Evolutionary cosmology

  • 66 Replies
  • 33170 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« on: 28/11/2007 00:53:07 »
As always, if you Google something you find a lot of references for a pair of words so its best to define them first.  Evolutionary Cosmology is an idea that is now being looked at by a small number of reputable philosophers and cosmologists.  I am also particularly interested in it and have been so for many years well before others went public on it so I thought I might put some of my ideas together here.

It starts from the fact that the "big bang" cosmology has several loose ends notably what caused it and what was going on before that.

It is observed that laws of physics are very finely balanced to allow atoms, nucleosynthesis, and life to form and have certain similarities with the way things are finely balanced in a living ecosystem so what if universes spawn other universes and evolve in a physical way?

So evolutionary cosmology looks at the processes that might allow this to happen. Tries to understand what physical evolution might mean and tries to put this together in a model that fits current physical knowlwdge in a way that the whole process might be tested and verified.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2007 18:18:21 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #1 on: 28/11/2007 00:59:10 »
This is just the first note in what I hope to be several notes that cover my thinking on this topic.  Cosmology by its nature is a very big subject and a mixture of philosophy and cosmology more so. and I am finding it difficult to decide exactly where I should start. so before getting down to the main detail I will try to give brief overview of my underlying thinking

Strict scientists may say that a lot what I am planning to present here is not science, but in reply I will say that science progresses by asking questions performing experiments and making models and then proving them.  Many of the questions that one asks come out of the experiments. but every so often it is a good idea to stand back from the "coal face" and look at the bigger picture to formulate some new questions to ask because it is the questions we ask that determine the way we progress.

AS a scientist and a professional innovator for my whole working life I have often done this to a considerable degree of success. One of the reasons that took early retirement was to be able to concentrate on my studies of evolutionart processes in what I originally called "Evolutionary Philosophy"  then "Evolutionary Metaphysics" and now "Evolutionary cosmology"  You can find more about this by looking at my website which is accessed via my profile
« Last Edit: 28/11/2007 08:47:54 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #2 on: 28/11/2007 01:03:54 »
Introduction To Evolutionary Cosmology

When mankind first started to become self aware and tried to understand the world that it inhabited.  Everything seemed to be so perfectly organised and fitting together that its origins could only be put into the hands of some sort of supernatural designer.  For more than one hundred years scientists have been well aware that this was not the case.  Life and man evolved from simple beginnings because the conditions were right.  We are now starting to understand that life as a whole also possesses some properties that control its conditions and enable this evolution to be effective and this increased understanding will be the task for the next century.

Looking at our universe (the entire limits of what we may observe and what can affect us) as a whole we have been able to discover, understand and model a great deal about the way everything works and find a remarkably similar situation in the physical laws and structures that define our universe to those experienced by early civilisations starting to understand the world. That is everything seems to have been carefully designed and planned to allow life to exist. 

Note I say OUR universe advisedly because there are many reasons to believe that there may be many universes in what is best called the overall multiverse. 

Some people would see no problems in this and look to a Creator God and look no further.

Science has produced its favoured model currently called "the Big Bang" that describes the hot beginning and quite accurately shows the development of the universe into the form we see today.  However this model leaves a great deal to be desired and has some serious "loose ends"  for example what happened before the big bang to cause it?  And why does quantum mechanics suggest also that the universe as well as being very large to us must also be a very small place because "entangled" particles really do make their minds up about what they are when their condition is detected even after long great distances and long periods.

One of the greatest thinkers of our time Fred Hoyle was very dissatisfied with this and using the information available in the 1950s produced a simple "Continuous Creation cosmology"  to try to produce a more complete theory but this was proved not to work but the proving of it resulted in a much greater knowledge of the evolution and structure of our evolving universe.  Note  Fred Hoyle also produced the original work on the Big bang  so despite being ridiculed for his failed cosmology which he said at the time was at least disprovable unlike many current theories. 

So to conclude this introduction I now propose a cosmology that takes all existing observations and models as given but this is part of an overall process that has evolved over many generations whereby universes spawn other universes and so on.

In this case the most probable universe that we will find ourselves in is one that is able to spawn other universes.

The most likely candidate for other universes being spawned by our univere are what we call black holes.

To take this further we need to consider how our big bang may have originated in the collapse of a black hole.

And how black holes in our universe may originate other universes.  This means predicting what may happen inside the event horizon of a black hole.

There is one other less obvious thing that we will need to sort out that is we require a universe that is scale free and or /fractal.  That is very large and very small at the same time.  All universes spawn other universes as often as possible.  Our universe which is friendly to life is only one of an indefinite number of universes many of which are also friendly to life but with which we are not able to communicate.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2007 09:55:49 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 20602
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #3 on: 28/11/2007 01:59:01 »
Ian..speaking from a practicality point of view .......Before you get started......(and I speak for us all that we can't wait to see your words and thoughts, ideas and postulations).......Is it worth asking you as to whether you wish responses to your posts in this thread ?...we don't want to interrupt the flow of things and we all know so well how easy a thread can get side-tracked !!............so would you prefer we leave you to post away and then perhaps ..when you have concluded.....you might then invite questions/debate ?
« Last Edit: 28/11/2007 02:10:06 by neilep »
Men are the same as women, just inside out !

*

another_someone

  • Guest
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #4 on: 28/11/2007 03:33:56 »
I have written all my notes in plain text offline and dont seem to be able to post them here

I would have thought that if they are plain text, then simply cutting and pasting would be the best way of doing it.

It could be that if it is too long a post, that the server is timing out or reaching an upload limit.  I have hit that problem myself before, and have either split the post up into several smaller posts, or have simply posted a single dot, and then gone back and edited the post to add the real text I wanted (if you hit the 'modify' button at the top of the post, you will hit the same limits as when you tried to post originally, but if you hit the quick modify button (this is the icon to the right of the 'report to moderator' link at the bottom right of the post), then it does not seem to have the same limits applied.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #5 on: 28/11/2007 08:52:48 »
I found the problem.  I mentioned a website address in the text and it would not let me post it.  No problems with replies I would like some interaction on the topic. would I hope to post one or two longer notes in the next few days but I have already posted some of this stuff here anyway.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #6 on: 28/11/2007 09:07:52 »
I think that the most difficult concept is that of scale invariance. A black hole that is contained by gravity is a bit like a Tardis  from the inside you cannot see out and so it essentially looks infinite.  so in theory it is possible for a small black hole to contain a universe that appears as big as ours to its inmates to be hidden within it.

