1

New Theories / The Three Infinities

« on: 06/08/2019 18:09:45 »

I have a “New Theories” submission about space, time, and energy (The Three Infinities).

Space is boundless, time is eternal, and energy is limitless. Consistent with those Infinities, the universe has always existed, and the portion that is observable to us is expanding, as evidenced by the Red Shift data. The observed Red Shift is the result of a local big bang event billions of years ago. The greater universe features recurring big bangs here and there, supporting the theory that gravity on a grand scale causes the accumulation of matter and energy into local big crunches that grow until the Crunch reaches a critical capacity, which results in a gravitational collapse/bang. Our observable expanding universe is the expanding big bang arena associated with such a collapse/bang.

2

New Theories / New Theories: Will all moving objects with mass generate gravitational waves?

« on: 19/06/2019 22:22:48 »

By "massive objects" in this context, we are talking about neutron stars and black holes.
- In their last few milliseconds, we have seen orbiting black holes (initially just kilometers apart) convert the mass of the Sun into gravitational waves.

Yes. That would explain what they refer to as “chirping” at the end of the recorded gravitational wave, and would be consistent with the gravitational waves record by LIGO.

- Howevever, even the Earth on it's orbit for billions of years has been continuously radiating about 200W of gravitational waves. The mass is much smaller, and the distance is much greater. But this radiation is too subtle for us to measure using any currently conceivable method.

Yes, that would be consistent with my acknowledgement in the OP that even very tiny events would emit gravitational waves that are unmeasurable.

- It is thought that the Big Bang would have created gravitational waves at very high frequencies, and a team in China is actually searching for these "relic" gravitational waves.

Yes, that is some of the exciting research that is going on.

So if you are looking for gravitational influences, there is nothing special about "massive" objects more than "non-massive" ones like the Earth.

Agreed, it might take a billion apples falling to the ground to make a measurable impact when it comes to the emission of a meaningful detectible gravitational wave.

But my reason for going into the “apple falling” scenario was to work my way to discussing the  “cause of gravity”. That is the reason I went on to say, “… but it seems logical that there is a “mechanism” involved, and the ever-changing dynamic of gravitational wave energy in space must be related to it. I would refer to that mechanism as the “cause of gravity” and equate it to the acceleration of objects caused by other objects in space with mass that are in relative motion.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Will all moving objects with mass generate gravitational waves?

« on: 14/06/2019 13:58:07 »

A question regarding gravitational waves:

Einstein predicted gravitational waves, and they have been detected by several large-scale interferometers, LIGO and ESA for example. The basis of the application of the interferometer apparatus to the detection of massive gravitational waves traversing space is that there is detectible energy produced by the relative motion of massive objects to each other. That is to say that the amount of energy detected as gravitation wave energy by the interferometer would come from very massive events in space like the in-swirling death spiral of two blackholes, detected as the resulting energy passes the location of the interferometer itself (the location of the observation).

Though we can detect gravitational wave energy from very massive events, isn’t it logical that any relative motion between objects with mass in space will generate gravitational waves? An example would an apple falling from a tree; wouldn’t that event produce an extremely tiny and as yet unmeasurable amount of gravitational wave energy, based on the fact that there is relative motion between the apple and earth?

4

Physiology & Medicine / What is autophagy?

« on: 30/01/2019 18:51:42 »

What is autophagy? Is fasting a healthy technique to increase your body’s autophagy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl8k2ncIQMc&t=439s

You probably know that most tissues in your body regularly replace their cells with new ones. Different organs need their own time to renew completely. And some tissues don't replace their cells at all. But have you ever wondered where the dead cells of your body end up?

Dr. Yoshinori Ohsumi, a Japanese cell biologist, spent years studying how human cells get rid of their waste. If this process in the body doesn't work correctly, a person can develop type 2 diabetes, Parkinson's disease, some age-related diseases, and even cancer. And it turned out that when you fast, your cells live longer and produce more energy!

5

That CAN'T be true! / How do you melt gold at room temperature?

« on: 30/11/2018 11:47:32 »

https://www.kitco.com/news/2018-11-29/Scientists-Succeed-At-Melting-Gold-At-Room-Temperature.html
Not available for commercial applications, but still ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=17&v=mbKuq1BAfrs

6

New Theories / What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

« on: 29/08/2018 23:41:25 »

What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

The topic of this thread and its content is intended to be kept appropriate for the hard science sub-forum, Cosmology. I will utilize the “edit” feature of the NS software to revise my posts and analytical notes as study into the topic and member comments make that appropriate.

The question, what are they saying about Quantum Gravity, is intended to be a learning experience for me, and hopefully the content will not be over the heads of us layman science enthusiasts. But let’s consider the thread open to both a general discussion on the topic, and to technical content as long as they are accompanied by comments to explain them in terms a layman can hope to understand.

Here is a Wiki link, and the opening paragraph to start things off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

“Quantum gravity (QG) is a field of theoretical physics that seeks to describe gravity according to the principles of quantum mechanics, and where quantum effects cannot be ignored,^[1] such as near compact astrophysical objects where the effects of gravity are strong.”

You see right off that this is a topic that involves theoretical physics, so it may require some technical analysis. Being an interested party, I may offer my personal analysis of and comments about linked material, but my comments are strictly layman level and are not intended to be relied on as known fact, but instead they are intended for discussion and to encourage opposing comments, corrections, and elaborations.

“The current understanding of gravity is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which is formulated within the framework of classical physics. On the other hand, the other three fundamental forces of physics are described within the framework of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, radically different formalisms for describing physical phenomena.^[2] It is sometimes argued that a quantum mechanical description of gravity is necessary on the grounds that one cannot consistently couple a classical system to a quantum one.^{[3][4]:11–12}”

Analytical note: As stated in the Wiki, QG research seeks to describe gravity in environments where quantum effects cannot be ignored, and that means where the effect (force) of gravity is strongest, and were the curvature of space must be the greatest if general relativity is the answer. But GR isn’t the answer in those environments because of known quantum effects that are not yet compatible with GR, referring to the postulates of Quantum Mechanics and the particles of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The standard model assigns the effect of gravity to the missing graviton particle. So the Standard Model and the Graviton particle will be topics that have to be better understood and reconciled in the QG discussion.

“While a quantum theory of gravity may be needed to reconcile general relativity with the principles of quantum mechanics, difficulties arise when applying the usual prescriptions of quantum field theory to the force of gravity via graviton bosons.^[5] The problem is that the theory one gets in this way is not renormalizable and therefore cannot be used to make meaningful physical predictions. As a result, theorists have taken up more radical approaches to the problem of quantum gravity, the most popular approaches being string theory and loop quantum gravity.^[6] Although some quantum gravity theories, such as string theory, try to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces, others, such as loop quantum gravity, make no such attempt; instead, they make an effort to quantize the gravitational field while it is kept separate from the other forces.”

You can see we are getting into some pretty technical material already, but I don’t think it will hurt to follow the Wiki links and get familiar with the terms and topics.

“Strictly speaking, the aim of quantum gravity is only to describe the quantum behavior of the gravitational field and should not be confused with the objective of unifying all fundamental interactions into a single mathematical framework. A theory of quantum gravity that is also a grand unification of all known interactions is sometimes referred to as The Theory of Everything (TOE). While any substantial improvement into the present understanding of gravity would aid further work towards unification, the study of quantum gravity is a field in its own right with various branches having different approaches to unification.”

That paragraph is helpful, and limits the scope of the QG topic, but still the scope is challenging. I am going back over the Wiki and its links some more, so any analysis I offer is subject to reanalysis as we go, but if you are on top of the topic, feel free to jump in anytime.

“One of the difficulties of formulating a quantum gravity theory is that quantum gravitational effects only appear at length scales near the Planck scale, around 10⁻³⁵ meter, a scale far smaller, and equivalently far larger in energy, than those currently accessible by high energy particle accelerators. Therefore physicists lack experimental data which could distinguish between the competing theories which have been proposed.^[7][8]”


That is a problem when it comes to keeping the content here in line with NakedScientist guidelines, because there isn’t yet much that is known-science when it comes to QG. I will try to keep my comments and analysis within expected parameters, and ask the any participants do the same. Let’s learn together.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why?

« on: 22/07/2018 11:10:57 »

False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why?

In my last thread, “What is Nothingness?”, the phrase “false vacuum” was mentioned over 80 times. When it comes to the science of Cosmology, it seems that the concept of a false vacuum plays a role in different models and in different circumstances. What exactly is it and in what models of cosmology does it come into play? Does it always mean the same thing, or does it mean different things depending on the model?

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is Nothingness?

« on: 11/06/2018 17:26:12 »

Opening Post:
What is nothingness?

This is a topic that comes up to help differentiate between various cosmological models. It is a topic that is discussed in regard to the explanation of the existence of the universe. Case in point, Big Bang Theory, the consensus cosmology; though BBT doesn’t address the beginning directly, it leads to discussions of a Singularity referred to as simply the Big Bang event.

One option, mentioned only in passing in this OP (not intended for discussion, but that is commonly preferred in the religious community), is that God created the universe. That isn’t considered a scientific explanation, and I’m not entertaining any discussion about the Supernatural in this thread. The Supernatural is excluded from scientific discussions on the basis that the scientific method doesn’t recognize the Supernatural.

A second explanation, and the one under which the Big Bang Singularity falls, is that the universe spontaneously was generated out of nothingness, and several proposals that might apply to that explanation are mentioned: The Singularity, Quantum fluctuations, spontaneous symmetry breaking are a few.

The third explanation is that the universe has always existed. There are various models, like the steady state models, cyclical models, and the idea referred to as the Perfect Cosmological Principle, which states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale in both space and time. That view says the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will (a steady state).

One definition of nothingness:
No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.

Does that definition of nothingness seem complete? If not, how would you change it to better express the concept of nothingness in regard to cosmology? What cosmological models address something from nothingness, and what explanation is given for such an event.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does an atomic clock count the emitted electromagnetic frequency to keep time?

« on: 20/12/2017 01:21:06 »

Question: I think that an atomic clock uses a count of the frequency of the cesium atom to establish the rate that it measures the passing of time. Is that an electromagnetic pulse that is emitted by the cesium atom at a highly exact frequency?

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is the dark matter problem solved?

« on: 09/10/2017 14:07:58 »

Is the dark matter problem now solved by finding the missing baryons? Or not?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149742-half-the-universes-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found/
Filaments of baryons between galaxies

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2139899-lhc-pops-out-a-new-particle-that-could-test-the-strong-force/
Finding the extra baryons

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What conditions qualify as a change in mass configuration in GR?

« on: 02/09/2017 17:20:23 »

This link, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#grav, says, in regard to gravity, that “From Einstein's treatment in general relativity, gravity is associated with a curvature of space-time and changes in mass configuration can produce gravitational waves.”


According to LIGO discoveries, in-swirling black holes have been shown to produce detectible gravitational waves, and the measurements confirm that gravity travels at the speed of light, so Einstein was right. What conditions qualify as a change in mass configuration, and does an apple falling from a tree produce gravitational waves of some undetectable magnitude?

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Speed of light, permittivity and permeability: Are they constants?

« on: 29/08/2017 20:31:42 »

I have a question about the three constants associated with electric and magnetic fields and their propagation, as mentioned in this link from Hyperphysics:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c3
Looking at the link, the three constants are, 1) the speed of light in a vacuum which is given and invariant, 2) the electric permittivity of free space, and the magnetic permeability of free space are the other two. Are they also always constants, or can permittivity and permeability vary relative to each other, as long as 1 divided by the square root of their product equals the speed of light?

Stated differently, is it their combined relationship relative to invariant speed of light that must remain constant, or do both values always individually remain constant in the context of the Hyperphysics link above?

13

Just Chat! / Twitter List of Science Topics

« on: 16/08/2017 20:59:11 »

On Twitter, @Bogie_smiles has a twitter list named Science, and members are all known to tweet about various issues in science. I predict that it will be an interesting list to be subscribed to and watch, especially during the eclipse. [/font]

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is there cyclic cosmology hidden in LIGO noise?

« on: 21/07/2017 16:01:40 »

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2017/jul/20/roger-penrose-asks-if-a-cyclic-cosmology-is-lurking-in-ligo-noise

Roger Penrose asks if a cyclic cosmology is lurking in LIGO noise?


Cosmological noise: signals from both LIGO detectors
Correlated noise in the two LIGO gravitational-wave detectors may provide evidence that the universe is governed by conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC). That is the claim of Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford, who is proposing that the apparent noise is actually a real signal of gravitational waves generated by the decay of hypothetical dark-matter particles predicted by CCC.


Last month, physicists at the Niels Bohr Institute pointed out that some of the noise in the two LIGO detectors appears to be correlated – with a delay that corresponds to the time it takes for a gravitational wave to travel the more than 3000 km between the instruments.


Writing in a preprint on arXiv, Penrose argues that a significant amount of this noise could be a signal of astrophysical or cosmological origin – and specifically CCC.

