there is a possibility that space already existed before the big bang occurred. I mentioned that suggestion combined with the finite nature of our expanding universe and keeping the cosmological principle intact suggests that the greater universe could infinite and cosmologically flat with a lambda of 1, and could be filled with a potentially infinite number of arenas similar to our own expanding arena. Now I want to suggest that though the movement of objects under the influence of gravity is almost perfectly described by General Relativity, the movement of objects in space does not require space and time to be coupled and it does not require the fabric of spacetime to be warped by mass. How can I be so audacious? It is easy. Objects move through space as if space was curved by mass. But if gravity reaches across space to affect distant objects, those objects would also move as if space was curved because gravity travels at near the speed of light and by the time it reaches and effects distant objects, the source object has changed location. This results in a curved effect between observed objects caused by gravity waves that travel as expanding spherical waves. The wave reaches the object and gives it a little tug toward the location that the first object occupied when the wave was emitted. An instant later the next wave reaches the object and gives it a little tug toward a slightly different location that was occupied by the first object as the second wave was emitted an instant after the first wave. Follow this procedure over time and you will get a curved movement of objects due to their relative movement and the propagation speed of spherical gravity waves, not due to the warped fabric of spacetime. Quantum scientists are looking hard for the Higgs boson and a Higgs field that would convey the force of gravity across space but they aren’t claiming that the discovery of the boson will change the way we calculate the effect of gravity. I expect we will be using Einstein’s field equations for that purpose for a long time. But the discovery of the Higgs boson or some other cause of gravity and field will add a feature to the universe that has been discounted since the Michelson–Morley experiments. That feature is referred to as aether, or a gravity field or energy background to the universe across which gravity waves can travel. If they find it the implications are that though General Relativity has done a fine job of describing the effect of gravity, it was wrong about the coupling of spacetime and the warping of the spacetime fabric by mass. Mass and gravity will become linked by the gravity waves emitted by mass as a characteristic of mass itself and not as a characteristic of curved space. And at the same time the incompatibility issue between quantum mechanics and General Relativity will be resolved in favor of quantum mechanics.

Mass has gravity

This post contains the content pertaining to Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) from a thread that I started at: SciForums.com (http://www.sciforums.com/index.php) Off topic post and posts that don't discuss content pertaining to QWC have been omitted. - Pseudoscience (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=27) - - Mass *has* gravity (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82060) quantum_wave 06-16-08 02:56 PM ________________________________________ Mass *has* gravity Mass has gravity. Quantum waves are continually emanating from mass. The containment of the positive energy of the "push" peak of the waves within the mass itself accounts for a continual renewal of the mass. The containment of the positive energy of the "push" peak of the waves results in a net minus energy emanation. The emanated wave has the full negative pull energy of the pull trough of the quantum waves less the contained positive push energy of the push peak of the waves. This net pull of negative energy that emanates from mass is gravity. Originally Posted by ripleofdeath (Post 1906285) [color="Blue"][size="2"]i disagree. mass plus energy has gravity. mass alone with no inert energy has no gravity. ... given the precepts of string theory combined with my own unified feild theory mass is just as likely to have negative gravity as positive gravity in a gravity free environment... quantum_wave 06-23-08 09:00 PM Mass and energy are equivalent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence Roughly quoting Smolin, "string theory has failed to make any falsifiable predictions but makes many startling assertions about the world" ... with no supporting evidence. Quantum wave cosmology on the other hand operates in three dimensions and does not require spacetime coupling. It requires an energy background and energy density fluctuations in that background caused by quantum waves that are the result of quantum action. Quantum action is the collapse of a quantum of energy due to convergences of quantum waves which concentrate background energy from an initial "quantum space" into a high density spot and then the burst of that spot back into quantum waves. For talking purposes the time involved in one quantum action is 10^-50 seconds. quantum_wave 07-28-08 09:01 AM ________________________________________ As suggested and to find out where Fred Allen Wolf was coming from, I read Parallel Universes. It is quite interesting if you want a good view of where the science of quantum mechanics was in the 1990's and how the uncertainty principle can be interpreted. Wolf interprets it to imply that if we can't know both the location and momentum of a particle then it has a probability of being anywhere, even "other worlds". He goes on to infer that other worlds are parallel universes and hence the premise of his book. Quantum Wave Cosmology recognizes other arenas within the greater infinite universe but not because of the uncertainty principle. Other arenas exist because they are finite entities within an infinite universe and each arena is playing out in a consistent and similar fashion. Arenas form from the remnants of other arenas that have played out. Gravity causes big crunches to form from the remnants of prior arenas. The big crunches burst into finite expanding "universes" like our arena as a result of the physics of quantum action and containment. Quantum action and containment taken to their max under the pressure at the core of the big crunch activates the physical effect called critical capacity which marks the point where mass ceases to exert gravity. It is then no longer mass; it is contained (potential) energy locked in the core of the big crunch. The result is that the big crunch fails from within