The next funny thing about gravity is that if you are in a state of free fall you are essentially unaware of any static gravitiational fields around you unless they are changing with distance or time and there are other objects to observe that are being affected by the changing field.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2007 09:09:46 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #7 on: 28/11/2007 09:19:19 »
If you read about string theory you will find that a lot of apsects of it have an amazing reciprocal symmetry in that there are identical cases  where the you can replace x with 1/x and get exactly the same results ie as one gets amaller the other gets bigger so as the material; in the black hole collapses down towards a "singularity" other dimensions are forced to increase.

The mathematicions would put it that the space time dimensions of the universe are hyprcomplex.  That is they involve (a special form of) complex numbers which should be familiar to anyone who has done science and engineering where they are often used to help out the mathematics of reciprocal processes wher the numbers head off to infinity.  Remember your poles and zeros.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2007 09:57:54 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #8 on: 28/11/2007 10:59:00 »
Physical evolution.

The next thing to talk about is what I mean by physical evolution.

Consider a gas, plasma or even a quark gluon plasma like that that existed very early on in the big bang the individual particles just interact briefly and go on their way it looks very uniform and simple.  Any process that enables the particles to join together in groups for a longer period will cause structure to appear and any process that does this and at the same time helps other particles to join into groups will be even more favoured.  This would allow the material to "evolve" into a more complex state than just the individual particles.

Well that depends on the physical laws you may ask and so has in some way "pre ordained".
Well maybe not. Remember initially these processes are determined by quantum mechanics. At high energies quantum mechanical uncertainty is very high and the more finely detailed properties of particles and atoms are just not visible. 

The cosmologists and particle physicists talk of spontaneous symmetry breaking.  As a first thought they assume that this process must be random but it is possible that the dice may be slightly loaded by the potential that lies beneath in the way that water flows over an uneven river bed  there could be a tendancy to prefer directions that lead to processes that are more complex and tend to persist more than another that direction will be favoured.  This could push the universe into "choosing" laws that enable complexity at every level.

« Last Edit: 16/10/2014 10:27:17 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #9 on: 15/12/2007 10:15:04 »
This last idea, that, persistent structures in low energy processes could slightly skew the "random" options chosen by high energy processes as they are settling down.  I feel is a very innovative thought and could be subject to modelling and investigation in our normal physical world. 

For example we all know that water flowing over a bed of sand does not do this uniformly in a straight line but forms various sorts of evolving patterns dependant on the rate of flow and the slope.  these patterns will change radically if you introduce even slight changes in the underlying structure.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2007 10:53:16 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #10 on: 19/01/2008 09:23:29 »
This is an early statement of my thinking reposted from my website and gives some useful background on the ideas that I am trying to get over

Evolutionary Philosophy
An Initial Statement of the Broad Principles

By Ian Kimber, 27th December 1999

Introduction

This note is aimed to be a simple statement of the thesis that I wish to present in these web pages. This presentation is stripped almost bare of description and example. It is unsupported by proofs. It is also not presented in the context of other people's work. This no doubt exists and I am aware of some strongly linked elements that I will cover in later notes but to my knowledge no one expresses the thoughts in quite the same way that I do. However I doubt if my concepts are truly original and will be happy to receive feedback from others who think along similar lines who have good references to other work on the topic. I will also be happy to defend and modify my ideas in the light of criticism from those who think that I am wrong in my approach.

Please therefore excuse me for this rather bald and direct statement moment. I feel quite strongly that I must get this down on paper. I propose to fill in the details and analyse the nuances later.

What I am proposing transcends (or overlays) the laws of physics and mathematics but of course is quite happy to accept them as they are validated. It requires no metaphysics or "supernatural" processes because everything that happens is by definition natural. As well as applying in our particular "universe" I believe that the principles of Evolutionary Philosophy will apply in ANY universe. I am sorry to sound "big headed" but I feel that the point must be made emphatically.

 

The Basic Principle

Let us assume a dynamic (i.e. changing as a result of energy flow) universe with some initial starting condition and a set of consistent and reasonably continuous physical laws that exists within (multidimensional) space-time continuum over a very wide range of scales.

Let us assume an "observer" (that is also part of this universe) situated somewhere away from the extreme ends of the many orders of magnitude space-time scales that are available. i.e. somewhat similar to us (of course!)

The most "observable" features of any universe will be those that tend to persist through the time scale of the observation or change at rates reasonably well matched to the duration and resolution of the observation. I appreciate that this statement has elements of tautology but haven't thought of a better way of expressing it yet.

Events that are observed will be those that are matched to this observation time. Events that happen on a much shorter time scale will be less "observable" unless something happens to extend the time over which they may be observed. Note: I think that at this stage the word time could equally well be replaced with the more general expression space-time.

It follows that interaction processes that extend this space time observability of what would otherwise be brief interactions to bring them within the range of the observer will be favoured over those that do not. There may very many possible types of brief interaction although only a few will possess this potential extension in spacetime.

There is also the opportunity for very many possible interactions in the time leading up to the operation of the observer. It is therefore to be expected that the observable interactions are likely to demonstrate a high degree of what might be called "natural selection"

In other words the observable structure of the universe will appear well fitted to the structure of the observer! This is another way of looking at the well known Anthropic Principle making it not a cause for mystery but an obvious feature of any universe with its matched observer. It would be far more surprising if this was NOT the case! And mankind had structures and components that were significantly different from the universe around. for example if we were metallic and silicon robots with many rotary joints that manufactured ourselves in factories but were otherwise very similar in our thinking processes and supported by an ecology identical to that currently on the earth the hand of an external "creator" would be pretty obvious!

Let us now consider the likely nature of some of these, time-extending structures.

A structure in the universe that lasts and repeats itself in a cyclic manner is much more likely to be an observable feature of an evolving universe. This is because cyclic or oscillatory processes extend the period of interaction between the fundamental laws and structures. They also extend the period within which the universe may interact with them and give the opportunity for "evolution". Cyclic processes are therefore most likely to dominate in the observable features in the universe just because they extend the time period over which they may be observed. From this follows the existence of atoms and their main constituents and most of the features of our observable universe extending in scale up to planets, stars and galaxies in orbits defined by gravity.

