The Infinite Spongy Universe and my ATS disclaimer

Originally posted by CLPrime

If that happens, then I'll plaster this thread all over the web until someone recognizes your contribution (okay, I'd probably have long forgotten about this thread by then, but it's a nice thought).

No need to bring this thread up even if some of the ideas turn out to find support to some degree. Nothing much of what I hypothesize is anything that someone else hasn't thought of before me, but yes, it is a nice thought.

Honestly, I'll probably either die behind a bullet-riddled pulpit or on some street corner at the hands of an angry mob. Or perhaps both, if I move the pulpit outside.

Where is the good ole' possitive attitude. Maybe you will live bringing people to a higher view of life and purpose, and die of being over appreciated.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

For the most part (as far as I could understand your analogy), I think you've got it.
The main difference with String Theory is that it requires multiple extra dimensions in order to get enough string vibrational modes to account for all observed particles.

ok,,, but with the string theory modes and dimensions,,, isnt that the similar problem of,,, how can a whole lot of tiny near nothing,, make up a whole lot of seemingly solid, powerful, forceful, something,.,.,.

they need multiple dimensions to account for all observed particles,,, as standard model and quantum mechanics needs all there strange, and charm, and spin, and anti,, subatomic particles?

Originally posted by BogieSmiles

Where is the good ole' possitive attitude.

That is the positive attitude. I look forward to it.
But, in the meantime, there may come a time when I decide to sit down and give the math behind your expansion theory some attention. I'm usually too preoccupied...but it could make for a good rainy day project.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

ok,,, but with the string theory modes and dimensions,,, isnt that the similar problem of,,, how can a whole lot of tiny near nothing,, make up a whole lot of seemingly solid, powerful, forceful, something,.,.,.

They say it has something to do with vibration (1D strings vibrate, and we observe those vibrations as particles, rather than the strings themselves). I'm not a fan of String Theory.

they need multiple dimensions to account for all observed particles,,, as standard model and quantum mechanics needs all there strange, and charm, and spin, and anti,, subatomic particles?

Strange and charm are the names of two kinds of quarks, both of which have been observed. Spin has also been observed, as have anti-particles. Strings, on the other hand, have no hope of ever being observed.

Originally posted by CLPrime


That is the positive attitude. I look forward to it.

I can dig it.

But, in the meantime, there may come a time when I decide to sit down and give the math behind your expansion theory some attention. I'm usually too preoccupied...but it could make for a good rainy day project.

Fine, but even my latest and greatest post on the subject is only a sparse representation of the in-depth scenario. Not to be pushy, but the phrase "multi-generational patch of the greater universe" is quite inadequate to serve as a basis for the math. Maybe you could give me an idea of how you envision the model landscape so I can have the fun of going deeper into the mechanics that you would need to quantify. Remember, I don't have as much time to offer assistance as you have to find the right rainy day, lol.

Originally posted by CLPrime


Strange and charm are the names of two kinds of quarks, both of which have been observed. Spin has also been observed, as have anti-particles. Strings, on the other hand, have no hope of ever being observed.

and are quarks particles or waves?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Classical particles are waves in quantum physics.

Originally posted by BogieSmiles

Fine, but even my latest and greatest post on the subject is only a sparse representation of the in-depth scenario.

A sparse representation may make a better basis for the math, since it doesn't require modelling a whole bunch of details. My idea was to start with the expanding region of greater energy density based on fluid dynamics.

Also...today just happens to be a rainy day.

reply to post by CLPrime

Alright, it might be a good idea to start with a spherical cow, .

reply to post by BogieSmiles


I was actually gonna start with a spherical chicken, but it's the same idea.

Originally posted by BogieSmiles


But I think we both are saying that point particles are an expediency because we are simply limited in our ability to observe any supposed foundational level of order.

Yes, that's right.

u means up quark. d means down quark, and e means electron. Their masses and propeties were observed, and are listed in the Standard Model:

en.wikipedia.org...:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg

I use this standard model to see if my crazy theories fit observation.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by swan001

 

Point particles are sooo classical physics. We have quantum physics now...electrons are probability wavefunctions.

Eventually, you're going to have to come to some sort of most-basic fundamental particle. Classically, it will have to be considered a point-like particle (otherwise, you're left asking, "Well, what's this one made of?").

Yes, of course. If a preon theory should be created, it should be noted that preons will have to be considered point-like... Or Wavefunction-like. We can't go further in dividing preons themselves, it would be awfully un-aesthetic.

I also think wavefunctions can replace point-like... The only logical option. Point-like particles would add infinity to the system, and I hate systems which includes infinity, it just doesn't make sense.

BTW I sent you a U2U.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Classical particles are waves in quantum physics.

I have trouble with some predictions of quantum. Einstein had, too. "if you don't look at the Moon, it doesn't disappear, right?" asked Einstein half-jokingly to Bohr. Entanglement also makes me frown, as it seem it would imply faster-than light communication between the two particles undergoing entanglement. I know quantum's the best we have, but I doubt it's the perfect theory yet...