and when the built up locked quantum action is finally released the big crunch bursts. The burst occurs when the potential energy of quantum action suppressed at the core overcomes the diminishing gravitational force of the crunch. The burst releases the push energy held in the locked core to form the expansion phase which we are now observing in our arena. The push phase of quantum action is part of the quantum wave that results from quantum action. Quantum action is a collapse of energy followed by the burst of that energy back into quantum waves. The collapse results in a pull energy and the burst results in a push energy, both contained in the wave form of the quantum wave produced by quantum action. The quantum wave is a spherical wave with a leading trough of low energy density (pull energy) immediately followed by a peak of high energy density (push energy). The pull exerts gravity as it passes and the push offsets the pull so the net energy of a passing quantum wave passing through space would be zero if there was no interference. But of course there is interference in the form of other quantum waves. When quantum waves intersect along their expanding spherical surfaces the pull and the push of the two waves combine and the intersections move through space at the combined energies. The leading pull is stronger and the trailing push is stronger at the intersection. The convergence of quantum wave intersections forces the high energy density peak to reach a point called a high density spot. The high density spot when it forms is surrounded by the low energy density of the pull troughs of the intersecting waves. This is the point of the highest gravity and highest mass density in the "life" of that high density spot. The spot bursts because the high density of the spot cannot be contained when the convergence has played out. The high density spot is the combined peaks of the multiple intersecting quantum waves as they converge. Depending on the energy density of the environment where the convergences occur, the energy density of the high density spots can become very great. But regardless of the density of the environment there is a limit to the possible energy density of the high density spots because they are a product of their environment. They always exceed the energy density of their environment and burst into a quantum wave which disburses their contained energy back into the environment. This happens at the smallest scale like with the quantum waves that account for the energy that makes up a photon and at the largest scale like the energy that makes up an arena. That scenario is the premise of Quantum Wave Cosmology. Cannon 07-28-08 09:35 AM ________________________________________ No matter how small the mass may be it still curves the space around it. Cannon 07-28-08 09:35 AM ________________________________________ The space that one proton curves space may not be known, but at some point, it will be. thecollage 07-29-08 02:35 PM ________________________________________ You mean gravity has mass. I wish people would quit getting them backwards. quantum_wave 07-30-08 07:10 AM ________________________________________ Quote: ________________________________________ Originally Posted by thecollage (Post 1945542) You mean gravity has mass. I wish people would quit getting them backwards. ________________________________________ It's like, which came first, the mass or the gravity :D. I say that mass and gravity have both always existed. Of course that puts my Quantum Wave Cosmology at odds with BBT cosmology which tracks back to a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago. But I say energy is all there is and mass is composed of energy, and gravity and mass are characteristics of the same phenomenon that I call the quantum action of energy. And I go on to say that energy is eternal, and not in a religious context; eternal in that it cannot be destroyed and it cannot appear out of nothingness. And I might add that just because in Quantum Wave Cosmology the universe is infinite and has always existed, it does not say that there is no God; it says that there is no irrefutable proof one way or the other. quantum_wave 07-31-08 08:44 AM ________________________________________ There is some logic to my premise that the universe has always existed. There is no possible proof of that fact but in my estimation it has a higher probability than the premise that the universe came from nothingness. One problem people often have with my view is that big bang theory and general relativity imply a beginning. The implication is that our universe must have come from an infinitely dense zero volume singular event about 13.7 billion years ago. To me it boils down to the probability that there were some unknown preconditions to the big bang vs. the probability that anything can come from nothing, let alone the entire universe. So the way I look at it, I have the high ground when it comes to the probabilities. It is likely that what we call the big bang, and what I prefer to say was the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe, was the result of prior conditions. Though big bang advocates object when people speculate about "before or beyond" the big bang, they do so because they have the idea that time and space began with the big bang, but the theory doesn't actually start at the bang, it starts a fraction of a second after the bang :D. Their nice neat finite spacetime universe is based on the lack of evidence of any precondition but they disregard that there is no evidence that anything can come from nothing. Which is more reasonable, something from nothing or something that has always existed? I choose energy that has always existed. It is from this high ground that Quantum Wave Cosmology was developed. QWC is simply the physics of quantum action that enables big bangs. Reiku 07-31-08 09:16 AM ________________________________________ Well my my... you looked up the book i suggested. It's good yes? I think wolf has an amazing ability to explain physics to even scientists. The book i referred was actually written in 1985, and i must admit, many of the theories are now outdated, but the larger chunk of understanding into the laws and principles still hold today. Take the example you gave him talking about; the uncertainty principle. When he wrote that book, not many physicists understood the uncertainty principle correctly, because it was considered a very complex discipline, (which it almost certainly is conceptually). Good for you m8! Vkothii 07-31-08 09:18 AM ________________________________________ You may not have heard about this dude who was