The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?  (Read 19540 times)

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #50 on: 20/10/2010 17:44:33 »
Yes,,,,,,it looks like you agree!
I'm genuinely surprised that you could think so from reading my post. ... Just to be clear: No I do not agree.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #51 on: 20/10/2010 18:21:58 »
The mainstream has theorized that time and space began at the BB. That assumes nothing exists outside our Universe. Since we know nothing about where the energy came from to create our Universe, and it had to come from someplace, we can't claim to know anything past the fact that something supplied that energy. Since we know that certain collisions of EM creates matter why wouldn't we think the energy was electromagnetic in nature? I think it must have been an electric field compressed into a field density that would turn into protons and electrons. The field would then start decompressing, (pointing the arrow of time in only one direction) and start an expanding Universe that would appear to an observer in this Universe to be an accelerated expansion. If it was a compressed electric field where did it come from? We can never test any idea that would explain it but we can imagine scenarios that fit what I propose.

The flow rate of time with respect to an observer is not constant. It slows to a crawl near a black hole. It slows when in motion with respect to an observer. The point is that there does not appear to be any limit on how fast or slow time can move. Suppose there was another Universe where it's electrons were trillions and trillions of times larger than our entire Universe. Suppose again that two particles with the same charge inside one of that Universe's stars collides with enough energy to create the compressed electric field I referred to above. Suppose again that some entity in that larger Universe wearing a watch on it's wrist could look at that collision. The entity would see our Universe be born and die in a millionth of one of his seconds. This idea would imply there are an infinite number of Universes larger than ours and an infinite number smaller than ours.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #52 on: 20/10/2010 19:48:47 »
The mainstream has theorized that time and space began at the BB. That assumes nothing exists outside our Universe.

That's incorrect.  Theorizing that time and space began, for our universe, at the big bang, doesn't mean that nothing could exist outside of our universe.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #53 on: 20/10/2010 20:42:47 »
I agree jp, that was one point of my post.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #54 on: 20/10/2010 22:05:46 »
But it's still incorrect to claim that mainstream science says that there isn't anything outside of the universe, which is how you started your post.
 

Offline Ethos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #55 on: 20/10/2010 22:16:04 »
But it's still incorrect to claim that mainstream science says that there isn't anything outside of the universe, which is how you started your post.
That may be true today but not so long ago, that view was quite popular.................Ethos
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #56 on: 20/10/2010 23:02:06 »
Do you have a source for that claim?

I'm fairly sure that view was never popular within science, as there has never been scientific evidence or a theory that claims to answer the question of what could exist outside the universe...
« Last Edit: 20/10/2010 23:03:38 by JP »
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #57 on: 21/10/2010 02:35:41 »
jp, Duh, it's just an idea.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #58 on: 21/10/2010 02:43:12 »
But your argument was "the mainstream is wrong because it claims this," when in fact it doesn't claim that at all...
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #59 on: 21/10/2010 05:52:33 »
I wonder what "the mainstream" even is? I've never known anyone who claimed to be a mainstream scientist.

I did know of a chap who claimed to be a theoretical botanist, but I think that was just a line he used to chat-up ladies.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #60 on: 21/10/2010 09:57:48 »
I did know of a chap who claimed to be a theoretical botanist, but I think that was just a line he used to chat-up ladies.

 :D :D I bet that worked like a charm!


Ron, what do you mean by outside the universe?
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #61 on: 21/10/2010 12:36:01 »
My business card reads,

Dr. JP
Defender of the Orthodoxy
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #62 on: 21/10/2010 17:16:36 »
Ok pepper, our electrons have a diameter something like vern's. The electrons that could have created our Universe are trillions of times larger than our Universe. Our Universe is part of this other Universe except our clocks run trillions and trillions of times faster than their clocks. Universes created by our electrons or protons would have clocks that run trillions( a googolplex ) of times faster than ours.

jp, the mainstream claims the Universe has no center because space and time were created at the BB therefore nothing could exist outside our space/time.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #63 on: 21/10/2010 18:42:54 »
jp, the mainstream claims the Universe has no center because space and time were created at the BB therefore nothing could exist outside our space/time.

But that's just what I keep telling you isn't true.  Mainstream physical theories (unless you consider string theory or other theories-of-everything mainstream) describe things within our universe.  They don't try to describe what might or might not exist outside of it. 

You're attacking a straw man here.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #64 on: 21/10/2010 22:20:06 »
Whatever jp, who cares. It's not pertinent to the issue.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #65 on: 21/10/2010 23:32:03 »
It's part of your argument against "mainstream" science, even if it's not the main point.  How is it not pertinent that it's fallacious?  ???
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #66 on: 21/10/2010 23:56:35 »
Whatever jp, who cares. It's not pertinent to the issue.