There are however other structures that must not be ignored. These are "open ended" structures that are associated with the flow of energy. For example the ripples in sand when it is blown by the wind. It is quite likely that structures at the most basic quantum levels may be better described in terms like these

Other features within the universe will interact with and affect these long-lived oscillatory processes. Some of these will be tend to be disruptive and some stabilising and reinforcing. If the disruptive processes dominate the structure will not persist long but if the stabilising processes dominate the process will evolve to an optimum position as defined by its external influences. If these external influences change, the equilibrium will shift.

This fundamental "law" applies to EVERYTHING IN OUR UNIVERSE and governs the development of complexity from the physical nature of our world, and the workings of life. However I hold that it extends further than this. The same processes apply to the development of our language communication and understanding through to the structures within our governments, our choice of clothes to wear and jokes to tell. In fact it is so important that I would go as far as to say it is likely to be the nearest thing to a scientific definition of "GOD" as we are likely to get in this evolutionary universe! It describes the fact that within any dynamical physical system with sufficient degrees of freedom complexities will develop and evolve. The rules for this development and evolution are also relatively simple although the outcomes are complex and multivalued.

If the starting values were slightly different the universe would have a radically different structure. But rest assured alternative complexities appropriate to the structure would develop. We are no more likely to be able to predict the details of these complexities than we could predict our own detailed structure from the physical laws that have conspired to create us!

An Important Development

At first sight I expect my opening words on Evolutionary Philosophy to be greeted as a statement of the obvious. "What’s all the fuss about" I hear you say "we’ve been well aware of this for centuries and this is built right into the depths of most of the world’s religions."

My reply is that mankind is now only just starting to understand the science of "complexity" and within a few years we will be able to model and predict the relatively simple rules that govern the behaviour of complex systems accurately enough to make useful decisions (within the limits of their predictability of course). But even now I believe that the understanding of a few simple outcomes from this process can be vitally important. It can help our current complex society to survive long enough to achieve the collective wisdom to ensure a very long survival for the intelligence and self awareness that has evolved naturally upon this planet.

The most important and general outcome of this process is a modification of our understanding of the evolutionary process itself. This is often visualised as a totally competitive process in which the survival of the fittest is the only driving force. Behind this driving force there also lies an important element of co-operation, because if the predator eats all the prey it will itself starve to death! Like weather systems this underlying steering force produces and maintains the robustness and flexibility of properly evolved systems.

 

Developing A Philosophy

This single concept alone is not quite enough to create the basis of a total philosophy. Some additional items are needed to link it more firmly into human thinking these items form the basis of an evolutionary theory of knowledge and communication (language).

In this initial presentation there is not space to go into detail but put simply they are based on the concepts of modelling as a means of understanding the world and symbols as an essential part of communications.

 

Modelling

The creation of mathematical models of complex physical situations as an aid to understanding how they will interact and predicting what will happen is commonplace in this technological world but it has been around for a long time in the most basic mental processes in plants and animals. The brain appears to be a most remarkable tool for the creations of models of the world around us. I can easily illustrate this by discussing our sensory experiences. Look at any object in front of you and then reach out and touch it. The object appeared to you as solid and existing in space and when you touched it its existence was confirmed and it behaviour (for example moving when pushed) was reflected in what you saw. However this "reality" must have existed entirely within your mind as a model of your surroundings created for "you" by your brain because apart from the act of touching it all that happened was light falling on the object was reflected by it and entered your eyes.

Symbols

When we wish to communicate with others we use symbols usually in the form of words. These symbols have no intrinsic value in themselves but have been agreed beforehand by usage and have values based purely on our own experience. Very few of these symbols can be proved or handled precisely like numbers and scientific measurements. Most of them like "house" and "fly" are a product of our experience and the context within which they are used with sufficient commonality to others to provide a basis for communication but are full of pitfalls if absolute precision is essential. Fortunately very few things in an Evolutionary Philosopher's world are (or need to be) precisely defined.

Mankind’s place in all of this

The most important thing to remember that mankind is in absolutely no way special but a totally minor (and expendable) part in all of this. That includes our place in the global ecosystem. If we are to follow these principles it is our right and duty to ensure that we maximise our joint (but not necessarily our personal) longevity

What I propose to show

These simple starting points can lead to a philosophical bridge between science and religion that maximises the positive and creative aspects of both of these forces and minimises the divisive and destructive elements that also exist in both of them. Because of its nature it cannot give precise advice on individual action. In fact it tells us anyone who believes that there is only one course of action is by definition wrong!

Evolutionary diversity requires us to have several courses of action operational simultaneously so that should the current course be prevented by an unexpected catastrophe. Alternative survival routes exist that circumvent the catastrophe
« Last Edit: 19/01/2008 09:37:00 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #11 on: 07/03/2008 11:37:45 »
Quantum Gravity Angular momentum and String theory.  The roots of evolution

Most of the best models that lead towards a theory of everything are now based on simple structures with finite dimensions ie strings or membranes.  These give a vast range of possibilities but unfortunately the structure of the strings themselves is essentially arbitrary or given.

This is a bit unsatisfactory because however you look at it we live in a physical universe that has physical properties even though quantum mechanics has some counterintuitive aspects.  The first quantum mechanics tried to come to a model of simple quantum structures using a semi classical approach and showed that the matter wavelength of an electron orbiting a hydrogen atom was effectively a resonant structure.

I feel that we must not be afraid of thinking like this about gravity even if we know we are going to have to quantise it later.

It is interesting to note that Planck's constant is a measure of angular momentum and I suggest that it is angular momentum and not gravity that is the ultimate creator of our universe.

Any collapsing body containing angular momentum (including black holes as has been proved by Kerr)will settle down into a state with finite dimensions defined by its angular momentum.  ie it CANNOT collapse into a "singularity" this is a cop out used by a lot of books to avoid thinking about an awkward topic.

However there is another group notably Roger Penrose  (a very significant thinker in this area) that looks at "spin networks" ie vortexes containing angular momentum.

We are aware of the potential for "gravitomagnetic" waves  (sometimes called gravity waves) and have equations that describe their form and propagation.  Let us now consider a piece of collapsing and rotating space time on the Planck scale as a simple classical physical object model it and think how it would behave we might get a small string like vortex or a toroidal smoke ring with angular momentum in all dimensions let us now consider quantising this structure as a resonant space time entity.  What do we get?