sitting in an orchard one day. Gravity is a name for the thing that keeps bits of mass accelerating toward each other. When they are together, or when they get together, they aren't apart any more, right? The reasons why things stay together or try to get together if they aren't are the same reason, essentially. These questions have occupied the minds of men since long before we started growing apples in orchards, but that dude and another one a couple of centuries later have answered these questions in the large. We still don't know the fundamental reason that mass exists, but we know a lot more about how it behaves in the large and at a fundamental level. At which there appears to be some impassable limit (an extremely small, but significant one), related possibly to the existence, or mass of all the large stuff we deal with, like apples and oranges. And computers and electricity. Lots of things really. quantum_wave 08-01-08 08:41 AM ________________________________________ Quote: ________________________________________ Originally Posted by Reiku (Post 1947776) Well my my... you looked up the book i suggested. It's good yes? I think wolf has an amazing ability to explain physics to even scientists. The book i referred was actually written in 1985, and i must admit, many of the theories are now outdated, but the larger chunk of understanding into the laws and principles still hold today. Take the example you gave him talking about; the uncertainty principle. When he wrote that book, not many physicists understood the uncertainty principle correctly, because it was considered a very complex discipline, (which it almost certainly is conceptually). Good for you m8! ________________________________________ Yes I did and thank you for suggesting it. I wanted to see how Wolf tied in the physics with the parallel universes idea. I have to say that the existence of other dimensions seems unnecessary. String theory seems destined to fade from the scene and quantum mechanics is waiting for results from the LHC accelerator. Quantum waves are the wave of the future :). The uncertainty principle at first makes sense because it is obvious that the act of observing fundamental particles interrupts the natural action of the particles observed. We can never know for certain both the location and momentum of a particle. However, the wave function which represents the set of probabilities of the location and momentum of a particle has been taken to extremes in my opinion. To speculate other worlds in other dimensions based on the uncertainty principle ... if there was a quantum physics that explained how mass and gravity co-exist and form from energy without other dimensions that would be better. I'm not being audacious when I write about such as yet undiscovered physics in the quantum realm. I don't claim to know anything that the professional quantum physicists don't know and at a working level I don't know a fraction of what they know through experiments and hands on. I don't try to follow the mountains of math that lead to new mountains that most people can't hope to climb. But that doesn't disqualify me from seeing where they are in the search for what causes mass to form, what causes gravity, and how the quantum world works. They don't have the answers, they don't seem to be able to unravel the evidence that they do have, they keep finding new levels of particles and they keep searching because that is what they do. But the final answer is elusive. All I have done with Quantum Wave Cosmology is anticipate success in the search for a unifying force and speculate about what "success" might be like. Then I have taken that speculated unifying theory of quantum energy waves and combined it with observations we have about the known universe to see what kind of universe such a combination would support. The current standard cosmology, the Big Bang Theory rests on general relativity that features spacetime that backtracks to a singularity and on the cosmological principle with predicts homogeneity and isotropy in the greater universe. It is a good working theory based on known physics and models largely derived mathematically but it isn't a complete cosmology since it doesn't address the actual beginning or how such a beginning came about or what caused the expansion that we observe. Discovery of a unifying force will change the standard cosmology. The cause of the observed expansion and the preconditions of that expansion will come into better focus. The physics of matter formation, gravity, expansion and accelerating expansion, dark energy, dark matter and the cure for the common cold (:)) are all wrapped up in the discovery of the unifying fundamental force that operates at the infinitesimal level to provide the power that fuels all of the useful energy across the infinite universe. My writing is about such a discovery, the ultimate success in the quantum search that will lead to Quantum Wave Cosmology. quantum_wave 08-03-08 08:06 AM ________________________________________ Quote: ________________________________________ Originally Posted by Vkothii (Post 1947781) ... We still don't know the fundamental reason that mass exists, but we know a lot more about how it behaves in the large and at a fundamental level. At which there appears to be some impassable limit (an extremely small, but significant one) ... ________________________________________ Yes indeed, at the infinitesimal level of order there is a source of power that fuels mass, gravity and what science books call the ability of energy to do work. The scientific community is working on the details but quantum mechanics is incomplete and string theory makes no testable predictions, so you are right so far about the “impassable limit”. Put simply, the current impasse is seen as the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity. The incompatibility can be referred to as a difference between Einstein’s dynamic spacetime that could have had a beginning and Newton’s fixed space what had no beginning and was just space where everything exists and happens. Quantum Wave Cosmology goes to that impasse and suggests some physics that would resolve it. We know that something is operating at the quantum level to provide useful energy in the form of mass. It is generally accepted that mass and energy are equivalent in e = mc² proportions. Three key questions that science is working on are how mass forms, how it contains its energy, and the cause of and the field across which gravity is transmitted between mass (spacetime and curved space of General Relativity describe the effect and not the cause of gravity). We know how to release the