Originally posted by swan001

Point-like particles would add infinity to the system, and I hate systems which includes infinity, it just doesn't make sense.

Point-particles don't really add infinity to a system...they're just over-simplified mathematical objects. A point particle is an approximation of a wavefunction for classical purposes.

I have trouble with some predictions of quantum. Einstein had, too. "if you don't look at the Moon, it doesn't disappear, right?" asked Einstein half-jokingly to Bohr. Entanglement also makes me frown, as it seem it would imply faster-than light communication between the two particles undergoing entanglement. I know quantum's the best we have, but I doubt it's the perfect theory yet...

Which questionable aspect of quantum physics is the Moon quote in reference to?
As for entanglement...something is most definitely missing. QM is not a complete picture. In fact, it's not just entanglement...there's also a little curiosity known as the delayed choice quantum eraser.

BTW I sent you a U2U

Got it and read it, just haven't replied yet (gettin' there).

reply to post by CLPrime


could it be possible that the "electron" does not exist.,,. however there is an electric field surrounding an atom,, produced by the nucleus? ( or is this how it is already viewed?)

also are protons and neutrons considered wave functions or particles (or are those the same thing)?

then the quarks that make up protons and neutrons,,, since we can with some accuracy know where an atom is located,, so we can with some accuracy know where the proton and neutron is located.,,. but then the quarks which make the proton and neutron up, are wave functions? , what does that mean,, it is nothing material or physical,,, a tiny oscillation of micro space, is what a quark is?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

could it be possible that the "electron" does not exist.,,. however there is an electric field surrounding an atom,, produced by the nucleus? ( or is this how it is already viewed?)

That's how it used to be viewed, a couple centuries ago, but not any more.
Electrons exist. We observe them on a regular basis. It's just that we can't 100% define their location at any given time.

also are protons and neutrons considered wave functions or particles (or are those the same thing)?

A wavefunction is a particle.

then the quarks that make up protons and neutrons,,, since we can with some accuracy know where an atom is located,, so we can with some accuracy know where the proton and neutron is located.,,. but then the quarks which make the proton and neutron up, are wave functions? , what does that mean,, it is nothing material or physical,,, a tiny oscillation of micro space, is what a quark is?

Quarks are wavefunctions and protons and neutrons are made of quarks (they are the superposition of 3 quark wavefunctions).
An atom is typically defined to be the area within the 95% probability region of the outermost electron orbital. In fact, an electron has a non-zero chance of randomly appearing on the opposite side of the universe from the atom it belongs to.
At the quantum level, it's hard to define "physical" or "material." Everything is more in terms of energy.

Again, a wavefunction is a wave-form represent the probability that a (classical) particle will be in a given location at a given time.

reply to post by CLPrime


"That's how it used to be viewed, a couple centuries ago, but not any more.
Electrons exist. We observe them on a regular basis. It's just that we can't 100% define their location at any given time"

ok,, so what do electrons exist as? an electron is ______________? an electron is an energetic, electrically charged wave function field surrounding the nucleus of an atom?

reply to post by CLPrime


"Quarks are wavefunctions and protons and neutrons are made of quarks (they are the superposition of 3 quark wavefunctions)."

ok so,, 3 separate/distinguishable wave functions ( 3 quarks) overlapping and interacting,, the "point/area" of most extreme "energy/frequency/wave collision?" is the location of the proton or neutron? the 3 quarks wave functions lock each other together in a way that they are always contained in a semi specific area known as a proton or neutron?


"An atom is typically defined to be the area within the 95% probability region of the outermost electron orbital. In fact, an electron has a non-zero chance of randomly appearing on the opposite side of the universe from the atom it belongs to.
At the quantum level, it's hard to define "physical" or "material." Everything is more in terms of energy."

ok ok,,, and you say everything is more in terms of energy,.,.,. is there a good way to describe energy? how do you imagine or visualize this quantum energy?

reply to post by ImaFungi


We can model an electron's location as a wavefunction of probability. We can model the electron itself as a point of energy existing somewhere within that wavefunction. Beyond that, your guess is as good as anyone else's.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

ok so,, 3 separate/distinguishable wave functions ( 3 quarks) overlapping and interacting,, the "point/area" of most extreme "energy/frequency/wave collision?" is the location of the proton or neutron? the 3 quarks wave functions lock each other together in a way that they are always contained in a semi specific area known as a proton or neutron?

It's not the point of contact, it's the entire system of 3 quarks that forms a proton or neutron. But, yes, they do sort of "lock" together...with gluons.

ok ok,,, and you say everything is more in terms of energy,.,.,. is there a good way to describe energy? how do you imagine or visualize this quantum energy?

When it comes to matter particles (fermions), that's a hard question to answer. In fact, it's hard enough with bosons.