Unfortunately I don't know because I haven't got the mathematical skills to do the modelling but I know someone out there probably has and may already have done this.

OK one of the first reposts is  likely to be  "you can't separate your vortex or smoke ring from the rest of space-time this is always the problem with quantum gravity". however let us assume that we have incredibly dense space time and energy let us look at the classical physical properties of any structure that could emerge and persist for a significant length of "time"  (I put time in inverted commas because remember we are dealing with space-time)as opposed to the transient noise. 

This could be a good start for an evolutionary process that leads to our universe and a theory of everything.








« Last Edit: 07/03/2008 11:53:39 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #12 on: 10/03/2008 13:46:26 »
This is a very interesting topic. It was while reading Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' that something in his writing jogged a thought. I can't remember what the words were exactly, but it basically made sense to me that what we see in our universe must be a 'reflection' or a corollary of the basic foundations of it. So, where we see mirror symmetry, there must be a fundamental reason for that symmetry. It follows that, as the universe in which we live 'creates', then the impetus for creation must lie as a fundamental basis of it (the very fact that it came to be is an 'act' of creation). That we are conscious, that we know consciousness, is an interesting thought in that context. And, that we have memory is another consideration (and DNA is itself a form of molecular 'memory').

One of the other thoughts that came from Hawking's book was the idea of all the energy (positive and negative) in the universe adding mathematically to zero (the positive cancelling out the negative). So that, in effect, the universe exists in it's entirity as....well, nothing (I don't think that he said that, but I saw that as the natural corollary of that thought).

As you say, strictly speaking this is probably not science, but I believe that such discussion is necessary. It is, surely, only through trying to understand and conceptualise that we can begin to form theories.(but to remember to do so within a framework of what we know and can show experimentally - not just whacked out ideas that drop dead at the most cursory investigation).

A question that came to mind was in relation to time, and particularly the relative nature of time. Why would our existences be relative? Maybe because each point in the universe as we experience it is notionally the centre of that universe. How could this be? Asking that question one comes to the true question. How could it not be? The universe cannot have any 'edge', it cannot have a boundary, for what would exist outside of space/time? What would encompass it? So, whatever the nature of the dimension(s) by which we understand time it must be such that it almost 'inverts' our general perception of space. It must be such that each point is the centre. But, we also interact with the rest of these centres, we are not each individual universes (or are we?). So this dimension(s) must be both underlying and over-arching (which makes perfect sense anyway - after all, is 'width' over-arching or underlying compared to say 'height'?).

Another facet of this dimension would be, imo, that it would be 'looped', and by that notion would we find 'memory', would we find rhythm.

This got me thinking about another question, regarding the proven concept (again to do with relativity) that we perceive time differently depending upon  our circumstance. This rather points to time being a process of dimensional space, one that we perceive through our interaction in the non-spatial (in our experience) dimension(s). Imagine that the 'temporal' dimension is not only 'looped', but crosses over itself - and that this crossover is what creates (through a 'reverse' flux) what we know as matter. The 'forward' flow would be what we perceive as the passage of time, and so would be dependent upon our 'reverse' motion within it. Any energy expended in the medium of matter (as we know it), any motion (including the waveform motion that makes up that matter) would be experienced as a slowing in time. The greater the mass of an object, the more energy, the greater the effect on time.

This would explain the nature of gravity (the force of 'forward' energy 'pushing' against the flow of matter), and the bending of "space-time". This crossover would also be the symmetry breaker. So, no need to look for a graviton or a Higgs Boson, the interactions of both of these 'particles' would actually be a fundamental process of the form of the 'temporal' dimension(s).   

*

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #13 on: 10/03/2008 14:01:53 »
What it might also do, this crossover, is engender the particulate nature of our universe. Where this crossover occurs there will be a 'friction' of the 'reverse' flux against the 'forward' flow. Thinking of such constants as the speed of light, Planck's constant etc., there is a probability that this 'temporal' dimension is finite in some way(s). By this process(the crossover) would the flow of time constantly 'stutter', briefly 'fixing' multi-facted energy flows (the waveform nature of matter) into a particulate nature - perhaps even briefly and temporarily dissociating the 'particle' from it's waveform nature.

Sorry to ramble. It is just a conceptual proposition, and I would be interested in any ideas of how one could test such. Or even if you have any questions or suggestions (other than STFU  [:I]).

There is more, but for now, I must return to work.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #14 on: 10/03/2008 23:23:38 »
I have just finished watching the channel 4 programme on Stephen Hawking and ideas about the theory of everything and was rather dissapointed in the slowness and lack of real detail.  I appreciate that it was a general interest programme but feel that they could have got a bit more depth into it.  Stephen did at one point talk about the evolutionary processes that shaped universes but did not go into any details about how he saw them working other than the bland operation of physical laws.

It is only when we get to understand properly the emergent properties of the operation of the basic laws of physics that we will be able to do proper modelling of universes
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #15 on: 25/05/2008 15:23:44 »
The expert that appears to have views closest to my personal ways of thinking is Lee Smolin and I thoroughly reccommend his book  The Trouble with Physics.

He is quite interested in the possibility that the physical "laws with which we are very familiar have "evolved" in some way to become what they are today.

When the big bang was very young and everything was a lepton/quark /gluon plasma the lower energy laws were completely overwhelmed and essentially invisible because of the high energy of the particles however the particle interactions are statistical ant there is a spread of energies and there are always a few particles around with quite low energies now if any of these interact in a way so as to create and or catalyse more stable longer lived states than the very brief individual particle reactions (phase transitions, symmetry breaking events  as alternative names for the process) there will be a process of selection which will make the freezing out of new physical laws close to the values which favour these interactions.  This is the route by which I think that the physicallaws of out universe may have evolved.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #16 on: 27/06/2008 00:39:36 »
Today's "New scientist"  has an interesting short article about some interesting work by Stephen Hawking that seems to have some bearing on this thinking.  They are working backwards from what we have today to try to identify the string theory models that have the best fits to the origins of our universe and trying to understand the inflationary period in terms of quantum processes where all the alternative possibilities have to be considered summed up and the most probable found.  At first it appeared improbable that our universe would appear because of the options there are not many big universe solutions and we appear to be in a big universe. However when you consider that the bit of the universe that we can see probably represents a very tiny fraction of the whole universe and we might as well be anywhere in this vast volume it looks much more likely that any arbitrary chunk of space would be in a big universe because they effectively dominate all the space that is avaiable. 