atomic energy but we don’t have a complete particle model that explains all of the relationships at the fundamental particle level. The cause of gravity is not described yet by QM either. The new accelerator, the LHC at Cern is coming online to help in the research process, but it is likely that though new levels of particles and particle interactions will be discovered, the final answers will remain elusive. Quantum Wave Cosmology that I am introducing describes a more fundamental level of energy and interaction, a commonality between all of the fundamental particles described in the particle model and so it is speculation. But it is reasonable and responsible speculation if you look at it as it was developed, i.e. one step at a time. I mentioned the first step was to go “before” the big bang and I speculate that space, time and energy pre-existed the big bang. To help understand the realm of QWC, it was developed as a model where the universe is infinite, is composed of energy and has always existed. Reiku 08-03-08 05:50 PM ________________________________________ Quote: ________________________________________ Originally Posted by quantum_wave (Post 1952315) Yes indeed, at the infinitesimal level of order there is a source of power that fuels mass, gravity and what science books call the ability of energy to do work. The scientific community is working on the details but quantum mechanics is incomplete and string theory makes no testable predictions, so you are right so far about the “impassable limit”. Put simply, the current impasse is seen as the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity. The incompatibility can be referred to as a difference between Einstein’s dynamic spacetime that could have had a beginning and Newton’s fixed space what had no beginning and was just space where everything exists and happens. Quantum Wave Cosmology goes to that impasse and suggests some physics that would resolve it. We know that something is operating at the quantum level to provide useful energy in the form of mass. It is generally accepted that mass and energy are equivalent in e = mc² proportions. Three key questions that science is working on are how mass forms, how it contains its energy, and the cause of and the field across which gravity is transmitted between mass (spacetime and curved space of General Relativity describe the effect and not the cause of gravity). We know how to release the atomic energy but we don’t have a complete particle model that explains all of the relationships at the fundamental particle level. The cause of gravity is not described yet by QM either. The new accelerator, the LHC at Cern is coming online to help in the research process, but it is likely that though new levels of particles and particle interactions will be discovered, the final answers will remain elusive. Quantum Wave Cosmology that I am introducing describes a more fundamental level of energy and interaction, a commonality between all of the fundamental particles described in the particle model and so it is speculation. But it is reasonable and responsible speculation if you look at it as it was developed, i.e. one step at a time. I mentioned the first step was to go “before” the big bang and I speculate that space, time and energy pre-existed the big bang. To help understand the realm of QWC, it was developed as a model where the universe is infinite, is composed of energy and has always existed. ________________________________________ ''Yes indeed, at the infinitesimal level of order there is a source of power that fuels mass, gravity and what science books call the ability of energy to do work.'' You might want to read up on the Zero-Point Energy Field. It turns out that even at the infinitesimal pointlike size of the electron, there is also a zero-point, and sounds similar to what you where hinting at here. The idea, is that even at absolute temperatures, where there is thought to be a cut-off of energy, we still find a lot of movement. This was originally called, ''Residual energy,'' but the name ''Zero-Point Energy,'' fell into usage more. It is the source of all energy, which is the equivalant to all matter, and even quantum information :) ''We know how to release the atomic energy but we don’t have a complete particle model that explains all of the relationships at the fundamental particle level. The cause of gravity is not described yet by QM either. The new accelerator, the LHC at Cern is coming online to help in the research process, but it is likely that though new levels of particles and particle interactions will be discovered, the final answers will remain elusive.'' And much more problems too. Gravity though is a big one. I have a theory that matter in all types, is self-consistent with the force of gravity, as much as it does not require a graviton to mediate their strange effects, i also think that mass is self-consistent when concerning the generation of mass itself: The Higgs Boson. Of course, i will change my own personal model if they find a Higgs in the Particle Accelerator CERN, but i have my money on it not existing. How does your model work with the generation of masses: i.e. Does it require a Higgs Boson? ''I mentioned the first step was to go “before” the big bang and I speculate that space, time and energy pre-existed the big bang. To help understand the realm of QWC, it was developed as a model where the universe is infinite, is composed of energy and has always existed''. What do you think this thing was that existed before big bang? quantum_wave 08-03-08 08:19 PM ________________________________________ I did some studies of zero point energy and residual energy. The Bose-Einstein Condensate has fascinated me too. Absolute zero and the collapse of particles within the same space lead me to my studies of the wave function and the quantum world. Our ideas about gravity and mass sound similar. My version includes how quantum waves and quantum action work to cause mass to form and to cause gravity as a result of mass formation. The role of the Higgs boson and the Higgs Field are replaced by an energy background to the universe and quantum waves intersecting as they traverse the background. Those quantum waves are generated by “quantum action”, and quantum waves cause quantum action. This actually leads to the question of which came first the quantum wave or quantum action :). The answer is that they both have always existed. Quantum waves and high density spots (HDS): High density spots mark the point of convergence of quantum waves. Energy is carried via the intersections of quantum waves. These intersections can become unusually asymmetrical and are akin to rogue ocean surface waves where the crest and trough extremes sometimes occur due to the superposition of many wavelets with different frequencies and directions of travel. Think of those circumstances in a spherical wave context to get the picture. They reach a point of multiple convergences that concentrate energy into a high density spot. High density spots in QWC are the rule instead of a rarity. When the spot has formed it instantly “bursts” into an energy density fluctuation in the form of a spherically expanding energy wave. The burst occurs because the energy density of the surrounding energy environment is not sufficient to maintain the high energy density of the HDS because the convergence of the wave crests is a quickly passing event. In an extremely high energy density environment the burst can be delayed until the pressure declines. That makes it easy to segue to your question about, “What I think this thing was that existed before big bang?”. My premise is that our expanding universe, which I call our arena within a greater universe, was preceded by a big crunch. A big crunch is a finite accumulation of matter and energy as a result of gravity. The thing that keeps the entire greater universe from collapsing into this kind of big crunch invokes a part of the physics that I associate with Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC). Once a certain amount of matter and energy collapses in to the crunch, the energy density at the core of the crunch reaches a limit I call critical capacity. Critical capacity sets off a process that causes the crunch to self destruct, burst, and release energy that has been negated from the matter and energy that accumulated in the big crunch. The premise is that when mass is compressed to the near infinite energy density of the core of a big crunch it can no longer function as mass and therefore the gravity that coexists with the mass ceases. This is called locking the quantum action at the core. When the quantum action is locked, quantum waves are no longer generated and the energy is converted to potential energy waiting to be released by the growing gravity failure of the crunch. To go a step further into QWC, our finite arena emerged from a big crunch when the potential energy was released. The release, which is QWC’s big burst event, occurred as the gravitational force of the crunch diminished and could no longer contain the potential energy of locked quantum action at its core. Being a finite event in an infinite universe, the premise is that ours is just one of a potentially infinite number of critical capacity events, i.e. big crunches and bursts playing out across the greater universe. Matter forms during the expansion phase after the burst and eventually galaxies are sent out into the greater universe where they contribute to the formation of subsequent big crunches. AlphaNumeric 08-04-08 01:41 AM ________________________________________ Quote: ________________________________________ Originally Posted by quantum_wave (Post 1953253) I did some studies of zero point energy and residual energy. The Bose-Einstein Condensate has fascinated me too. Absolute zero and the collapse of particles within the same space lead me to my studies of the wave function and the quantum world. ________________________________________ Dollars to doughnuts you did no reading of actual quantum mechanical models and if I asked you to derive the fact a quantum field has a zero point energy contribution you'd be unable to. I bet your study involved reading Wikipedia and making unsupported claims about physics you don't understand. Same goes for Reiku. Either of you muppets want to prove me wrong? All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:16 PM. Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 > Show 1000 post(s) from this thread on one page Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Copyrights reserved by SciForums 1996-2006 Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 > Show 1000 post(s) from this thread on one page SciForums.com (http://www.sciforums.com/index.php) - Pseudoscience (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=27) - - Mass *has* gravity (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82060) quantum_wave 08-04-08 07:37 AM ________________________________________ I have no interest in proving you wrong about my studies or about my ability to derive a zero point solution. One thing I will prove you wrong about if you care to get into it is my understanding of QWC. You have to admit that if QWC is the way things work and that there is a unifying force, all the models you suggest you have read and all the derivations you probably would claim to be able to do wouldn't be worth jack. Reiku 08-04-08 08:03 AM ________________________________________ Quote: ________________________________________ Originally Posted by quantum_wave (Post 1954258) I have no interest in proving you wrong about my studies or about my ability to derive a zero point solution. One thing I will prove you wrong about if you care to get into it is my understanding of QWC. You have to admit that if QWC is the way things work and that there is a unifying force, all the models you suggest you have read and all the derivations you probably would claim to be able to do wouldn't be worth jack. ________________________________________ He has a pickle with me. Not you. So don't worry about it. quantum_wave 08-04-08 08:30 AM ________________________________________ Quantum Wave Cosmology predicts a multiverse where our expanding universe occupies one insignificant arena in an infinite landscape of arenas each playing out through the process of accumulation, big crunch, burst and expansion. The colsmolgical principle remains in tact because that greater universe is homogeneous and isotropic meaning that it looks generally the same no matter where you are in it, and there is no edge or center. In QWC, the thing that stops the entire greater universe from collapsing into one infinte big crunch is the law of critical capacity. Once a big crunch reaches critical capacity the seeds of self destruction are sown and the outcome is that the crunch will burst into an energy density fluctuation characterized by a spherical quantum wave that will carry all of the energy contained in the crunch into spherical expansion. Since only a finite amount of mass can accumulate in a big crunch before it bursts, the greater universe consists of a potentially infinite number of active arenas at any give time. That is why in QWC the cosmological constant is 1 which in terms of general relativity and BBT makes the