Origins: Let’s build a so called ATS Model of the Universe

a reply to: Phantom423

originally posted by: Phantom423
I’m not a cosmologist – my field is chemistry/physics, specifically spectroscopy, so I would like to understand your model a little better then pose some questions. I read your posts on the SciForum which really gave me a better insight into the model. YouTube is great, but to understand something in depth, the written word is still the best!

I'm a retired accountant, who has developed an interest in physics and cosmology. It is good to see that you have some interest, because with your background, I will also have some questions for you to help me get some things right.

My understanding of your model is:

1. That the universe is actually one entity, comprised of multiple “arenas”.
2. The universe that we perceive is actually one of these arenas.
3. The arenas interface with each other as a consequence of the natural laws of classical physics and quantum mechanics (as we understand it now).

This is were one of the important parts of the model comes into play on the macro scale: Energy density equalization is a major force in the model, and it is the driving force of the initial rapid expansion/inflation of the new arena. FYI, it is also an active force in the quantum realm, where the equivalent to the Big Crunch is referred to as a high density spot that forms when quantum waves intersect and overlap. More on that in, The ISU - Toward the Infinitesimal, video.

4. Each arena experiences its own “big bang” resulting in a unique arena.
5. Over time and given the natural laws of physics, these arenas collide, condensing their matter at the overlap.

Collide is a popular media way to phrase it, but I like to say that the arenas and their galactic contents which have separation momentum, expand into each other's space.

6. As they form this new condensation ...

I don't use the term condensation, but for a starting understanding it will suffice; I say the galactic material from the parent arenas converges in the overlap space, and at that point gravity gains the upper hand over separation momentum.

... area, energy is preserved, entropy is decreased and eventually, a new arena is formed. In other words, entropy goes through a redundant, recycling process which would allow for energy condensation, expansion, dissipation and then restructuring.

When we begin to get into the details, there are a few things I will mention that you can begin to think about:
Gravitational wave energy is conserved. Particles, including photons, are wave-particles; referred to as complex standing gravitational wave patterns "contained" within the "particle space". Particles, as standing waves have two components, inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy. Particles have momentum imparted to them when they form from the high wave energy density ball that emerges from a collapse/bang. The momentum of particles is conserved. When a photon enters the Big Crunch that forms in the overlap, its energy is captured by the crunch, and that is a big part of the defeat of entropy.

Really, though I have tried to separate the macro and the micro realms, you obviously can tell that the crunch/bang is a macro event governed by the nature of particles and energy at the micro level. The defeat of entropy, and the requirement that wave energy, including electromagnetic energy in the form of photons, and particle momentum, is conserved, in order to account for all energy being conserved so that entropy in a new arena is at its low.

7. This process occurs randomly throughout the larger universe which engulfs ...

Terminology again, but minor; the greater universe is an arena landscape where arena action plays out. The greater universe "hosts" the arena landscape .

... these arenas. The larger universe is infinite and its timeline has no beginning and no end.

Let me know if I have it essentially right.

Yes, you have it essentially correct.

If my understanding is fairly correct, then I have some questions, particularly regarding entropy and energy “leak”. Any corrections to my understanding would be welcomed. Thanks.

BTW, I do think you should post your video in Science and Technology too because there's a lot of nerds over there who will take an interest and respond perhaps with different takes on your model. Just a thought....

I actually have been conducting a thread there as well, called, The Infinite Spongey Universe Cosmology. Come on over anytime.

Thanks for the explanation. I’ll take each topic individually as they obviously deserve some in depth thought.

Your description of the energy density equalization prompted me to think of the Bose-Einstein Condensation. I’m not an expert in the field, but when I read this article, it struck me as being very similar to the particle density you are referring to on the macro level. photonicssociety.org...

But I’m wondering why you place it in the macro level instead of the micro level? In your chart you show a minimum and maximum energy graph which has the high density state at the origin. The high density point would require a trigger for it to expand – in other words, some instability that would cause it to explode. In the BEC experiment, one of the phenomena observed was: “An analysis of the time-of-flight images revealed that the condensate released from the trap does not just spread out with the velocity predicted by the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. This would only happen for a non-interacting ideal gas. In contrast, we observed condensates which virtually exploded due to repulsive interaction between the atoms.” It struck me as being similar to your model of the high density point. What do you think? If that’s the case, you have a built-in setup to begin some calculations as to how the model would perform going forward.

On the overall structure of the model, you talk about the “landscape” upon which the arenas develop and evolve. Is this landscape supposed to be infinite? Why isn’t it a universe in and of itself that encompasses the arenas? The reason I ask this question goes to the issue of energy and the initial amount of energy that you have to work with. If you go a step further and develop algorithms to calculate and derive predictions for your model you need some initial values to work with. It's the amount of energy in the system that will determine the number of arenas. If you consider everything in the landscape as containing only energy initially - no condensed matter, no arenas, etc - the amount of energy is going to determine the final state. This might be an over simplification, but I think it's important to start from first principles.

So – if the landscape is infinite, the energy can be either infinite or finite. If the landscape is finite, then the amount of energy can only be finite. It seems to me that in order to work with the model, you would either have to declare the landscape as infinite or finite, or develop two models – one for infinite (totally open system) and one for finite (one for a closed, or adiabatic, system). I think this would be critical when you want to design experiments to test any aspect of the model.

I see it as laying the foundation. The foundation may prove to be untenable. But without some foundation to work with i.e. a mathematical model, I think it will be hard to go to the next step. I’m a bench scientist – theoretical models are appealing, but ultimately they have to be proven at the bench. In this case, I think your “bench” will be the algorithms that you develop.

Will add more thoughts later. Let me know what you think of the above.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Thanks ... I’ll take each topic individually ...

Your description of the energy density equalization prompted me to think of the Bose-Einstein Condensation. ... it struck me as being very similar to the particle density you are referring to on the macro level. photonicssociety.org...

I bookmarked the article on my reading list, and will read it all. It is an exciting area of physics, and I am not nearly as familiar with it as I will have to be to incorporate the physical observations into the model at the micro level. More on that later when I finish it.

But I’m wondering why you place it in the macro level instead of the micro level?

In regard to the graph of the scale of meaningful energy increments, and the placement of it in the macro level, I also will place the graphic in the micro level when I do that video. It is applicable to both levels, and is one of the things I was referring to in my response to you list of understand, #6, where I said, "Really, though I have tried to separate the macro and the micro realms, you obviously can tell that the crunch/bang is a macro event governed by the nature of particles and energy at the micro level. The defeat of entropy, and the requirement that wave energy, including electromagnetic energy in the form of photons, and particle momentum, is conserved, in order to account for all energy being conserved so that entropy in a new arena is at its low."

In your chart you show a minimum and maximum energy graph which has the high density state at the origin. The high density point would require a trigger for it to expand – in other words, some instability that would cause it to explode.

I understand the statement. There is an event that initiates the emergence of a new quantum wave, at both levels. At the macro level, a crunch gathers galactic material from the two or more parent arenas as a result of the gravitationally induced accretion into the crunch. The question is, what keeps the entire greater universe from falling into the crunch to fulfill the prediction of General Relativity in a universe with the GR referenced closed shape. The answer is that each crunch reaches "critical capacity" and becomes a quantum of energy, a specific increment that triggers the collapse of the crunch under the force of gravity.

The collapse/bounce is the term I use. The 'bounce" is off of nature's maximum wave energy density limit. Hypothetically, noting can be infinitely dense in my model because of this maximum limit.

The limit is reached at the core of the collapsing Big Crunch. The gravitationally induced collapse, once critical capacity is reached, is the point where particles can no longer maintain their own particle space, and can no longer function as standing wave particles, with inflow and out flow.

The term is "negation" of the particles, and it means that the contained wave energy in each particle, combine and the total space change from the volume of the crunch before the collapse, to the volume of space that the wave energy will occupy at nature's maximum wave energy density, a much smaller volume of space. The collapsed particle wave energy is combined into the hot dense wave energy ball at the center of the space occupied by the crunch, as the Big Bang occurs. Gravity is defeated when the particles cease to function and the negated wave energy comes under the control of energy density equalization.

The hot dense ball of gravitational wave energy, at nature's maximum allowed energy density, immediately begins to equalize with the surrounding low energy density in the space that the crunch formerly occupied, and expands on out into the space which the parent arenas had occupied, causing the rapid expansion/inflation of the new arena.

That is the arena quantum action. There is a less exciting scenario for the formation and expansion of the high density spots within particles, referred to as simply quantum action, and I don't have the energy to describe it tonight, lol. Just to mention, gravity is a quantum effect related to the internal high density spots and the net directional inflowing wave energy component. The out flowing gravitational wave energy is spherical, i.e. equal in all directions (as is the out flowing arena quantum wave).

Are you dizzy yet?

In the BEC experiment, one of the phenomena observed was: “An analysis of the time-of-flight images revealed that the condensate released from the trap does not just spread out with the velocity predicted by the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. This would only happen for a non-interacting ideal gas. In contrast, we observed condensates which virtually exploded due to repulsive interaction between the atoms.” It struck me as being similar to your model of the high density point. What do you think? If that’s the case, you have a built-in setup to begin some calculations as to how the model would perform going forward.

Excellent thought, and something to look forward to.

I won't bore you yet with the trivial equation, but I did a thread on it at SciForums which might give you everything I have in regard to the math of quantum action, at both the micro and macro levels (don't get any high expectations, lol.) I'll link you to the thread when it comes up again.

On the overall structure of the model, you talk about the “landscape” upon which the arenas develop and evolve. Is this landscape supposed to be infinite?

Yes.

Why isn’t it a universe in and of itself that encompasses the arenas? The reason I ask this question goes to the issue of energy and the initial amount of energy that you have to work with. If you go a step further and develop algorithms to calculate and derive predictions for your model you need some initial values to work with. It's the amount of energy in the system that will determine the number of arenas. If you consider everything in the landscape as containing only energy initially - no condensed matter, no arenas, etc - the amount of energy is going to determine the final state. This might be an over simplification, but I think it's important to start from first principles.

Yes, I see what you are asking.

So – if the landscape is infinite, the energy can be either infinite or finite.

The energy is infinite, and has always been in the form of gravitational wave energy that fills all space. Since space is infinite, energy is necessarily infinite as well, in my model.

If the landscape is finite, then the amount of energy can only be finite. It seems to me that in order to work with the model, you would either have to declare the landscape as infinite or finite, or develop two models – one for infinite (totally open system) and one for finite (one for a closed, or adiabatic, system). I think this would be critical when you want to design experiments to test any aspect of the model.

Let me so declare, the landscape is infinite, the medium of space that carries the wave energy is infinite, and the wave energy has always existed, there was no first big wave .

I see it as laying the foundation.

I see I reached the ATS word limit, but I said enough for now

Will catch up tomorrow - thanks for the information.

a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks. Watch this; it will help you focus on the high density spot at the micro end ... youtu.be...
It is really the moon reflecting off of a lake. The surface waves were a very tiny chop, coming from all directions due to a light breeze. It caught my eye, and I recorded it a few years ago.

Take your time on the reply to my last post; maybe focus on one step at a time so we don't use up all of the ATS allowed words anymore, lol.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Will catch up tomorrow - thanks for the information.

Thanks for showing some interest. As you can imagine, it is rare when it comes to my hypothesizing. Any continuation of the discussion would be welcome. Any other members, creationists or otherwise, are welcome to engage in the discussion.

a reply to: BogieSmiles

I've been thinking about your model. It's a tough one for me because I need numbers. I'm trying to imagine how we would test the initial criteria that produces the energy. The only thing I've come up with is the Bose-Einstein experiment which has some starting parameters. As you said, something has to hold the whole thing together - or else it collapses or disipates into total entropy. I still need to think more about this and your concept of "defeat of entropy". I'm not at all sure that it can happen in our universe because we don't have a way of accessing 100% energy of any system. The combustion engine can only access less than 5% of the energy available in a fossil fuel. Nuclear energy is somewhat more efficient but is still a long way from 100%. So the "defeat of entropy" implies that the energy source is 100% available for work. I don't know how we get there. The recycling process you describe is very interesting. But again, experiments have to be designed to test it. You need a basic hypothesis for the energy source which can be represented mathematically. Then, attempt to take those numbers and plug them into your model.

You said that the model is an open system. But even an open system has constraints. And the constraints are determined by the initial "pop" that generated the first step in the model. We don't know that. You need to design that first step in a way that tells you what world you're dealing with: is it the classical physics world or the quantum world - or something else entirely? In order to do that you have to establish the beginning criteria.

Once you establish your initial hypothesis with the mathematics to back it up, then you can move forward to determine whether what you hypothesize is feasible. The numbers will tell you a lot of that (not everything), but at least it gives you a sense of where you're going.

Still thinking about this - if this was my experiment, I would start with Bose-Einstein because it's already on the books - the numbers and the hypothesis has been verified. You can take that information and push it forward into your model.

It's a toughy!!! But still thinking about it.

a reply to: Phantom423

Re. your post:
1) A model without the math
2) A model that can't be tested
3) BEC possible starting point
4) Clarification of defeat of entropy, one finite "bang" at a time
5) Clarification of energy source, energy conservation
6) Open system and constraints, initial conditions
7) Seemingly naive mix of classical and quantum mechanics
8) Scientific model vs. layman enthusiast model

1) A model without math: The concept that the macro and micro realms are governed by strikingly similar mechanics is conveyed in a simple, and amateurish equation that uses the concept of a macro quantum of energy to quantify the Big Bang, and a micro quantum of energy to quantify the internal action, within the complex standing wave pattern that makes up the composition of particles ...



Note: I see the tail end of the image of the equation go cut off, and I will post in Tex if it comes up again.

... Intentionally not fully simplified. When the value of the equation = 1, a new quantum has been accumulated in the overlap space, at both levels. At the macro level it quantifies the convergence of two or more parent arenas and the concept of "critical capacity". At the micro level, it quantifies "particle-internal" quantum wave overlaps. It is trivial and simplistic, but expresses the perpetual recycling of energy at both levels

2) A model that can't be tested: I am not going for the professional level application of the scientific method, where a model is quantified mathematically, makes predictions, suggests or performs tests, and quantifies the observed results into a peer reviewed paper. Maybe there is a future to the ideas; possible collaborations with professionals who have credentials who like the ideas, and are classy enough to acknowledge any input that is of value, even from a layman. But I am not expecting any attribution.

3) BEC possible starting point: I love that idea, and will pursue it on my own or with your collaboration.

4) Clarification of defeat of entropy, one finite "bang" at a time: The advance of entropy is endless, and is not being stopped in my model; it is operating between two natural limits, imposed by the invariant natural laws of the universe. Big Bang arenas start out at nature's lowest entropy, and galaxy filled Big Bang arenas trend toward nature's highest entropy environments. But nature's limits cause entropy to be reversed via arena action on a large scale, and quantum action on a small scale.

5) Clarification of energy source, energy conservation: The energy in the model is infinite, and in the form of wave energy traversing the medium of space. The source has always existed, no beginning. The wave energy is orchestrated by quantum action and arena action, dealing in wave energy mechanics at both levels.

6) Open system and constraints, initial conditions: Though there are no universal initial conditions, local initial conditions are preconditions to the events that the simply equation is intended to quantify; when the overlap space equals a quantum of energy, a new quantum wave is "declared". It expands, overlaps, and again becomes input to the equation for the next generation of quanta.

7) Seemingly naive mix of classical and quantum mechanics: I'm ignorant. I don't invoke GR. I don't invoke QM. I try to explain the mechanics that are governed by a set of invariant natural laws that work together without contradiction. My model is promoted as being internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, as long as the scientific community can say how they work, i.e. the mechanics at work to explain the observations and data.

8) Scientific model vs. layman enthusiast model: I have no credentials to speak of. I'm a layman science enthusiast. I don't aspire to receive recognition other that from fellow laymen science enthusiast. I don't claim to have any ideas that no one else has ever considered. I put ideas from a variety of sources into what I call a hobby-model; not much of a claim to fame, .

I rushed this post, and if any item seems worth pursuing, I'll be glad to elaborate; please let me know.

I found out I can't do equations in LaTex at ATS, so I worked up an image with the equation in it :



Vcap1 is the volume of the vertical cap R. It is divided by the volume of sphere R. Vcap2 is the volume of the vertical cap r, and it is divided by the volume of sphere r. Then, since the overlap space has energy from each parent wave, each cap is composed of energy from each parent wave, so each cap is also divided by the volume of the other sphere, and the four cap values are percentages of a total of two quanta. The new quantum is forming in the overlap space, and when the equation equals 1 (one quantum), the new expanding quantum wave is formed.

Note the line labeled H in the image is shown as h' in the equation.

Wow - how much sleep do you get???
Need a little time to go through your responses. We might need a quantum computer!!

Have a few questions about your equation.

The equation itself doesn't include all the terms in the diagram. Typically, you would define each term separately. For instance:

...... diagram

where

d = distance
h = Planck's constant
H = ?
r = radius
R = ?

As for the equation, I don't understand what the "vertical cap" is - can you give me a definition.

If "V" is the volume, I have to assume that this has a real value that can be calculated from r (radius):

For instance if r - 4 nm, then

Volume
V = 4 ⁄ 3 × π × R³
 = π ⁄ 6 × D³
 = 1 ⁄ 6 × √S³ ⁄ π
= 268.08 nm

In the equation you have 4 terms for "V" - is that meant to describe 4 dimensions of V?

Also, for it to equal 1, both sides of the equation must equal 1 because theoretically, you've already solved the equation by writing both sides with an "=" in between. For instance if I write 2 + 2 = 4, I've essentially solved the equation. So when you substitute a value of r, the total volume has to equal 1 - at least that's my understanding of what you're trying to do. In other words, the left side of an equation contains the sequence of steps, either logical or computational, from which you derive the right side of the equation. Does that make sense?
Actually, the whole thing can be setup in Wolfram MathWorld to see if we could find anything. We might do that eventually.

I understand that when the value equals 1, that you have a new "quanta" and multiple quanta forms the wave. I'm not sure about a value equaling 1 - I have to do some research on that - at the moment it's mathematics that is above my pay grade!!

So if you can give a few answers to the above, I'll do more research and ask a few people who know more about the math. I know that in QM there are only two types of mathematics: linear algebra and polynomials. Your equation appears linear. But I'm going to ask around (if you don't mind my sharing your diagram of course).

a reply to: Phantom423

In my scenario, each sphere has one quantum of energy and it doesn't matter what the radii are, as long as they are expanding spheres, and as long as each started as a quantum wave (one quantum of energy).

Here is a link I used to get the equation:
mathworld.wolfram.com...

The Wolfram page will explain the pieces of the diagram, and how to determine the volume of the lens using the pieces. There are variables that aren't used in my equation, but if different calculations are performed, they can come into play.

It quantifies the lens shaped overlap of two spheres, by showing how to calculate the volume of the two spherical caps that make up the lens. The volume of the lens is the sum of the two spherical caps.

But my equation is summing the energy in the lens, not the volume of the lens. Further, each of the two caps has energy contributed by each parent sphere. Hence the four parts on the left side; two caps times two parents.

The logic that I apply to the situation goes from there. I am trying to get the percentage of a quantum of energy that falls in the overlap space, and each percentage is volume of cap divided by volume of parent sphere. Each parent contributes energy from its sphere as the overlap progresses, and the value of the equation increases toward a limit of two quanta (but the limit will never be reached). Obviously, one quantum will occur long before that.

I hypothesize that the overlap becomes an independent expanding quantum wave when it has accumulated one quantum, and that is why, when the equation equals 1, the new expanding quantum wave has been born.

I will stand ready to add more explanation, and piece by piece the equation, trivial as it is, will make sense.

Note: I reread this and noticed I didn't explain why both sides will always be equal. For each of the four terms on the left side, there is a corresponding term on the right that calculates its value. As the radii of the two parent spheres increase, each term on the right changes in value, and so the respective term on the left is revalued correspondingly. The sum of the four terms on the left is watched as it changes, and when the sum is equal to one, the new quantum is born.

a reply to: BogieSmiles

Tell me what came before the Big Bang?

An idea.

originally posted by: BogieSmiles
Tell me what came before the Big Bang?

An other big bang.
This last big bang was just one in a long string of them, right?

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: BogieSmiles

Tell me what came before the Big Bang?

An idea.

Nothing more? Whose Big Idea was it?

a reply to: FlyersFan

Right, IMHO. But a long string is only part of my hypothesis. An infinite universe with big bangs happening here and there all the time, across the landscape of the greater universe. And each Big Bang has the same set of preconditions, i.e. two or more parent arenas expanding into each other, preceding each new one; the parent arenas overlap and producing a new Big Bang out of the matter and energy in the convergence.

Here is the video link again: youtu.be...

a reply to: Phantom423

Once you get the equation, which is trivial, there is something very interesting in the follow up discussion. The lens shaped overlap that contains an energy contribution from each parent. That energy beings to equalize it density across it space within the lens, and the lens begins to morph toward a sphere itself. That morphing lens becomes the new expanding spherical quantum wave, as in a new quantum wave withing a particle space, or a new emerging big bang arena wave in the landscape of the greater universe.

And there is another pertinent point related to the effect of equalization of energy density within the overlap space, if we ever get to it.

a reply to: BogieSmiles

When I read a book, or the words on the pages of the internet, I am decoding, what would be total randomness if I hadn't been taught the code. Its the same for all the perceived reality, because I am human, I decode and end up with the human reality, a Dog decodes and ends up with a doggy reality. So its all information coming in, and interpreted, as reality. So the reality is the conclusion, formed during the information stream. If the input code says "This is nice" or "This isn't" It doesn't mean that their is anything actually there , its just the conclusion you make of the decoded information. So their could be many realities , not requiring massive energy , to generate a reality, because all that's needed is the code.

a reply to: anonentity

Very true. I still like to think there is one reality, but the individual's perception of reality is certainly not the real one. It helps to be reminded of that once in awhile.

originally posted by: BogieSmiles
a reply to: anonentity

Very true. I still like to think there is one reality, but the individual's perception of reality is certainly not the real one. It helps to be reminded of that once in awhile.

Considering the amount of possible data streams in a Universe. We would have to start somewhere, where the stream makes sense. I guess that's why we are grounded here.