Clearly this would also apply to time long lived universes have more time avaiable than short lived ones.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #17 on: 06/07/2008 10:38:01 »
Soul Surfer,

Quote
Science has produced its favoured model currently called "the Big Bang" that describes the hot beginning and quite accurately shows the development of the universe into the form we see today

I have just read your posts in this thread and you indeed have an incisive mind of profound thinking.

I have often wondered how could the disorder of the explosive big bang result in the beautiful order we now see in our universe.

An exploding bomb by analogy never reassembles itself into order again.

Or am I missing something?

Regards

Alan

The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #18 on: 08/07/2008 23:59:11 »
The "big bang"  was not explosive and disordered!  It was amazingly even everywhere an ordered totally unlike an explosion. It is true it was very fast but it was not very turbulent. The extreme smoothness of the cosmic microwave background shows this very clearly.  It took several generations of measuring equipment wit progressive increases in precision to find any variation in it.

The order that we see in the universe is the result of recycling processes.  Gravity pulls things together but a very specific mass range becomes stars which create elements that when they are spilt out into the void as these stars age and die help to create more stars and so on.

on this planet several critical cycles of carbon water and nitrogen allow life to use solar energy to replicate itself. 

recycling processes are critical for most structure in the universe so it seems very likely that in extremis the enabling of recycling processes probably shapes the physical laws themselves
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #19 on: 09/07/2008 21:13:02 »
I see!! Thank you the argument of an explosive chaotic beginning that I mentioned is the argument used by fundamentals to discredit even the Big Bang theory.

Nothing of science with ever satisfy them only "nonscience" e.g non -science, "Non-sense"
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #20 on: 27/10/2008 23:22:19 »
There have been several interesting articles in the scientific press which show progress towards my way of thinking.

The october issue of Scientific american suggests that quantum gravity theorists have suggested thatthere are strong suggestions that the big bang expansion originated from a process of collapse in which the universe effectively turned itself inside out similar to many earlier theories of osscilatory universes.  Unfortunately observational evidence is against this sort of thing happenig to our universe as a whole.  However the article fails to not that we do have collapsing an isolating structure within our universe  in the form of black holes.

The November issue of Scientific American talks about out of equilibrium thermodynamics showing the development of structured order out of a supposedly chaotic system.  This is one of the important evolutionalry cosmolgy processes in which long lived ordered states emerge from energy flows as the universe expands.  this is a far cry from the current visualisation of random symmetry breaking rathe likr the universe crystallising out of the initial high temperature high density states.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #21 on: 27/10/2008 23:38:34 »
I am still looking for help with modelling the classical aspects of a gravitational collapse of material inside a rotating blackhole or references to someone who has tried to do it.

My theory is that the collapse will initially heat up but then slowly "cool down" as the photons and particles settle down into spiral orbits on a toroidal surface when viewed from "outside" however when the process is viewed from the position of a particle in one of the spiral free fall orbits gravitational and relatavistic space distortion and time dilation will result in the particles experiencing a largely flat and smoothly expanding universe very much like the big bang.

If this idea works it has some amazing possibilities because it means that our universe is simultaneously large and small at the same time, has both real and imaginary dimensions the real ones are the ones we are familiar with and the imaginary dimensions are those of the orbiting string like particles.  This could also explain some of the weirdness of quantum mechanical entanglement.  All without the need to finally decide on exactly how to quantise gravity.
« Last Edit: 27/10/2008 23:40:08 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #22 on: 26/11/2008 19:22:59 »
Here is a rewriting of some of the basic concepts I have just posted in a discussion on the main cosmology page.


I have in general no dispute with the interpretations and models of any of the generally accepted scientific theories.  My main concern is that most of them are pushing the limits of what can ever be measurable by experiment (for example the LHC)or modelled by theory (for example the vast number of alternative string theories)  I therefore feel from my experience that the time has come to look at the problems of basic physics and cosmology in a new way.  There are several other good workers in this field notably Roger Pernrose from the mathematics end and Lee Smolin from the cosmological end who I consider are well worth reading,  but in general my ideas are my own and not dependant on other people.  I just look to other workers to help illuminate my thinking.

Let me state first that I am a retired professional scientist and innovator with a good record of success in this field for commercial purposes, who took early retirement with the intention of pursuing my studies further.

Having to innovate to solve problems in many different areas has taught me that when an area is becoming "clogged upwith expertise"  the best way is to stand back from the growing point thing broadly and across disciplines and try to set off in a new direction.

Now let me get back to giving a brief exposition of the roots of my thinking. 

You can read more of my writings in the "Evolutionary Cosmology"  topic in the New theories  area of this forum and I will post this there as well later.

Ever since I was a child back in the 50s reading scientific texts (I grew up during the big bang/ continuous creation argument)  I have always believed that  the universe would turn out to be bits of screwed up energy and/or space time such that both of the basic concepts of the big bang (observation) and continuous creation (logical thinking) were true.

My opinion is that Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest theoreticians at the time, was very unjustifiably maligned for proposing a disprovable cosmological theory based on the theoretical principle that at the greatest possible scale of space and time the universe cannot change, only the local conditions (our observable universe) can change.  Sadly like a determined biblical creationist he chose to have his static universe visible and defended it to the end.  (a common human failing in many areas!)

More recently I have felt that the broad concepts of evolution and emergence would also have a big part to play in cosmology.  other workers are looking at the possibility that the physical laws may change in extremis and there is a general acceptance that at the absolute extremes of energy all interactions become of a similar magnitude

The zero point energy is an important part and is now generally accepted as having some sort of reality implying that underlying the cold quiet of space there is a vast and almost infinite pool of energy. a My thinking has a partial explanation how this might be.  (ther poem, if it is correctly attributed is very interesting  I have never come across it before)

Quantum mechanical uncertainty is well accepted is also a vital part of evolutionary cosmology This states that  momentum and position  are linked so that the more accurate the position the less accurate the momentum,  similarly energy and time are also linked so the more accurately you know the timing of anything the less accurate is the energy.  This means that at very high energies and in very small spaces all the physical laws become blurred and less accurately observed statistically.  This is a bit like the way that the enegy of an individual molecule in a gas is variable because of its interactions with other molecules but has a statistical value.  It is a process that allows the physical laws to settle out as the temeperature falls from extreme heights

Basic cosmological theory suggests universes should form evolve and die in various ways. Many theoreticialns visualise the unchanging universe  (sometimes referred to as the bulk)It is also logical to say that all possibilities at any type are universes  so new universes should form from existing universes in a complex multiverse.   Our vast visible universe is just a tiny part of one of them.