greater universe perfectly flat. However, each arena has an energy density of its own relative to the average energy density of the greater universe. An expanding arena has a positive lambda, i.e. the local vacuum energy (cosmological constant) causes expansion until the energy density of the arena equalizes with the energy density of the greater universe. An arena that is forming out there in the greater universe will have a negative lambda and the gravity will overcome the vacuum energy and the arena will collapse into a big crunch. In QWC the landscape of the greater universe demonstrates that entropy is defeated by the existence of the law of critial capacity combined with the quantum nature of mass and gravity. When mass exists it has gravity, and when the core of a big crunch reaches critical capacity it transforms mass into energy, locks down quantum action, mass ceases to function, gravity stops, and potential burst energy builds in the core until it exceeds the diminishing gravitational force of the big crunch and the crunch bursts. The will be no Big Rip. AlphaNumeric 08-05-08 01:26 AM ________________________________________ Quote: ________________________________________ Originally Posted by Reiku (Post 1954279) He has a pickle with me. Not you. So don't worry about it. ________________________________________ No, I think you're both full of ****. Just because you've posted in a thread doesn't mean noone else is wrong and talking BS. quantum_wave 08-05-08 02:23 AM ________________________________________ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noone Guest254 08-05-08 02:45 AM ________________________________________ Quote: ________________________________________ Originally Posted by quantum_wave (Post 1906776) For talking purposes the time involved in one quantum action is 10^-50 seconds. ________________________________________ Now I don't really want to get into the ins and outs of your theory, but I would like to know how you arrived at the above result. I notice that you didn't say 10^{-51}, or 3.288x10^{-49} or some other number, and obviously you haven't pulled it out of thin air. So what was it that made you arrive at your conclusion? Thanks. :) quantum_wave 08-05-08 03:03 AM ________________________________________ It is an increment of time smaller than plank time to point out that the incompatibility between GR and quantum mechanics will be resolved in favor of quantum mechanics. GR cannot deal with gravity that operates at the level of quantum action. QWC operates at speeds faster than plank time and in energy increments much smaller than any fundamental particle. But as the post said, it is just for talking purposes because QWC is speculation. That is why it is here in pseudoscience. quantum_wave 08-06-08 08:14 AM ________________________________________ Other than the explanation given no rigor was put into it. QWC is not science and there will be very few numbers until the actual mechanics can be visualized. Visualizing a quantum action that continually produces spherical waves of energy seems to be a possible solution. In order to work, quantum action would produce a net zero wave that has a trough and a crest and that expands spherically. The net zero becomes a negative value when some of the positive energy is contained in subsequent crests with high energy density, i.e. delayed relative to the wave trough which has low energy density. Then the spherical wave would cause a low energy density spherical wave front and a delayed high energy density wave crest as it travels and expands spherically. The inverse square law applies to the net negative emission from mass. The net negative emission is continual as long as the, say 10^-50 or some repetitive pulse pace is maintained to delay the crest relative to the trough. I'll give you another number to try to put the scale of quantum action into perspective. Trillions of quantum waves would have to be perpetually renewing themselves to form a proton for example. The relationship between the surface of a proton (area) and the volume of the proton (cubic units) (Area/Volume = (4 pi r2)/(4/3 pi r3) = 3/r) combined with the known 1836 to 1 relationship between the energy of a proton vs. the energy of an electron for example can be used to derive a number in the trillions (depending on the physical space occupied by a wave crest intersection :)) for the number of continual quantum actions necessary every Planck time (or fraction thereof) to maintain the mass of the proton. Yikes. The gravity of a mass would be the net negative value that the delay produces and would increase as the energy density of the mass increases. The idea has some potential for keeping me entertained for awhile just in visualizing the whole process. And of course I have to go it alone because anyone who could help recognizes the shit potential. But it is free and I have the time and the interest. It is easy to talk about but hard to visualize to the degree that it can be defined mathematically. One thing that seems to offer potential in that regard is an energy background that carries the spherical waves and there are so many waves crossing the background that the background is filled with a pattern of wave intersections in three dimensions. Each intersection represents an energy density and the density fluctuates. The fluctuations are perpetuated by quantum action and so the energy background is filled with tiny wave intersections that are actually energy density fluctuations. I mentioned earlier how wavelets can combine to build "rogue" waves. In order for quantum action to occur, rogue waves in the energy background would have to form and collapse with regularity. The collapse would initiate another wave and the background pattern would be re-energized by continual quantum action. Such a model would mathematically describe quantum action so that the high energy density crests form mass, and the collapse of the crest into a trough causes gravity. Without a delay between the trough and the crest the wave would have a net zero value and could produce no work. My visualization mentality gets in overload when I think about it too much. When I start giving you the math you'll know that I think I have something. quantum_wave 08-06-08 02:34 PM ________________________________________ I chose it because it was smaller than Planck time to show that in my opinion the incompatibility between General Relativity and quantum mechanics favored QM like I said. QM (when the LHC finds the Higgs boson) has gravity working at the energy quanta level and in QWC that is below Planck length and time. Just so you don't get the wrong idea about why I used -50. Thanks for your interest in my peculiar number. If it was that number in particular that would imply some pretty detailed math and science. 