Infinite aeons

First proposed over a decade ago by Penrose, CCC assumes that the universe consists of a succession of aeons. Each aeon begins with a big bang and proceeds into an unending future in which the universe expands at an accelerating rate. As this expansion becomes infinitely large, Penrose argues that it can be transformed back into the next big bang.


He says that a "reasonably robust implication of CCC" is that dark matter consists of particles called erebons – the name deriving from the Greek god of darkness Erebos. As dark matter goes, erebons are extremely heavy and have masses of about 10[size=0pt]–5[/size] g. This is roughly the Planck mass and on a par with a grain of sand and about 22 orders of magnitude heavier than a proton.

Near-instantaneous impulses

Penrose says that when an erebon decays, it deposits all its energy into a gravitational wave. While such waves have frequencies well above the detection capabilities of LIGO, their arrival at the detectors would be recorded as near-instantaneous impulses that could be mistaken for noise.About the authorHamish Johnston (hamish.johnston@iop.org) is editor of physicsworld.com

15

New Theories / If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 10/05/2017 21:54:22 »

Edit 7/29/2018: Reply #390 consists of a list of the most current ISU content posts (to be updated from time to time) from which you can get the latest summary version of the ISU model: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg548324#msg548324

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg


Opening Post
The Infinite Spongy Universe Model
Introducing myself and my layman science enthusiast model of the universe

On Twitter, as Bogie_smiles, I tweet layman alternative ideas, Cosmology, multiple Big Bang landscape, wave energy density model for particles, QuantumGravity, as well as about an evolving layman science enthusiast's views of the universe that I call, "The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)". Generally the tweets are bitly links to posts on various science forums where I have discussed one topic or another. Not sure if The Naked Scientist Forum would object to that kind of activity, so I won't link to here from Twitter until I know if it is OK.

One of the things I like about Twitter is the "lists" feature, and I take advantage of it by listing "Science Sources on Twitter". The list has thousands of members, and a few followers, and it is a pleasure to click on the list and view hundreds of new science related tweets, photos, and links, every day. Though it is impossible to filter out all of the politics, special interests, religion, and daily chatting, all of the members on that list tweet about science related topics, including all areas of interest; news, views, history and perspective.

I have a question about the New Theories sub-forum. Do I have to have developed an idea to the level of a theory, with predictions and proposed tests? For example, I like the idea that "if there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs"? It is an idea for discussion, and any evidence that I think supports the idea has more generally accepted explanations, of course. Would it be appropriate for me to post on that topic?


Edit as of 10/2/2017:
I have received no objections to my posts to date, or to the Twitter links to my posts. My observation of the activity here in the New Theories sub-forum indicates that my thread is within the guidelines, and I appreciate the use of the forum to present my views on cosmology, and to update the ISU model. Also, it is worth noting that I have made use of the Science Image Gallery to host images that I have used in my various posts, and that is a convenient feature of the NakedScientists Forums.

Edit 9/16/2018
If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

On this thread we are looking at a simple layman level cosmological model based on science, logic, and speculation. Everything about it is open for discussion, comments, and opposing arguments. It is a work in progress since 2001 or so on the Internet, and has evolved over the years. There were early discussions on the Yahoo discussion boards, and then on to various science forums that permitted discussion of layman  alternative ideas, including Bad Astronomy and the Universe Today (BAUT)/CosmoQuest, TOEQuest, ATS (Above Top Secret), The Science Forum, SciForums, as well establishing a presence on Twitter under the Bogie_smiles handle, where I tweet about cosmology and quantum gravity.

The Naked Scientists Forum, http://nakedscientists.com, is the present home site for the continuing development of the model, where I am the originating poster [OP], Bogie_smiles, and where I have been a member since May 2017. During that period I have been updating the layman level model by utilizing the forum’s software feature that permits modifying previous posts on the thread.

Together, the above paragraphs, and the following content in this post, is an example of how I am utilizing that feature. The content of this post will be moved to, and included in the opening post and early posts, in due course, assuming there are no objections from management to me using that technique to keep this thread updated as an evolving version of the ISU model.   


Introducing The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)

The model is called the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model of the cosmology of the universe. That name will begin to make sense as you become familiar with the particulars of the model, and tackling the meaning of “sponginess” is a good place to start.

Why Spongy?

Spongy, or sponginess has to do with quantized energy density changes that take place on both a grand scale across the landscape of the greater universe, and on the tiny scale of the quantum action that takes place at the micro level of order. Each level has its respective action process, with the Big Bang Arena Action process governing action at the macro level, and the Quantum Action process governing the action at the micro level of order.

To state that in other words, we have changes in wave energy density that are occurring continually at both the micro and macro levels, and at each level, the action is governed by a similar action process that causes the changes in the local wave energy density to occur. The difference between levels is that at the macro level, the wave action involves multiple big bangs and big bang arena waves that play out over billions and perhaps trillions of years, as they expand and converge freely across the landscape of the greater universe, while at the micro level, the wave action involves the formation of tiny high energy density “spots” and tiny sub-quantum waves that expand and converge momentarily in the oscillating wave energy background of space.

The mention of quantization of the action processes refers to the concept that big crunches and the resulting arena waves they produce are macro level quanta, while high energy density spots and the tiny quantum waves that they produce are micro level quanta.

The discussion of the mechanics of the action taking place at both levels involves the details of quantization at each level, and how the two major quantum increments, the big crunches at the macro level and the high energy density spots at the micro level, are orchestrated by their respective action processes, into a perpetual, steady state, multiple big bang arena universe.

That points to a key feature of the model; the sameness of the action taking place at both ends of the size scale. The process of Quantum Action is the micro level counterpart to Arena Action at the macro level of order, and so there is a theme of “sameness” throughout the model.

Highlighting that theme, there is an infinite Big Bang arena landscape at the macro level that fills all space, and an infinitesimal oscillating wave energy background at the micro level that also fills all space; a duality of action at occurring at opposite ends of a spatial size scale as time passes.

Looking deeper into the mechanics at the macro level, the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe is composed of multiple big bang arenas that expand, converge, and overlap, with convergences resulting in big crunches. Big crunches in turn collapse/bang into new expanding big bang arena waves, continually appearing here and there across the landscape. Big crunches themselves are referred to as dense-state wave energy cores that accumulate at the center of gravity of the overlap spaces, that then collapse/bang into the expanding big bang arena waves. Arena waves are nature's quantized macro level equivalent to the quantum increments of wave energy that are the internal components of wave-particles and objects at the micro level.

To continue the description of the mechanics, the collapse/bangs produce arena waves that expand, mature, fill with wave-particles, that clump, forming stars, and stars internally produce heavy nuclei, as well as form into galactic structure, only to then be caught up in a new arena wave convergence with one or more adjacent expanding big bang arena waves in the local surrounding landscape.

The convergence of two or more expanding Big Bang arena waves will continue the process by producing a big crunch in the overlap space of each convergence, and those crunches will accrete galactic matter and energy from the parent arenas, growing in matter/energy content until they reach nature's “critical capacity” and collapse/bang, and on goes the sameness, perpetuating the Arena Action process.

Looking deeper into the mechanics at the micro level, the infinitesimal oscillating wave energy background is composed of multiple microwave level energy increments that expand, converge, and overlap, with the convergences resulting in high energy density spots. High energy density spots in turn generate new energy waves that expand out of the points convergence to perpetuate the oscillations across the background. High energy density spots themselves are referred to as dense-state wave energy peaks that form at the points of convergence of two or more oscillating waves, that then emerge into the surrounding space as a new waves in the oscillating background.

Oscillating waves assist the advance of more meaningful gravitational and light energy waves that are natures quantized micro level equivalent to the quantum increments of wave energy that are the big crunches and big bang arena waves that are the components of the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

So the “sponginess” of the model refers to the expansion and collapse of energy density environments at both the macro and micro levels. Arena action perpetually defeats entropy across the landscape of the greater universe, and quantum action is the causative factor in the micro level decay of arena particles from which the low entropy, hot, dense-state balls of energy emerge from big crunches as they collapse/bang.


Edit 9/18/2018

The ISU is a “From-the-Bottom-Up”, step-by-step Model

The model can be said to start with a specifying definition of nothingness:
Nothingness is no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy.

Using that definition as the “bottom”, the first step is to derive a conclusion from the definition of nothingness, and that conclusion is that it is impossible for something to come from nothing.

If the universe did not come from nothing, then how could it have had a beginning?


The answer to the question of the beginning in the ISU model is that there was no beginning, i.e., we derive the concept that there was no beginning by referring to the definition of nothingness, bringing us to the main premise of the model:

The universe as always existed.


Going step by step, the next step is to present the precising definition of universe: Universe is everything, all there is, all space, time, energy, and all of the potentials that can exist from the presence of space, time, and energy. Universe can be thought of as the opposite of nothingness.