Are there any occasions when our own universe might be creating new universes? one clear possibility is the formation of black holes which are virtually totally detached from our universe leaving only a paowerful and eventually slowly decaying gravitiational field.

Now most writers dismiss what goes on inside black holes as a collapse to a mystical point singularity requiring some form of unknown quantum gravity and promptly forget about them.  This is clearly not true.  Firstly, all black holes must initially be rotating probably at rates very close to the maximum possible the conservation of angular momentum and the relative smallness of black holes ensures that.

Now let us consider what might happen inside a classical black hole as it collapses by using simple classical physical analysis.

Firstly a black hole is loke a tardis bigger on the inside than outside because if you send light out in any direction it gets bent back and comes back to the collapsing structure.  Let us initially assume that this structure is spherical.  As it collapses it heats up  ie the particles get more and more energy and as they collide with each other more and more particles can be created from this energy and none of this energy can escape so the energy density can rise very quickly.  The rotatinal energy will also be shared out among the particles so that eventially the shape will migrate from being a sphere to being a rotating torus which will continue to collapse and heat up more.  Residual angular momentum in the two remaining directions will then show itself so the collapse will continue to become a gravitationally bound toroidal membrane of finite size but negligable thickness particles can still interact to create more particles but eventually the energy will be shared out evenly so that all the particles are moving in the same direction at almost the same speed (very very close to the velocity of light) ie although they are very "hot" because they are orbiting in the membrane with a very high energy they are cool with respect to each other because they are all moving coherently with respect to each other.

What then would "the universe" look like to a particle in its orbit as they cool down with respect to each other. Firstly because of the extreme speed and gravity, conventional time has virtually stopped.  Secondly also because of the high energy the particles are extremely contracted in their direction of motion.  Remember that as the paricles are essentially in orbit they do not "feel" the forces that hod them in orbit. It is my sugestion that this "cooling down" process could look very well look like the big bang to the individual particles creating what is in effect an expanding flat universe.

This idea may well prove to be wrong just like Fred Hoyle's idea of continuous creation but it has a lot if similarities to how the string theorests describe the universe.



Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #23 on: 12/02/2009 19:16:55 »
I have just come across some additional information on relatavistic rotational gravitational collapse which suggests that things may collapse along an axis rather than spherically.  This may require a bit of a rethink
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #24 on: 13/02/2009 12:02:00 »
Soul Surfer

Quote
My opinion is that Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest theoreticians at the time, was very unjustifiably maligned for proposing a disprovable cosmological theory based on the theoretical principle that at the greatest possible scale of space and time the universe cannot change, only the local conditions (our observable universe) can change.  Sadly like a determined biblical creationist he chose to have his static universe visible and defended it to the end.  (a common human failing in many areas!)

I agree that Fred Hoyle was a great physicist and theoretician, just as bright as Hawking. He explained how the sun produced energy etc.

Evolutionary cosmology is an interesting concept. Seeds of a new universe contained in a black hole of another, maybe manifesting itself as a white hole or creation singularity in a new universe.

All speculation
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #25 on: 18/05/2009 23:16:42 »
I don't think that it needs to be speculation.  The initial collapse of a rotating black hole inside its event horizon is analysable using purely classical relativistic theory and it will take some time to happen.  The mathematicians have all rushed off to the theoretical limit and said that they can't understand it without quantum gravity instead of trying to work more slowly on what they can understand even though it is very complex.

Have you considered that as a rotating body collapses its angular momentum is conserved but its rotational energy increases (without limit if you allow things to head towards a singularity) because of the release of gravitational potential energy and this could result in the creation of a lot more particles also from the point of view of the particles that are in orbit and continually accelerating towards the velocity of light time slows down so everything is likely to start looking bigger rather than smaller if you measure things by your time and the velocity of light.

This could mean that you might be able to build a universe as big as ours inside a stellar mass black hole!  Some of the inflationary cosmologies consider the possibility that the whole universe grew from something relatively small by the release of vast quantities of potential energy as it turned into particles.
« Last Edit: 18/05/2009 23:28:07 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #26 on: 19/05/2009 12:11:44 »
I have developed an intuitive model of a quantum theory of creation. It is surprisingly easy to imagine a build-up of matter before the big bang. I have been working on this picture of 'evolutionary cosmology' for over 25 years! I just don't have the expertise to create a computer simulation model. One day my genius will be recognised I'm sure. [:)]

btw - I couldn't access your webpage.
« Last Edit: 19/05/2009 12:15:37 by common_sense_seeker »

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #27 on: 20/05/2009 21:21:27 »
There is a problem with the Big Bang that your idea may solve. We know that in the early bang, while it was getting big, it was a black hole. The problem is; how did the universe crawl out of that black hole? I guess if we are still inside the primordial black hole, the problem goes away.

But I think it brings forth many more unsolved problems. For example; theory predicts that time may reverse inside a black hole. Our time does not seem to be reversed [:)]

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #28 on: 21/05/2009 12:23:15 »
There is a problem with the Big Bang that your idea may solve. We know that in the early bang, while it was getting big, it was a black hole. The problem is; how did the universe crawl out of that black hole? I guess if we are still inside the primordial black hole, the problem goes away.

But I think it brings forth many more unsolved problems. For example; theory predicts that time may reverse inside a black hole. Our time does not seem to be reversed [:)]
Where is the evidence that we emerged from a black hole?? It's all based on maths which is based on Einstein's GR, which is increasingly in doubt.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #29 on: 21/05/2009 16:28:38 »
There is a problem with the Big Bang that your idea may solve. We know that in the early bang, while it was getting big, it was a black hole. The problem is; how did the universe crawl out of that black hole? I guess if we are still inside the primordial black hole, the problem goes away.