10^-50 is quite a bit smaller than Planck time wouldn't you agree. Just enough smaller to imply that the quantum effects that operate in my imagined QWC are below the level that particle physicists are talking. It appears to be below the design range of the LHC for that matter so though Sean Carroll predicts a 95% chance of finding the Higgs boson, personally I think the operative force at the heart of QM operates in much smaller increments. Just an opinion and not an invitation to anyone to point out that I'm without cloths on this topic. quantum_wave 08-09-08 09:07 AM ________________________________________ OK, so my Mass has gravity idea isn’t catching on :(. No big deal. It’s not only speculation, but since it doesn’t need the fabric of spacetime to be warped by mass and it doesn’t need Inflation, let alone eternal inflation of de Sitter space, and not needing those n-spheres or Cauchy surfaces within hyperspace makes it unimaginable relative to inflationary mathematical models that comply with General Relativity. Go figure, QWC is really way out there. I also admit it is pretty hard to sell an idea of quantum waves that work as both the cause of mass and the cause of gravity, let alone an energy background that isn’t detectable because it is simply energy density fluctuations that are so small and changing so fast that they go in mass and out of mass and participate in the mass and the gravity of the mass as mass passes through; you’re smirking aren’t you. Well since I haven’t gotten much interest in simple QWC, how about if it is a “cold start” cosmology? Since it has mass becoming too dense to function (at the core of a big crunch) which then stops gravity from said mass, by the time the core builds up enough potential energy in locked quantum action to overcome the remaining gravitational force of the outer crunch, much of the heat associated with the event has been absorbed and locked with the other energy in the core. Hence, the temperature of the event would be much less than that of Hot Big Bang models. What about the ~2.7 K cosmic background radiation? If the burst is a cool event, where did that temperature come from? Some is from the greater universe that has always existed and that surrounded the big crunch, and some is the heating up of the background by a round of huge fast burning hydrogen stars followed by a thermalization period before metallic stars and galaxies formed. Oh my gosh, more reasons to put QWC out in left field. But I’m having fun out here being full of $&!t and playing with my cosmology. At least I’m willing to share it. quantum_wave 08-10-08 01:57 PM ________________________________________ If you can accept that there is a single fundamental force behind everything, and that is a big IF, then you can accept that at that fundamental level, i.e. the smallest level of order where that force operates, there is a measurable increment of length that is the smallest possible measurable length. On the same basis you can also accept that at that fundamental level there is a smallest increment of time because it is a measure of the shortest possible measurable time. A quantum of energy in QWC is the tiniest amount of energy that can have any noticeable physical impact. If you read that carefully you can see that I anticipate that a level of order smaller than the quantum of energy is necessary in order to support the existence of the quantum of energy. I acknowledge that fact and to enable a quantum of energy to exist I refer to the existence of sub-quanta, or fractional amounts of energy whose only ability is to become part of the quantum energy increment, i.e. a part of the physical world. In QWC, anything physical refers to the quantum of energy and quantum action, while the sub-quanta world operates at a level below that where nothing physical is taking place, by definition. That sub-quanta world is referred to in QWC as the energy background. The energy background cannot directly affect the physical world; its only role is to support the force that enables the physical world. So in QWC, the energy quantum is made of up energy sub-quanta. Reference to the sub-quanta is a convention, a convenience for talking purposes, because the real world at the sub-quantum level is an intense interaction of energy in infinitesimal increments that would seem chaotic at any point in space at sub-quanta levels, but that has an order to it based solely on unobservable physics. We don’t know what those physics are at that level but the physics of QWC includes some ideas of what that physics would have to be like to enable the observable universe. ________________________________________ QWC is speculation about a force that makes energy do work. What the dimensions are I don't know but the math is Euclidian in QWC and curved space is the effect of spherical waves and not spacetime. I mentioned that in another thread. "Objects move through space as if space was curved by mass. But if gravity reaches across space to affect distant objects, those objects would also move as if space was curved because gravity travels at a finite speed of light and by the time it reaches and effects distant objects, the source object has changed location. This results in a curved effect between observed objects caused by gravity waves that travel as expanding spherical waves. The wave reaches the object and gives it a little tug toward the location that the first object occupied when the wave was emitted. An instant later the next wave reaches the object and gives it a little tug toward a slightly different location that was occupied by the first object as the second wave was emitted an instant after the first wave. Follow this procedure over time and you will get a curved movement of objects due to their relative movement and the propagation speed of spherical gravity waves, not due to the warped fabric of spacetime." The EFEs are the math of the effect of gravity, and not the cause. quantum_wave 08-11-08 10:11 AM ________________________________________ Introduction to the Energy Background If you can accept that there is a single fundamental force behind everything, and that is a big IF, then you can accept that at that fundamental level, i.e. the smallest level of order where that force operates, there is a measurable increment of length that is the smallest possible measurable length. On the same basis you can also accept that at that fundamental level there is a smallest increment of time because it is a measure of the shortest possible measurable time. These are not the smallest things or the shortest times, but the smaller things and the shorter times are beyond measurement. In QWC, the point where our ability to measure has reached a limit in the infinitesimal quantum realm is called the fundamental quantum level. We can’t measure at that level yet, but conceptually, to measure below that level would be a greater advancement than the advancement now needed to reach the milestone where we can “observe” and measure at the quantum level. Therefore a quantum of energy in QWC is the tiniest amount of energy that can have any “noticeable” physical impact. If you read that carefully you can see that I anticipate that a level of order smaller than the quantum of energy is necessary in order to support the existence of the quantum level. I acknowledge that fact, and to enable a quantum of energy to exist I refer to the existence of sub-quanta, or fractional amounts of energy whose only ability is to become part of the smallest increment of energy that can have a noticeable or meaningful impact on what we recognize as the physical world. In QWC, anything physical refers to the quantum level of energy and quantum action at that level, while the sub-quanta world operates at a level below that, i.e. quantum wave intersections smaller than the quantum of energy are simply tiny energy density fluctuations too small to be observed and individually too insignificant to be measurable. That sub-quanta world is referred to in QWC as the energy background. The energy background cannot directly affect the physical world; its only role is to support the force that enables the physical world, i.e. the quantum energy increment that contains the quantum of energy and causes quantum action. Quantum action perpetuates the energy density fluctuations that exist in the background. So in QWC, the energy quantum is made up of energy sub-quanta which are wave ripples in the background. Reference to the sub-quanta is a reference to the tiny energy density fluctuations caused by those expanding and intersecting spherical ripples. The sub-quantum level is an intense interaction of energy in infinitesimal increments that would seem chaotic at any point in space at sub-quanta levels, but that has an order to it that makes it homogeneous and isotropic. When a quantum wave appears it is akin to a rogue ocean wave that is made up of a significant number of wavelets. The ocean surface wavelets are the energy background equivalent of sub-quanta “ripples”. Energy density determines the frequency of the quantum waves that appear from the background. Frequency in this sense is the number of occurrences within a given space in a given time and is not exactly the same thing as electromagnetic wave frequency (hf). ________________________________________ The 10^-50, was intended to show that quantum action required measures below those that deal with fundamental particles. Quantum action was supposed to occur at that 10^-50 rate just for talking purposes. I mentioned I used Planck time and sped it up quite a bit. The energy of a particle in QWC is determined by the energy quanta density of the particle. The number of energy quanta in the particle are the count of quantum actions that take place within the particle within the speculated refresh rate of quantum action which is the number I mentioned that was strictly for perspective and for talking purposes of 10^-50 seconds. The energy of a photon lets say is Planck's constant times the speed of light/wavelength of the photon in meters. I think that photon frequencies range for 10^3 to say 10^25 cycles per second or so which converts to wavelength, so by taking the wavelength in meters of a given photon frequency you can calculate the energy of the photon. The quantum world is completely different than the electromagnetic world because a quantum has no charge, and is a spherical wave. But if you use the formula for the energy of a photon, and play with the frequencies/wavelengths needed to get an energy in the 10^-50 range, you will have the frequency/wavelength of the quantum action in completely meaningless units :D. quantum_wave 08-13-08 08:31 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is for Honcho in particular and any other visitors in general: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by Mike Honcho (Post 1965124) I probably need more prerequisite knowledge of "energy density equalization" to thoroughly understand that post. I assume what you are getting at would be similar to particulates condensing from a super saturated liquid or maybe dew forming when humidity is to high for the given ambient temperature. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Those are not bad analogies. The problem with using analogies is that they all have baggage. By baggage I mean that there are many things about super saturated liquids or about dew forming in high humidity that don't apply, baggage. Matter is composed of energy quanta in my opinion. In particular, I describe energy quanta and quantum action in my thread. I do use an analogy there where I say that energy quanta and quantum action are akin to rouge ocean waves. If you don't agree that matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, offer an alternative idea about the composition of matter. If matter is composed of energy in the form of energy quanta, and where energy quanta exist, quantum action exists, then you can begin to understand what I mean by "too much energy density in the universe for matter not to exist". It goes as follows: The energy equalization threshold is the highest average energy density of the universe that could exist without any matter formation. At that threshold, perfect equilibrium would exist in the universe and entropy would be complete, i.e. there would be no useful energy. There would be no energy quanta or quantum action because energy quanta and quantum action require an average energy density greater than the equalization threshold. None of the energy in excess of the threshold can be equalized and it therefore starts to cause energy density fluctuations within the otherwise equalized average energy density. In QWC, at the existing average energy density of the universe, the energy density fluctuations are so prevalent that the energy background has produced huge amounts of matter across the greater universe, in fact just like the energy content of the greater universe is infinite, the matter content is also potentially infinite. Matter forms from the energy density fluctuations that achieve quantum status which might be a good subject of a post of its own.