Ron,

I'd remind you that you raised the point. If it's not pertinent, why did you even raise it in the first place?
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #67 on: 22/10/2010 00:03:19 »
Ron Hughes, I really appreciate you staying focused on the topic. You have asked a very good question, however,  I am not aware of anyone that can answer this with definite answers. But just for fun, I will be brief, and even now I am hesitant to post. I have written a book on "The General Theory of Relativity" and General Relativity addresses the "Big Bang" model to some degree. Now in my book I chose only to focus on what we can calculate based on current models of cosmology and what we are measuring with the WMAP experiments. And these calculations do not address what happened before the big bang or even right after the big bang.

The mainstream has theorized that time and space began at the BB. That assumes nothing exists outside our Universe. Since we know nothing about where the energy came from to create our Universe, and it had to come from someplace, we can't claim to know anything past the fact that something supplied that energy. Since we know that certain collisions of EM creates matter why wouldn't we think the energy was electromagnetic in nature?

Mainstream uses an inflationary model proposed by Alan Guth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology [nofollow])
And even in the inflationary model we can only go back so far; and can't go all the way back to the origin of the beginning. With our mathematical models we can go back to ~10^-43 seconds. Earlier than this there is currently no math model. We can theorize what happened before this time, but it would only be a theory, because mathematically we can't go back further than the ~10^-43 seconds.

Ok pepper, our electrons have a diameter something like vern's. The electrons that could have created our Universe are trillions of times larger than our Universe.

That which I call the Vernon Brown Electromagnetic Radius does predict that the electron spatially is very large relative to the spatial size or Electromagnetic Radius of the proton. However, mainstream models predict that these particles were created very much later in time than the big bang. The universe would have to have cooled down after the big bang for Leptons and Hadrons to form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang [nofollow]


Theoretical picture of when Leptons and Hadrons formed
http://www.southernmaineastronomers.org/Images/meetingPhotos/BigBang.jpg [nofollow]

Theoretical picture of when galaxies formed
http://firstgalaxies.ucolick.org/timeline.html [nofollow]

I am no expert in early big theory, but in my book the equations are there, that open the door for new ways of thinking about these concepts and making the calculations!

Best to you, and once again thanks for keeping a perspective for topic.
« Last Edit: 22/10/2010 00:10:54 by SuperPrincipia »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #68 on: 22/10/2010 00:25:53 »
Enough already.

The next poster who uses "mainstream" as a pejorative directed at those who happen to disagree with their pet theory, or who is using TNS as an opportunity for free publicity for some commercial venture (e.g. a book) will, at the very least, cause this topic to be locked.

If you have a theory that you can support with some evidence, please post it.

Fair warning.
« Last Edit: 22/10/2010 00:29:56 by Geezer »
 

Post by SuperPrincipia click to view.

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #69 on: 22/10/2010 00:28:38 »
Shrunk
Geezer, Jealousy is not becoming!
 

Post by Geezer click to view.

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #70 on: 22/10/2010 00:40:39 »
Shrunk
You're right. Verdigris is nasty stuff.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #71 on: 22/10/2010 03:09:38 »
Wow, how impressive. I'm quite certain that I can shout about the virtues of the standard model anyplace on this forum. The standard model a THEORY that had to invent the Higgs, graviton and virtual particles in order to make itself acceptable. A THEORY that doesn't have a clue as to what makes up the electron. A Theory that can't explain mass, or gravity or inertia. You can kick me out geezer because if we can't discuss alternative ideas then I don't need to be associated with this forum anyway. The truth is not here nor will it ever be.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #72 on: 22/10/2010 03:50:58 »
Ron,

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm all for exploring alternative models because I think we still have an enormous amount to learn.

I just don't think it's in any way productive to disparage the work of those who have gone before by trying to put them in a box with  prejudicial connotations. A new theory should not be established on the failing of a prior theory. It should be established on its own merits.

Personally, I happen to believe that all matter is a manifestation of energy that is somehow encapsulated in space (which may not be very different from String Theory), but, as I'm not capable of proving any of that, I can only hope that others with the right skills will unravel the problem.

Shout at the establishment if you must, but you might find it more satisfactory to collaborate - just my opinion.

However, TNS does have some rules. Please try to abide by them.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #73 on: 22/10/2010 12:01:39 »
Ron - the standard model did predict various quarks and the τ-neutrino - all of which have been experimentally verified.  the standard model is not a single theory - but a group of theories, some more tenuous than others.  proof of one theory by disparaging another is no proof at all. 
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #74 on: 23/10/2010 19:47:22 »
You a right but using that success to tell me I'm wrong is also not proof.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is there evidence that nature might not be photonic?
« Reply #74 on: 23/10/2010 19:47:22 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums