The Infinite Spongy Universe and my ATS disclaimer

Originally posted by CLPrime

Also, I noticed this:

Gravity is very strong in the close quarters of the early arena, and so particles clump together, atoms and molecules form and they clump together ...

Is gravity the only force in your hypothesis, or does it include electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force as well? Because it's well-established that these forces hold atoms together, not gravity. Unless you're saying it was gravity initially, and then gravity was later replaced by the other forces at these small scales.

When I answer this question I am in full "disclaimer" mode, lol. If you read my disclaimer you saw that when I conduct a thread I sometimes say things that I have never said before, and they begin to find a place in my model. Sometimes they are quickly debunked and discarded, and sometimes they slip through the worm holes of the space between observation and maths and become established as part of the model (if I may invoke a little layman literary license). This explanation is like that.

When a particle spins it has an orientation that allows it to be approached perpendicular to the spin, i.e. in line with the axis of the spin. The effect is the origin of electromagnetism because approaching particles are guided to the axis of the spin and away from the direction of the spin. Spin is initiated in the early process of particle formation as the directional imbalance of inflowing wave energy influences the new particles and it is quite a strong force that is responsible for the orientation of particles to each other, particle charge, and for the maintenance of space between particles, according to my delusions. Fundamental particles therefore have their characteristic spins, there are particle charges, and there are certain "allowed" configurations of nuclei. Yet each nuclei has a continual inflow and out flow of wave energy that establishes and maintains their presence and their gravitational signature as they are incorporated into objects like atoms, molecules, gas clouds, stars, and galaxies.

I'm sorry that I just don't grasp all the maths and the nature of an increasing group of bosons, particles and predicted particles that I read about in the Particle Adventure or in hyperphysics. So I use mainstream particles in my model and cannot draw a direct correlation between them and the simple explanations that I use, but the universe is as it is observed, and the mechanisms that cannot be observed are where the mathematical theories take on a life without observation.

There is a big departure though between my model and the standard particle model. I invoke a quantum level of order below the fundamental level of the standard particle model. I invoke a foundational medium at that quantum level and wave energy traversing the medium. Fundamental particles that are said to have no internal composition in the standard model do have internal composition in my model, and that composition is standing wave patterns that form at the foundational level, below our ability to observe :end of disclaimer ) 

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

What would be the wavelength of these outflowing/inflowing waves? Any way we can calculate them?

I am hypothesizing that they are very very very high frequency, but I have no way to detect them and/or calculate them.

Originally posted by DJOldskool
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

It is not that hard to learn Physics, honest. Its not simple and will require a lot of thought, but too many are fascinated by Physics but scared of the Maths. Although I was good at math, I never learnt anything after 16 years old.

To start:
Make sure you understand Algebra, www.khanacademy.com will help you brush up. Then join www.Udacity.com and take the PH100 intro to Physics course (short vids and questions with great forum). It is awesome to really understand the maths behind simple motion, I loved it.

Once you have had this taster, learn calculus and then you can take more in depth Physics courses.

I have gone through the videos in MIT OCW highlights of calculus and will now do Udacity's PH222 Maths Matters: Differential equations. I am doing lots of studying in Computer Science, Physics and Maths online for free. I will see if it takes me anywhere.

I am positive that it will take you where you want to go if you apply it and contemplate all possibilities.

You would be surprised by my personal science related library I bet. Maybe a hundred books on all aspects of science and math, and I have even read some of them, lol. I have been an Internet animal since the Internet was invented by Al Gore. I live walking distance from a good library and I visit it and check out books all the time.

My problem is not as much not understanding physics and math, though I do have a real tendency to close my eyes when a page fills with equations. But I trust the math, and believe in most cases it works perfectly. My delusion is that the perfect math does not always correspond precisely to reality :shrug:

reply to post by BogieSmiles


Apologies, I thought you were alluding to ignoring the Math. From your reply I can see you have a better grasp than me. I am looking forward to studying more Physics but not to some of the maths involved with QE so I would never degrade someone for not doing the math in that area.

I find this fascinating and with the internet education revolution going on, I have the opertunity to learn it all properly i.e. with maths. I had tried various ways, books, internet guides, wiki etc. but I only ever got a vague understanding from them, or they assumed high level maths knowledge from the get go and no where really to gain the maths. Thankfully this has all changed with Khanacademy, Udacity, MIT OCW, Coursera and others.

P.S. Udacity is my favourite, does not assume you are a university student, future of education IMO.

reply to post by DJOldskool


reply to post by DJOldskool

No apology necessary ever in my threads, lol. "Deny ignorance" .

You are right, and one of the great trends today is the change in how we learn and communicate. You are the future so be sure you pay attention.

reply to post by BogieSmiles

the rate of inflation relative to the off setting force of gravity as always produced accelerating separation because energy density equalization is stronger than gravity

You got so close to answering my question, and then just stopped. Can you support your cliffhanger here? Because it would seem that the "urge" for the energy density to equalize would lessen as the energy density inside nears the energy density outside. That's how it works in real-world diffusion.

If the internal energy density never approaches the external energy density, then you have two options:

1) the internal energy density is infinite relative to the external energy density
2) the internal energy density approaches the external energy density asymptotically

The first option is easy to reject because it involves infinite energy and infinite diffusion, thus causing infinite inflation. That many infinities is hardly viable.
So, it must be the second option. In which case, my original argument stands: the equalization of the internal and external energy densities must decrease with time, leading to slowing expansion. Even the dispersion of gravity doesn't solve the problem because the expansion slows all on its own, even devoid of any counteraction on the part of gravity.

reply to post by BogieSmiles

When a particle spins it has an orientation that allows it to be approached perpendicular to the spin, i.e. in line with the axis of the spin. The effect is the origin of electromagnetism because approaching particles are guided to the axis of the spin and away from the direction of the spin.

Electromagnetism doesn't cause particles to head for the poles of other particles. A positive particle will attract a negative particle (even at the "equator") and repel a positive particle. This only manifests as poles when you get a bunch of particles together and create a magnet. Can you explain how a solid collection of spinning particles will cause another solid collection of spinning particles to head for a certain end while being repelled from the opposite end?

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

You got so close to answering my question, and then just stopped. Can you support your cliffhanger here? Because it would seem that the "urge" for the energy density to equalize would lessen as the energy density inside nears the energy density outside. That's how it works in real-world diffusion.

If the internal energy density never approaches the external energy density, then you have two options:

1) the internal energy density is infinite relative to the external energy density
2) the internal energy density approaches the external energy density asymptotically

The first option is easy to reject because it involves infinite energy and infinite diffusion, thus causing infinite inflation. That many infinities is hardly viable.
So, it must be the second option. In which case, my original argument stands: the equalization of the internal and external energy densities must decrease with time, leading to slowing expansion. Even the dispersion of gravity doesn't solve the problem because the expansion slows all on its own, even devoid of any counteraction on the part of gravity.

edit on 3-9-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

For me it is like shooting in the dark .  We know  acceleration happens.  Though I invoke my scenario of preconditions to the big bang in order to explain how a big bang could occur, how dark energy might emerge from a big bang, how particles might form with separation momentum, how separation momentum might be conserved right up to galaxy separation, and how equalization might drive expansion in a possible multiple big bang landscape, I may not have the right hypotheses and I know I'm not qualified to answer the "how" of acceleration. If the "epoch" after matter formation was not characterized by the force of equalization exceeding gravity, and if the decline in the force of gravity during that epoch wouldn't let more of the full force of equalization be realized as the separation plays out then there might be a better explanation that I haven't come up with yet.

If I don't come up with the answer, well I just haven't got a convincing scenario yet. I'll work on it some more and of course doing this with help from others would be good. Feel free to offer suggestions if you can put yourself into a role of trying to brainstorm accelerating expansion given the preconditions I use.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

When a particle spins it has an orientation that allows it to be approached perpendicular to the spin, i.e. in line with the axis of the spin. The effect is the origin of electromagnetism because approaching particles are guided to the axis of the spin and away from the direction of the spin.

Electromagnetism doesn't cause particles to head for the poles of other particles. A positive particle will attract a negative particle (even at the "equator") and repel a positive particle. This only manifests as poles when you get a bunch of particles together and create a magnet. Can you explain how a solid collection of spinning particles will cause another solid collection of spinning particles to head for a certain end while being repelled from the opposite end?

Back to the drawing board on electromagnetism, lol. Actually I wasn't presuming to describe it, but set out to acknowledge that I was not replacing the nuclear forces with gravity in response to your question. I wanted to offer the thought that without spin of nuclei you wouldn't get atoms and so the spin is the origin of electromagnetism but I didn't mean it was electromagnetism. 

That bit about the approach of particles and the axis vs. the direction of spin was ill advised extraneous wild speculation . I was talking more about the emergence of the very earliest effects that distinguish dark matter from the known fundamental particles. The formation of particles with spin would enable the formation of atoms, i.e. the oscillating dipoles that feature nuclei and electrons responsible for the emission of electromagnetic radiation. 

But still, as recently as last week, before trying to craft an answer to your question I would  have said that my hypothesis is the new physics of a foundational medium and standing wave patterns below the fundamental level of quantum mechanics. The "how" of particles arising from the dark matter is beyond me, and best left to the professionals. So I would probably be better off waffling back the "I don't know enough to say how the strong and weak forces evolved".

Originally posted by BogieSmiles

Feel free to offer suggestions if you can put yourself into a role of trying to brainstorm accelerating expansion given the preconditions I use.

One thing that comes to mind is the possibility that the creation of other "arenas" at a sufficient rate could cause the overall external energy density to drop. If the drop in external energy density is more rapid than the equalization, then the equalization/expansion will accelerate.

Also, as an aside, what's encouraging to me is that the math to describe your hypothesis should be relatively easy to work out.

reply to post by BogieSmiles


Interestingly enough, I had the thought not too long ago to attempt to describe electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force with a mechanism similar to gravity, as opposed to them being fundamentally bosonic (the opposite direction that current GUT-physics is taking). Finding such a solution would be similar to solving your problem...so, if I was willing to allow for a curved spacetime view for 3 of the fundamental forces, then I'm also more than willing to accept that there could be a solution to the electromagnetism and strong force issue in your hypothesis.

The problem, of course, is coming up with it.

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by BogieSmiles

Feel free to offer suggestions if you can put yourself into a role of trying to brainstorm accelerating expansion given the preconditions I use.

One thing that comes to mind is the possibility that the creation of other "arenas" at a sufficient rate could cause the overall external energy density to drop. If the drop in external energy density is more rapid than the equalization, then the equalization/expansion will accelerate.

Also, as an aside, what's encouraging to me is that the math to describe your hypothesis should be relatively easy to work out.

I was contemplating what you said after I went to bed and had to get up to post this so I wouldn't forget by in the morning, lol. You hit the nail on the head or at least boosted my thinking about the energy density history of the surrounding space and how it could in fact be falling in energy density outside our arena even as our arena's energy density declines. Remembering the history, our two parent arenas, which have higher energy density than the deep corridors of continuity between arenas actually overlapped and doubled the energy density in the overlap space. Our crunch formed in space that had that double wave energy density of the parents. Then too, the parents are still equalizing with the space surrounding them, so the conditions are set to allow the overall energy density surrounding our arena to also be declining as our energy density declines.

I'll try to write this up using some hypothetical values for the change in energy density of the surrounding space to show how it gets lower during the same period that our arena is expanding into it. That would give us the continuing increase in energy density differential need to allow our arena to accelerate gradually without any change in the separation momentum of our own galaxies. The inverse law may not have anything to do with it, it might be strictly governed by the dark energy entropy in the surrounding space. Tomorrow I'll read this and see if it makes any sense .

OK, nobody laugh, OK? I sketched this and uploaded to Photobucket. It is a test,

i399.photobucket.com...

I have an on going indecision between wanting to have a stable document that conveys my model with drawings, and wanting my model to be my latest and greatest scenario of the ISU.

Dark energy is a good example. It is crucial to my model that I have an explanation for dark energy that takes the mystery out of it for me and that is internally consistent with all of the rest of the model, and that is not inconsistent with observations and data. The indecision dilemma is do I try to craft a current version so I can link people to it, or do I formalize the dark energy scenario with drawings and then update the rest of the model. I think the dark energy module is coming around and will work nicely with the rest of the model, but most likely I will be the only one who thinks that.

If I could then formalize the whole model into one coherently delusional document that I could link people to, and not have to do a new thread every time I want to present the whole model, I would finally be caught up. But the latest and greatest document never gets written because every new update thread takes me to new scenarios to address comments and to better address observations that need to be tied in. That means that the internal consistency must then be refreshed from the bottom up. It is fun for me, but only for me usually.

So I don't worry about a current complete document, I worry about advancing the model in my head. My plan right now is to take advantage of a pause in the thread, and come back in a couple of weeks ready to present some drawings along with a better write up of the dark energy module. From there, if the thread has lost its liveliness, I may take the time to revise everything to a current version, which would be a new milestone.

I'm looking into a good iPad app to draw and paint, so I can do the diagrams for dark energy, and maybe go back and redo my outdated drawings from the past. If all of that happens I guess I will have a good current document to show around for a few days until I miss it all up with new thinking, lol.

For the next two weeks I am on another project anyway that will take 90% of my time, so though I'll keep an eye on the thread, I'll just post this old drawing as a place holder:

A swath of the ISU

reply to post by BogieSmiles


Just to be clear, you do know that a "landscape arena" is usually used at representing multiple universes conditions possibilities? I just want to know if I am getting the right pictures.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

Just to be clear, you do know that a "landscape arena" is usually used at representing multiple universes conditions possibilities? I just want to know if I am getting the right pictures.

Do you mean like in String Theory, Susskind's bubble landscape. If so, I am familiar with that being applied to multiple universes, separate and not interactive or interconnected. His concept of the bubble landscape allows for different physics in each bubble, I think. In my model the interconnectedness and the invariant laws of physics are universal, and there is only one universe. I did describe the parent arena concept, and the concept that not all of the galactic material in the parents gets caught up in the overlap space and thus much of it escapes the big crunch and so, we have a new big crunch/bang right in the middle of the space from which the escaping galaxies of the parents have vacated. That is the interconnectedness and that differentiates my arena landscape from a "landscape arena" that you mentioned.

I hope you are getting the picture as I am intending it. It is not string theory by any means .

Edit: Did you see the drawing at the end of my last post? Those are all interconnected arenas in various stages of the arena life cylce, and it is a swath of the arena landscape.

reply to post by BogieSmiles


You read Susskind too! I was starting to think nobody knew Susskind.

So basically you're saying, this concept of landscape is applied to inflation/non-inflation sectors of our universe.

Whoops, I got lightning and storms up here in Quebec, I'm gonna to have to be brief here before I lose electricity again:

What is your stand on quarks and gluons.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

Interestingly enough, I had the thought not too long ago to attempt to describe electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force with a mechanism similar to gravity, as opposed to them being fundamentally bosonic (the opposite direction that current GUT-physics is taking). Finding such a solution would be similar to solving your problem...so, if I was willing to allow for a curved spacetime view for 3 of the fundamental forces, then I'm also more than willing to accept that there could be a solution to the electromagnetism and strong force issue in your hypothesis.

The problem, of course, is coming up with it.

Wasn't strong nuclear force already accepted as a mechanism similar to gravity? The reason why individual quarks have a mass of 3 and 6 but overall proton is (if my memory is correct) 939 MeV in the first place?

reply to post by swan001


Nope...the strong force is about as far from gravity as you can get. Quarks exchange gluons, which propagate a "colour" charge (like a trident version of electromagnetism). The strong force goes mostly into holding quarks together to form protons and neutrons, but there is a residual strong force that holds those protons and neutrons together to form nuclei.

reply to post by CLPrime


Right... Colour is strong but short-ranged, unlike gravitons which are weak but long-ranged... total opposites. Hm.

But internal forces at work in a hardon does account for part of its mass energy, right? Its, after all, 939 MeV while each quarks individually yields 12. And I know gluons have no mass, so the extra 927 MeVs is not from these.