But I think it brings forth many more unsolved problems. For example; theory predicts that time may reverse inside a black hole. Our time does not seem to be reversed [:)]
It could be simply a matter of Energy. If there was enough kinetic energy 'inside' your imagined 'black hole' then the black hole could still have expanded into a non-black-hole. Most of what we say about black holes involves their formation from 'conventional' material falling in whereas the BB was a non standard situation.
Until you know the quantities involved, you can't say. You could, of course, say that the quantities must have been appropriate for it to have happened. We're here now, so it must have been that way

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #30 on: 25/05/2009 13:00:57 »
Where is the evidence that we emerged from a black hole?? It's all based on maths which is based on Einstein's GR, which is increasingly in doubt.
We do not seem to enjoy the conditions that we think would prevail if we were inside the event horizon of a black hole. So I'm guessing we are not inside, so we must have escaped.
« Last Edit: 25/05/2009 13:02:48 by Vern »

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #31 on: 25/05/2009 13:08:38 »
Quote from: sophiecentaur
It could be simply a matter of Energy. If there was enough kinetic energy 'inside' your imagined 'black hole' then the black hole could still have expanded into a non-black-hole. Most of what we say about black holes involves their formation from 'conventional' material falling in whereas the BB was a non standard situation.
You have found the key. [:)] The BB was a non-standard situation. It didn't follow our standard rules of nature.

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #32 on: 11/06/2009 13:33:46 »
Quote from: sophiecentaur
It could be simply a matter of Energy. If there was enough kinetic energy 'inside' your imagined 'black hole' then the black hole could still have expanded into a non-black-hole. Most of what we say about black holes involves their formation from 'conventional' material falling in whereas the BB was a non standard situation.
You have found the key. [:)] The BB was a non-standard situation. It didn't follow our standard rules of nature.
Why couldn't there be a build-up of matter BEFORE the big bang? (There is no need to imagine black holes in the creation process)

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #33 on: 11/06/2009 13:54:31 »
Then we would have to build a new big bang theory. The current one has space and time beginning with the event. The concept does not make sense within the presently understood rules of nature. The new big bang theory would probably not make sense within the same constraints also. [:)]

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #34 on: 11/06/2009 15:34:35 »
Why couldn't there be a build-up of matter BEFORE the big bang? (There is no need to imagine black holes in the creation process)
[/quote]

  The big bang is a condition in which our entire universe is reduced to a planar surface of electrical charges. No mass exists at that time. Once a minimum radius is reached, the surface explodes and in the process produces the galaxies. Over time the galaxies will disintegrate and the charges will reform . They will contract again in the future and the next big bang will reoccur.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #35 on: 11/06/2009 16:10:05 »
If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #36 on: 11/06/2009 17:29:55 »
Why couldn't there be a build-up of matter BEFORE the big bang? (There is no need to imagine black holes in the creation process)

  The big bang is a condition in which our entire universe is reduced to a planar surface of electrical charges. No mass exists at that time. Once a minimum radius is reached, the surface explodes and in the process produces the galaxies. Over time the galaxies will disintegrate and the charges will reform . They will contract again in the future and the next big bang will reoccur.
I think this is the way you wanted your post to come out[:)]

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #37 on: 11/06/2009 21:34:38 »
Then we would have to build a new big bang theory. The current one has space and time beginning with the event. The concept does not make sense within the presently understood rules of nature. The new big bang theory would probably not make sense within the same constraints also. [:)]

In my multi-lightspeed model, space and time existed prior to the big bang and after the big bang. The highest light speed universes are not effected by our big bang or the big bang of the lower light speed universes.
  the simultaneous explosion of all the lower light speed universes from light speed zero up to our light speed, enlarges our surface plane faster than the speed of light. Thus for awhile our entire light speed C universe is pushed by the interaction with the lower universes.
  As we move outward from the common center we reach a light speed in which at very high light speeds, the universes will not form protons and neutrons and electrons.
   All we have are photonic dot-waves which form intelligence systems independent of the big bangs.
   The big bangs destroy the intelligence of the lower universes. However intelligence from the higher universes coexist and flow into our forming universe. Therefore the life processes are all pre-ordained. Man will appear everywhere life is possible because the structure of man exists in the total intelligence of the multi-lightspeed universe.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #38 on: 11/06/2009 21:40:35 »
If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?

I am not sure who this response applies to.  If it is me then I have my own variation of the BB theory. In fact many different variations. In all cases however it is a multi-lightspeed big bang theory.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #39 on: 11/06/2009 21:46:32 »
If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?
I am not sure who this response applies to.  If it is me then I have my own variation of the BB theory. In fact many different variations. In all cases however it is a multi-lightspeed big bang theory.
Maybe you should rename it to multibang or something. [:)] Hawking would probably not recognize it.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #40 on: 11/06/2009 21:58:05 »
Maybe you should rename it to multibang or something. [:)] Hawking would probably not recognize it.

That sounds good. Many scientist do not recognize the possibility of higher intelligence in the universe. Religious people call it God. I believe in a spiritual driving creative force. Relating this spiritual driving force to religion is difficult. It is hard enough trying to understand the science of the universe. At least we have some measurement data to work with.
   I have to give up attempting to relate the religions of man to this spiritual driving force. The biggest problem is that the interactions with the driving force today is no different than thousands of years ago.
  We make holy the people of old. But their interactions then are the same as today. The only thing different is that we have become more educated.
  Yet in all honesty I cannot negate the entire light speed spectrum because it does explain a spiritual driving force which molds the life forces and in turn produces us. Who cares what Hawkings has to say on that matter!

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #41 on: 11/06/2009 23:28:48 »
I only mention Hawking because he has probably studied the big bang theory more than any other physicist. I see some signals from Hawking that he is distancing himself from Quantum Theory lately. He is predicting that the Higgs boson will not be found and suspects that it does not exist. I also suspect that it does not exist, but this probably won't prevent something being found and claimed to be the Higgs.

As far as spirits go; I like the kind that come in liquid measurements [:)] I suspect that there is no special attribute to humanity that enables it to any higher standing than a fruit fly. I do puzzle over what is self awareness and wonder if it is possible that a machine might one day be endowed with it.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2009 23:33:30 by Vern »

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #42 on: 12/06/2009 02:02:53 »
I only mention Hawking because he has probably studied the big bang theory more than any other physicist. I see some signals from Hawking that he is distancing himself from Quantum Theory lately. He is predicting that the Higgs boson will not be found and suspects that it does not exist. I also suspect that it does not exist, but this probably won't prevent something being found and claimed to be the Higgs.

As far as spirits go; I like the kind that come in liquid measurements [:)] I suspect that there is no special attribute to humanity that enables it to any higher standing than a fruit fly. I do puzzle over what is self awareness and wonder if it is possible that a machine might one day be endowed with it.

I have just been reading Quantum theory lately. I like some of the concepts. Between Bohr and Plank we have some good thoughts. The Q/3 charges I like because it enables me to split the electron into 3 parts in the neutron. Therefore I am able to calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron easily.
  As far as the Higgs blosom, I agree that they are going the wrong way. The lowest quanta has to be the dot-wave or the minimun charge/mass in the universe. In order to get a magnetic and electric field you must subdivide the charge to almost nothing.

  It is interesting to me that my high energy dot-wave has the wavelength of the normal AM broadband radio. It is interesting that  the radio stations indicate a level of electromagnetic photonic radiation.
   Longer waves come from smaller quanta of dot-waves.

*

Ethos

  • Guest
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #43 on: 12/06/2009 02:36:46 »
I do puzzle over what is self awareness and wonder if it is possible that a machine might one day be endowed with it.
I remember reading a few years ago about one of America's premier computer scientists making the remark that a future self aware computer was a forgone conclusion. His next statement was revealing; "The consequences of that probability scares me to death". Sorry, I don't remember his name.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #44 on: 12/06/2009 12:25:14 »
Quote from: Ethos
"The consequences of that probability scares me to death". Sorry, I don't remember his name.
Yeah; it scares me too. The mechanical dudes may decide that living things are polluting the universe.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #45 on: 12/06/2009 12:38:01 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
The Q/3 charges I like because it enables me to split the electron into 3 parts in the neutron. Therefore I am able to calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron easily.
The main reason I don't like the Q/3 concept is that there is no possible way to get that charge number out of a closed loop if you consider that the fine-structure constant is the ratio of the circumference to the charge. It must be in units of electron charge when seen at any distance away that is greater than the electron's radius.

Give this up and we lose the source of the nuclear forces.

Edit: For example, one closed loop gives you 1/3 charge; another gives you 2/3 charge. There is no way to do that and tie in the fine structure constant as the ratio of charge to bend radius. In fact, there is no way to tie in the fine structure constant at all.

And we also lose the concept of why it is that charge is quantized in units of electron charge.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2009 13:15:25 by Vern »

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #46 on: 12/06/2009 14:01:57 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
The Q/3 charges I like because it enables me to split the electron into 3 parts in the neutron. Therefore I am able to calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron easily.
The main reason I don't like the Q/3 concept is that there is no possible way to get that charge number out of a closed loop if you consider that the fine-structure constant is the ratio of the circumference to the charge. It must be in units of electron charge when seen at any distance away that is greater than the electron's radius.

Give this up and we lose the source of the nuclear forces.

Edit: For example, one closed loop gives you 1/3 charge; another gives you 2/3 charge. There is no way to do that and tie in the fine structure constant as the ratio of charge to bend radius. In fact, there is no way to tie in the fine structure constant at all.

And we also lose the concept of why it is that charge is quantized in units of electron charge.

My find structure constant tells me that the electron spins around the proton 137 times per cycle. At the same time it moves perpendicular as 274 half sine waves.
  Therefore

  Fine constant inverse = 137/Cosine(360/274) = 137.036

  As far as the nuclear force, we must return to Planks equations.
  The dot-waves oscillate from the plank radius to the proton radius. The oscillation is of the form of a logarithmic spiral. This becomes important at thePlank radius and not the proton radius.
  The dot-waves are tied together in this spiral. As we look at Planks equations we find that he sees charges of 11.706Q. I only see half that amount.
  In any event the proton's quarks (high energy quarks) all join together at the Plank radius. The forces are

  G M M/ Rplank^2 = M V^2 / R

  At the plank radius, the graviational force is huge. Thus the dot-waves or heavy quarks are held together by tremendous gravitational forces.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #47 on: 12/06/2009 14:07:13 »
PS to Vern:
  As far as the quantization of the charge into Q is concerned, Planks Equations have 11.706238Q. Just study his equations a little bit. They are on the Internet. There is nothing fancy about Q. I suspect that the charge of the electron and proton is on the average Q. However each electron and proton will have a distribution of charge around that value. Thus we only know that the average charge of an electron is Q.
  Quantum mechanics is in error when they specify that the charge Q is the lowest charge in the Universe. They do not subdivide the electron.
   However the charges within the photon must be very tiny amounts of Q.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #48 on: 12/06/2009 14:14:04 »
I like to consider the charge of an electron as originating at the electron's circumference. Then any smaller circumference must have a correspondingly greater charge amplitude at its surface. Take the circumference down until you get the value of the strong nuclear interaction, and you have the inner shells of the proton.

That is one of the ways to get to the shell sizes. Another way is the square of the shells.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Evolutionary cosmology
« Reply #49 on: 12/06/2009 14:36:44 »
I like to consider the charge of an electron as originating at the electron's circumference. Then any smaller circumference must have a correspondingly greater charge amplitude at its surface. Take the circumference down until you get the value of the strong nuclear interaction, and you have the inner shells of the proton.
That is one of the ways to get to the shell sizes. Another way is the square of the shells.

 Ok.Then you use the inverse square law to calculate the force between shells. Right? I will have to study your work.

  My bipolar dot-waves could be turned into spherical planes. Thus an alternative to my oscillating dot-waves from the Plank radius to the Proton radius would be planes of dot-waves each oscillating from a particular radius to a differential radius.

  In effect an alternative to my theory in which all the dot-waves mix at the plank radius is your theory of shells.  I will have to study that because my bipolar dot-waves can make shells. The plus and minus are still in different universes but they can form shells. Alternatively in accordance with my net charge due to negative dot-waves, we can place pure negative shells in between bipolar shells.

  Therefore your structure which I now understand what you mean is applicable to my dot-wave theory. If it is a good possibility, then if I send any work out, I will have to add your name as the author of this shell theory. Are you the originator alone?