[guest39538]

Reply #219
Sphericalization

, the point origin has become a spherically expanding energy wave. That brings up the question, what is behind the wave front, between the front and the origin point?

That is why at the point of origin is always a void.  The micro bangs I mentioned are an attempt at the manifestation of a ''particle''.  However the attempt turns into a micro bang

spherically expanding energy wave

  Sphericalation

The reason is because the attempt is a single polarity and likewise polarity to itself so has no choice but to  micro bang sphericalation process .

added -

Sphericalation : Isotropic inflation :  spherically expanding wave,field or surface from a central point.

This is my attempt at a fun respite from the mind-bending contemplation and rigor involved in evolving the ISU [tongue in cheek]:

Maybe we should submit this to Webster …
How about :Sphericalization or sphericalisation (if you prefer)
The process of becoming a sphere or trending toward the spherical shape.

In the science of logic, a “precising” word is a word coined from an existing word or phrase, to better or more precisely describe meaning. The word “sphericalization” is coined from the words “spherical” and “realization”for the effect that occurs when a lens shaped overlap space forms between two expanding spherical waves as they intersect and overlap, and that trends toward the spherical emission of an out flowing third wave. The word is specifically coined for the Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology (and N-Theory?).


To be continued deleted, lol …

When I used the word sphericalation I was adding inflation to the end of spherical to represent expansion/inflating.  However your word does read better. I quite like sphericalisation , submit it dude if you know how too.

The word is specifically coined for the Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology (and N-Theory?).

We are explaining the same sort of sphericalisation , why not.

The process of becoming a sphere or trending toward the spherical shape, isotropic from a central point?


Can we try and make some maths for this?

Can we define in maths an expanding sphere?

can we just put :

r=

←4/3 πr³→

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #221
Sphere-Sphere equation and sphericalization

Well, there was this from reply #78:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg

As r and R increase, the volume of the spherical caps, cap r and cap R, increase. When the equation equals one, the sum of the energy in cap r and cap R equals a quantum of energy in the overlap space.

So let’s use our new word . Due to “sphericalization”, during the time delay, as r and R increase toward the critical level, the lens shaped overlap has trended toward spherical. The equation equals 1 when the critical level is reached, indicating that there is a quantum of energy in the overlap space. At that point the new spherical out flowing wave emerges out of the overlap space, and is ready for the next encounter in the on-going process of quantum action.



Generally, in the ISU, the expansion is not infinite, because expansion is interrupted when the expanding spherical wave intersects and overlaps with an adjacent expanding spherical wave. The sphere-sphere action is continuous in the ISU, and is an example of the "sameness" doctrine that typifies Big Bang arena action, wave-particle quantum action, and the oscillating wave at the foundational background level.

[guest39538]

Generally, in the ISU, the expansion is not infinite, because expansion is interrupted when the expanding spherical wave intersects and overlaps with an adjacent expanding spherical wave.

A question for you, are you giving your waves any sort of polarity?  In my version waves can only overlap if they are opposite single polarity waves. A duality wave that was a pos and neg wave would repulse off a likewise pos and neg wave.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #223
Wave Mechanics

Generally, in the ISU, the expansion is not infinite, because expansion is interrupted when the expanding spherical wave intersects and overlaps with an adjacent expanding spherical wave.

A question for you, are you giving your waves any sort of polarity?  In my version waves can only overlap if they are opposite single polarity waves. A duality wave that was a pos and neg wave would repulse off a likewise pos and neg wave.

Nice question, but no, not in the ISU . Gravitational waves can’t get out of each other's way because they aren’t charged, but each wave is a spherical wave, expressed as a curved wave front as they expand, and so:
1. There is an effect “felt” by each parent wave as they intersect, but polarity of charge doesn’t cause the effect at the wave level, that is reserved for particles in relative motion.
2. What they “feel’ is a change in energy density of the local space they are expanding into.
3. When they encounter another meaningful expanding spherical wave, it means a change in wave energy density is encountered.
4. At the encounter, the parent waves slow down relative to their rate of expansion before the encounter.
5. When the interruption occurs, it happens at the point of intersection, and when the overlap begins, huge numbers of additional points of intersection are added, and the overlap, by nature, takes on the lens shape as depicted in the previous post.
6. As the overlap grows, both parent wavefronts have slowed down in the vicinity of the overlap due to the mutual increase in wave energy density (the unaffected portion of the parent wave fronts are thus advancing at a faster rate than in the space caught up in the overlap encounter).
7. The effect of the mutual relative slowing of expansion is where the concept of the time delay comes in.
8. The time delay occurs in every case of sphere-sphere intersection, lasts throughout the formation and emergence of the new “third wave”, and is the basis for the speculation that the velocity of light and gravitational waves is governed by the local gravitational wave energy density of space.
9. It is easy to conclude that the local gravitational wave energy density is higher in the vicinity of massive objects, which explains why the ISU doesn’t invoke spacetime; it already has the natural wave mechanics to do what spacetime was intended to explain, cause gravity.
10. I have contemplated the possibility of electric and magnetic fields being produced during the period of overlap.


Along that line of reasoning, the speculation that there is an electric and a magnetic field alternatively generated as a result of the oscillating wave action at the foundation level was discussed in reply #130 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg525839#msg525839).

To elaborate, the continual wave action is restrained spatially to the tiniest of individual spaces hosting the individual oscillations, where repetitive oscillations just keep occurring in the same space, akin to the way a current flows through a wire. The current flows but the electrons essentially stay put, and a magnetic field forms perpendicular to the flow. The tiny oscillating wave fronts, in an otherwise waveless environment, don’t actually go anywhere; they form and run into interruptions immediately, so there is no escape for them. But their energy is essentially at a constant level across the otherwise waveless space; a background that contains a huge amount of wave energy even in the absence of wave-particles and objects (though that is just fodder for thought experiments, because no space is “otherwise waveless” in the ISU). The fields produced are small and short lived, but it is the repetitiveness of the action that makes the field perpetual.



To be continued …

[guest39538]

Along that line of reasoning, the speculation that there is an electric and a magnetic field alternatively generated as a result of the oscillating wave action at the foundation level was discussed

Ok I see our differences, you are looking at this in a sense of individual fields where I am unifying the fields and all actions and reactions are a quantum field fluctuation.   I consider a single field enamates from a point, this field is both pos and neg and can only be measured n (neutral).  It does not matter what magnitude the field is it always measures n.   A+B=N

Now it is impossible to measure the signs individually so there will always be a null result ,   -e+p=0

However this does not mean that the individual properties of each polarity does still not act.

For example if you can imagine an electromagnetic field that was only made up of electrons, you should be able to ''see'' how other electron fields would be relativity solid to that field?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #225
Reply to Thebox
Fields

Along that line of reasoning, the speculation that there is an electric and a magnetic field alternatively generated as a result of the oscillating wave action at the foundation level was discussed

Ok I see our differences, you are looking at this in a sense of individual fields where I am unifying the fields and all actions and reactions are a quantum field fluctuation.   I consider a single field emanates from a point, this field is both pos and neg and can only be measured n (neutral).  It does not matter what magnitude the field is it always measures n.   A+B=N

I can see that perspective, especially when you think about the inflowing gravitational wave energy onslaught from all directions at every point in space, which is what I speculate is the case in the ISU. But the gravitational wave energy density at each point in space is variable, and there is always a directional a bias. That “bias” is displayed in the fact that at each point, there is an imbalance in the directional inflow, as described in reply #68: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770

Now it is impossible to measure the signs individually so there will always be a null result ,   -e+p=0

It isn’t possible to measure the sign of the energy in space individually, and I don’t even recognize the idea of gravitational wave energy in the profile of space as having a sign, or polarity. It is all positive energy, by definition, as stated a few posts back. It could all be called negative energy just as easily. Energy is defined as positive in the ISU, but “charges”, both positive and negative are about polarity and the Coulomb force.


I speculated about where particles get their charge as if all particles have positive energy, and are interacting with the gravitational wave energy density of their surrounding space, which is composed of gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions. All gravitational wave energy is positive energy, but absorptions and emissions of positive wave energy are distinguished by saying that additions have a positive impact and reductions have a negative impact on the amount of positive energy.

However this does not mean that the individual properties of each polarity does still not act.

My speculation in the ISU, is that the energy contained within the particle space of all particles is positive, and every particle is a wave-particle. Wave-particles have a special definition which sees them as standing wave patterns, with two components, inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy. It is those two components that carry positive and negative labels in my model, but all of the energy that flows during the process of quantum action is positive. The inflowing component to the wave-particle comes from the positive energy of the gravitational wave energy density of space, and is the source of the positive energy that is added to the contained energy of the wave-particle, in the form of quanta, (meaningful quantum wave intersections in the standing wave pattern). The out flowing component is a negative when related to the existing contained energy of the wave-particles because it is subtracted from the contained energy of the wave-particle, but it also results in an addition to the positive energy in space.

For example if you can imagine an electromagnetic field that was only made up of electrons, you should be able to ''see'' how other electron fields would be relativity solid to that field?

I do understand your meaning. But, just like my valued concept of an otherwise waveless oscillating background energy, it is fodder for thought experiments. The “otherwise waveless background”, which is not possible in the ISU, is used to help clarify the nature of the oscillating background energy; it is never waveless, but it helps to contemplate it as waveless to make the point of how the background helps advance gravitational and light wave energy. In the case of your electromagnetic field made up of only electrons; it wouldn’t naturally form, but is a way of making the point about the nature of the neutral field.


It seems clear that individual fields exist. Let me quote from a little book I have on the shelf called, “30-Second Theories”, by Paul Parsons.


On the topic of Electromagnetism: … “It is all about what happens when you combine electric charges, movement, and magnetic fields. Move a metal wire within a magnetic field, and you will cause an electric current to flow in the wire… Conversely, send an electric current through a wire, and the movement of the electric charges will create a magnetic field … The third option is to run an electric current through a wire sitting in a magnetic field. The wire will move (as in the idea behind the electric motor).”


Individual fields exist, and work together. If they merged into the N-field, their individual characteristics, a beautiful aspect of the natural laws, might go amuck :shrug:.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #226
To demalk
Re. Demalk’s thread

Here is a link to a thread by demalk, in the Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology sub-forum, and I want to link to that discussion, for reference:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71898.0


This is the recent post that I said I would address out here in “New Theories”, where more alternative views are expected:

Ok, so let us assume that you are right. That there isn't any violation of time going on, and it has nothing to do with a static universe. You would agree I assume that it seems as though the future random activity in the experimental setup affects the photon in retrospect, correct? So, how does this work? Why does it seem that way in your view?

It is true, that is one interpretation of the results of those quantum eraser experiments, and I elaborate on that at the end of this post. There is some material in this thread where I addressed the experiments, and my views on those experiments, which is referenced in in the following list of a few key posts in this thread. They are related to our discussion, and are background for perhaps continued discussion. Your post deserves an updated response, but it is probably a good idea to identify a few posts that give some perspective about this thread, without you having to wade through over 200 posts. Read as little or as much of this list as you want, but these posts will give you the background on the ISU model:




The opening post:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514070#msg514070


An early key post with a lot of overview, reply #16:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg514357#msg514357


The quantum, reply #68:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517770#msg517770




Elaborating on the wave-particle, reply #69, #70, and #71:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg517838#msg517838


The series on the quantum eraser experiment, replies #72 to #74:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg518310#msg518310


And here is a post about the philosophy that I call “Eternal Intent” that I derive, for myself, from the physical nature of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, reply #108:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158




Ok, you are a trooper if you gave that list a few minutes, and I know it would take an hour or so to get all the way through, which would be above and beyond the call of duty.


That brings us back to this post from your thread:

Ok, so let us assume that you are right. That there isn't any violation of time going on, and it has nothing to do with a static universe. You would agree I assume that it seems as though the future random activity in the experimental setup affects the photon in retrospect, correct? So, how does this work? Why does it seem that way in your view?

As I walk through the entire experiment, using the setup diagram, the laser sending one photon toward the two slits, the crystal splitting that single photon in two paths, the “which path” tracking through the apparatus, and the splitting and combining of the paths, there is a conclusion. I think it is the significant fact that none of the detectors that enable the “which path” information to be known, will show the interference pattern on the “screen” as the impact of the individual particles is recorded, because they don’t allow information from both paths to be recorded.


My points is that unless there is a path from both slits, there cannot be an interference pattern, so the “which path” information denial automatically eliminates the possibility of that interference showing up (by closing out needed information from each of the paths). It is not the knowledge of which slit the particle passed through, it is the information from both slits about both the wave state and the particle state, individually and combined, that is necessary for the interference to show up.

[demalk]

My points is that unless there is a path from both slits, there cannot be an interference pattern, so the “which path” information denial automatically eliminates the possibility of that interference showing up (by closing out needed information from each of the paths). It is not the knowledge of which slit the particle passed through, it is the information from both slits about both the wave state and the particle state, individually and combined, that is necessary for the interference to show up.

Thank you so much. I checked the links and will need a bit more than an hour to get a grip on it all I'm going to take some time to process. But before and while I do, I have one question (and a comment) about the above. If I understand correctly you are saying: by storing the which path information we are eliminating the possibility of the other result. Only if the particle/wave could have travelled through both, will the interference pattern show up. So when we store the information, we thereby exclude the possibility of it going through the other slit, and so have destroyed the interference pattern. Is that correct?

If so, what I'm finding here could possibly lead to an explanation of why it matters to the particle/wave whether or not it could have travelled through either slit. For that reason I'd be interested in reading more about your model. However, it still doesn't tell me why this effect would even remain if it was only decided millions of years into the future whether both slits would remain a possible path. Right now, at the time of the experiment, at the time of going through the slits, there is no which path information so the interference should show up, according to your model. But it turns out that a future random event will in retrospect affect the results and I do not see (yet) how your model would be consistent with that.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png

Thank you so much. I checked the links and will need a bit more than an hour to get a grip on it all I'm going to take some time to process. But before and while I do, I have one question (and a comment) about the above. If I understand correctly you are saying: by storing the which path information we are eliminating the possibility of the other result. Only if the particle/wave could have travelled through both, will the interference pattern show up. So when we store the information, we thereby exclude the possibility of it going through the other slit, and so have destroyed the interference pattern. Is that correct?

If so, what I'm finding here could possibly lead to an explanation of why it matters to the particle/wave whether or not it could have travelled through either slit. For that reason I'd be interested in reading more about your model. However, it still doesn't tell me why this effect would even remain if it was only decided millions of years into the future whether both slits would remain a possible path. Right now, at the time of the experiment, at the time of going through the slits, there is no which path information so the interference should show up, according to your model. But it turns out that a future random event will in retrospect affect the results and I do not see (yet) how your model would be consistent with that.

Original  response being edited, after rereading your comment and question, due to my initial misunderstanding of what you were saying and asking ...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png

My point is that unless there is a path from both slits, there cannot be an interference pattern, so the “which path” information denial automatically eliminates the possibility of that interference showing up (by closing out needed information from each of the paths). It is not the knowledge of which slit the particle passed through, it is the information from both slits about both the wave state and the particle state, individually and combined, that is necessary for the interference to show up.

Thank you so much. I checked the links and will need a bit more than an hour to get a grip on it all I'm going to take some time to process. But before and while I do, I have one question (and a comment) about the above. If I understand correctly you are saying: by storing the which path information we are eliminating the possibility of the other result. Only if the particle/wave could have travelled through both, will the interference pattern show up. So when we store the information, we thereby exclude the possibility of it going through the other slit, and so have destroyed the interference pattern. Is that correct?

I admit that I didn’t read your response carefully enough, and after rereading, my initial response had me going off track.

In my effort to explain away the spookiness that is sometimes attributed to the delayed choice experiments, I came up with a description and mechanics of the wave-particle. Given the way I describe the wave-particle, as you have pointed out, there won’t be an interference pattern unless both paths are open.

However, your comment about “storing the information” didn’t register with me at first, but now I think I understand your comment and question, so let me test my understanding. You are equating the delay portion of the experiment where the “which path” information is withheld, to the act of storing the information, correct?

If so, what I'm finding here could possibly lead to an explanation of why it matters to the particle/wave whether or not it could have travelled through either slit.

Very interesting; let me hear more.

For that reason I'd be interested in reading more about your model. However, it still doesn't tell me why this effect would even remain if it was only decided millions of years into the future whether both slits would remain a possible path.

This statement is about using starlight that was emitted millions of years ago, but I don’t understand the implication. What effect is remaining over all of those millions of years? How is a photon that is pulled out of starlight any different than a nice new modern photon from a laser ?

Are you saying that the delay caused by closing one path to the detector, whether the delay is millions of years, or just as recent as in the experiment itself, that the delay is the cause for the interference pattern not showing up at D-3 and D-4?

Right now, at the time of the experiment, at the time of going through the slits, there is no which path information so the interference should show up, according to your model.

Correct, as is evidenced by the interference pattern at D-0.

But it turns out that a future random event will in retrospect affect the results and I do not see (yet) how your model would be consistent with that.

I don’t think that it is the delay, or the storing of information that explains why there is no interference at D3 and D4. It is by imposing the “which path” information and thus eliminating the “both path” energy that is always necessary in order to cause an interference pattern, given the wave-particle nature as I describe it. No superposition, no FTL, no non-locality is necessary when both the wave state and the particle state are both observable for the same particle.



In my view, the single particle experiments are evidence that both states can be displayed by a single particle; eventually, after many single particles are sent through, the interference pattern forms as long as both paths are open.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

In my view, the single particle experiments are evidence that both states can be displayed by a single particle; eventually, after many single particles are sent through, the interference pattern forms as long as both paths are open.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_07_17_3_54_15.jpeg

The wave-particle that I portray in the discussion of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments has a unique structure, and always acts the same way in any of the double slit experiments, delayed choice or not.

The way it acts is something very interesting. Something that might be seen as spooky, unless you examine it in the light of the wave-particle structure that I promote.

The image above depicts the wave-particle, composed of wave energy, and displaying both an inflowing and an out flowing wave energy composition, which means that a stable wave-particle has a dense inner core where wave convergences give it mass, surrounded by an on-going spherical wave energy emission form the inner core. Thus it is both a wave (the spherically out flowing wave energy), and a particle (the dense core portion).

Simple, right? Now, what we observe in the single particle, two slit experiments, is that each single photon (as described in my model), or electron, or even buckyball, will display both its wave state and its particle state, at the same time.

What is the evidence of that? 1) Each particle clearly registers its impact on the screen (a particle related event). 2) The location of each impact is affected by the wave interference that is caused when its own broadened out-flowing wave front goes through both slits (a wave related event).

Conclusion: Each individual wave-particle has both its wave state and its particle state with it at all times, not in superposition, and a single particle can display both states in the same experiment.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Yes, the delayed choice, single particle experiment is revealing.

If there is only one slit open, you will never get an interference pattern, but you will detect, on the screen, any particles that go through that slit. No surprise. You can send billions of particles through that one slit, detect them all on the screen, and still, there will never be an interference pattern.

Instead of considering the wave-particle alternative structure of this model, some people conclude that it is a spooky mystery that when you open up a second slit, but only send one particle at a time through the experiment so it has to go through one slit or the other, that all of a sudden an interference pattern begins to show up on the screen.

It isn’t a mystery though if you consider the wave-particle of the ISU model.

The mystery is solved because each individual particle has a wave state and a particle state that travel everywhere together, but are always individual states. Both states are always separate, and therefore have an individual presence at all times, and are not in a third state called superposition. The spherical out flowing wave energy is continually emitted from the dense core portion of the wave-particle, and can be detected as an interference pattern, while the individual particle state can also be detected as a hit on the screen. That is a single particle where there is detection of both the wave state and the particle state. The evidence is displayed in the delayed choice experiments, once you consider the results form the perspective of the wave-particle.

It is also a case of being able to detect both states of a single, individual particle, in the same single particle experiment; a situation that seems to violate the rules quantum mechanics. But obviously it isn’t against the laws of physics, if the ISU explanation is right, and if the results of the single particle experiments are considered confirming evidence.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Particle physics is not a simple matter, and a layman talking about single particle states is a slippery slope, but an individual particle in the ISU is composed of quanta (meaningful wave energy convergences), and my version goes to the point where, for talking purposes, a single proton has 700 billion quanta (see reply #79 for details).

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg

In that image, the core (particle) portion is surrounded spherically by the wave energy emitted at the speed of light by the core. The inner high density core emits a regular, rhythmical spherical wave that represents the frequency the particle.

That out flowing wave, going through both slits, gave us the explanation for the seemingly spooky results of the two slit experiments, as discussed in the previous posts. But more importantly, we have an explanation for the various frequencies emitted by all particles.

It is mentionable that the wave-particle structure corresponds with a growing consensus that gravitational wave energy is emitted by all particles and objects with mass. Conveniently, the mechanism for gravitational wave energy emission is in place in the ISU.

And it is also mentionable that if the particle being observed is a photon, the periodic out flowing wave energy represents the frequency of light wave energy emitted by a photon of a particular energy level.

To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply 233
Particle pulsing action

Particle physics is not a simple matter, and a layman talking about single particle states is a slippery slope, but an individual particle in the ISU is composed of quanta (meaningful wave energy convergences), and my version goes to the point where, for talking purposes, a single proton has 700 billion quanta (see reply #79 for details).


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg

In that image, the core (particle) portion is surrounded spherically by the wave energy emitted at the speed of light by the core. The inner high density core emits a regular (pulsing), rhythmical, spherical wave that represents the frequency of the particle.

Some layman thoughts on the mechanics of the pulsing action of wave-particles:


These thoughts have to do with the nature of the spherically out flowing wave energy component of the standing wave particle, and what is going on to cause it to be a pulse, as opposed to a continuous stream. I have long considered the frequency of the out flowing wave of the ISU mechanics to represent the identifying frequency of the particle, and I have danced around with the mechanics of the spherical emission, saying it was the “quantum action” at the particle surface, where all of the surface quanta emitted their tiny wave energy, and as the waves expanded away from the surface, the surrounding emission merged together to form one spherical wave emission for each outflowing wave.


But still, any reader might wonder about how all of those surface quanta get synchronized to “fire off” their tiny individual spherical waves at the same time, making the out flowing waves individual pulses, instead of randomly timed tiny emissions.


Now I am emphasizing the “pulsing” with more conviction. “Pulse” is a term that I haven’t attached to the spherical emission up until I referred to what Max Planck said in Reply #107, https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg523791#msg523791

“Reported here, some known physics, paraphrased from the section on electromagnetic radiation in, Chemistry - Matter and Its Changes, by Brady, Russell & Holum, Riley & Sons, 2000. It shows how compatible the ISU wave mechanics are with known physics in regard to the electromagnetic radiation of the hydrogen atom. ‘Max Planck depicted EM as the emitted quanta or packets of energy called photons, where each photon “pulses” with a frequency as it travels with the speed of light.’”


This may seem like a frivolous diversion, but I want to make an analogy between the ISU version of the pulsing of a wave particle, and a toy boat:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_pop_boat




The candle powered boat is a kid’s thing (my Grandpa showed me how to make one in the 1950’s). The analogy here is between the air/water mix contained in the tiny tin bladder (boiler), along with the candle heat of this toy boat, and the wave energy contained within the particle space and the resulting wave-particle pulsing action.


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #234
Particle pulsing action “sameness”

But still, any reader might wonder about how all of those surface quanta get synchronized to “fire off” their tiny individual spherical waves at the same time, making the out flowing waves individual pulses, instead of randomly timed tiny emissions.
…

… I want to make an analogy between the ISU version of the pulsing of a wave particle, and a (candle powered) toy boat:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_pop_boat

… The analogy here is between the steam/water mix contained in the tiny tin bladder (boiler), along with the candle heat of this toy boat, and the wave energy contained within the particle space and the resulting wave-particle pulsing action.


To be continued …

The flame heats the water and induces steam under pressure, which forces its way out the tube, relieving the pressure, and causing a vacuum density in the tube. Cooler water replaces the hot steam, volume for volume, and the cooler water flows back into the boiler. The cycle continues as long as the flame reheats the water.

The boiler is a confined containment vessel, and I am equating that to the wave energy contained within the particle space. (You may recall that the stable particles in the ISU are the decay product of the hot, dense, ball of wave energy contained under gravitational compression, in the big crunch, and that emerges when the crunch collapses during a Big Bang event).

Energy containment exists from the epoch of the crunch, and continues during the decay process which involves expansion and cooling. The resulting stable particles have contained energy, and have struck a gradually changing balance between the particle space that they occupy, and the vacuum density of the surrounding space.

(Note that the presence of matter will continue in the expanding arena for as long as there is too much local wave energy density to become fully equalized across the arena’s available space. In the ISU that is an eternal proposition because of speculation that the universal average energy density is too high to become equalized before local arenas intersect and overlap, causing new big crunches to occur, and new crunch/bangs defeat the local progress of entropy).

Thus the regular, rhythmical, spherical pulsing wave action occurs at the (macro) Big Bang arena action level and at the (micro) quantum wave-particle action level, in line with the ISU "sameness" doctrine. The quantum action of wave-particles in space is much like the alternating expansion/cooling and compression/heating phases going on with the boiler action of the Pop-pop boat.

To be continued …

[guest39538]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg

I like your diagram very much.

I have the core which you call a dense core as being an absolute void surrounded by field density.   My reasoning for this is very simple in that the likewise of the fields repulses from a central position to provide the void.
In simple terms if you can imagine a balloon inflating, but in this circumstances the surface of the balloon is repulsing the surface of the balloon.

left surface←likewise repulsion→right surface

Obviously isotropic


The physics suggests this is a possibility?


qfd1.jpg (26.16 kB . 705x428 - viewed 4803 times)

Our differences are, you  have a wave emanating from a point source, where In my notion waves are a fluctuation of the field.



In my system, an increase in energy of the field is an increase in field density over radius. e.g if a system gains more energy it pushes things away from it. The ''layers'' of the field increasing in magnitude.  A bit like water and buoyancy The radius of the field being apart always been 0 relative to the density. The central points only having a radius apart. .

The easier way to look at this is by using magnets and the likewise polarities of the magnet creating r between the two magnets. 0 r between the fields. If we was to increase the magnitude of one of the magnets r increases accordingly between the magnets, but the r between fields always remains 0.


Imagine a box full of half inflated balloons than in each center of a balloon was a point, then simply inflate the balloons fully to observer the density displacement of the balloons surface that causes the expansion of points.  However observer the balloons surfaces always have 0 radius apart.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #236
To Thebox re. #235 reply

I like your diagram very much.

I have the core which you call a dense core as being an absolute void surrounded by field density.   My reasoning for this is very simple in that the likewise of the fields repulses from a central position to provide the void.
In simple terms if you can imagine a balloon inflating, but in this circumstances the surface of the balloon is repulsing the surface of the balloon.

left surface←likewise repulsion→right surface

Obviously isotropic


The physics suggests this is a possibility?




Our differences are, you  have a wave emanating from a point source, where In my notion waves are a fluctuation of the field.



In my system, an increase in energy of the field is an increase in field density over radius. e.g if a system gains more energy it pushes things away from it. The ''layers'' of the field increasing in magnitude.  A bit like water and buoyancy The radius of the field being apart always been 0 relative to the density. The central points only having a radius apart. .

The easier way to look at this is by using magnets and the likewise polarities of the magnet creating r between the two magnets. 0 r between the fields. If we was to increase the magnitude of one of the magnets r increases accordingly between the magnets, but the r between fields always remains 0.


Imagine a box full of half inflated balloons than in each center of a balloon was a point, then simply inflate the balloons fully to observer the density displacement of the balloons surface that causes the expansion of points.  However observer the balloons surfaces always have 0 radius apart.

It hurts my gray matter to imagine that, but I can. Just kidding, I do see where you are coming from, and taking it as a snapshot out of the whole scenario, I’m sure you have it working for you, like I have my ideas working for me, in an internally consistent scenario.

The trouble with comparing layman cosmological models is that there is a different one for every layman enthusiast.

I have specifying definitions for all of my words that make perfect sense to me, but unless a reader really pays attention, follows from the beginning, and asks for clarification on word usage and definitions, we won’t have the same visual picture of what I am trying to say. I’m sure the same goes for my understanding of what you are trying to explain.We think about each others ideas, draw some conclusions, and move our individual thinking along another step, which is the nice thing about science forums that allow alternative ideas, so thank you for sharing and commenting.

Note: My model is a hobby; a pastime that keeps my mind engaged, and keeps me learning physics and cosmology, at a layman level of understanding. Here at the home (I mean at our house ) we like puzzles, we do about one big tough 1000 piece puzzle every week or two, but nothing compares to contemplating the “as yet” unknowns of science; they are the grand puzzle. I plan to be thinking about things like quantum gravity, and the three infinities, when they come to take me away, lol.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #237
Derivation from first principles

…

(Note that the presence of matter will continue in the expanding arena for as long as there is too much local wave energy density to become fully equalized across the arena’s available space. In the ISU that is an eternal proposition because of speculation that the universal average energy density is too high to become equalized before local arenas intersect and overlap, causing new big crunches to occur, and new crunch/bangs defeat the local progress of entropy).

…

Let’s examine that note. Simply put, matter exists in the local space because there is too much wave energy; the wave energy density trends toward equalization within the surrounding space, but it is a trend that gets interrupted before the wave energy density equalizes, hence matter always exists in the local space. In the ISU, that is a universal condition, and so there will never be total, final, complete entropy, as would be the case if all of the wave energy became equalized across the infinite universe. It won’t happen, it can’t happen in the ISU, but if you imagine it could, you are imagining a cosmological model that has a predictable end point, where life can no longer exist, referred to as the Big Rip.


What do I mean that the process of equalization gets interrupted? What I mean is that in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the Infinite Spongy Universe model, active expanding big bang arenas will expand into each other's space, long before the energy density equalizes, and when that happens, entropy is defeated; new big crunches form, from which new big bangs occur, and out of which new, low entropy, hot, dense, expanding, big bang arenas form to perpetuate the large scale process of arena action across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.

There are different, overall views of cosmological models, and the above “note” must seem wrong to you, if your view isn’t expressed in terms of infinite space and an open universe. If you don’t think in those terms, i.e., if you consider the universe to be finite and closed, what mechanism can there be to defeat entropy? The universe you envision seems destined to end in terminal calamity, either the heat death as in the GR and the Wiki Big Rip, or in one final big crunch from which there is no escape.

If you consider that the derivation of the ISU model is from first principles, the three infinities: space, time, and energy, then you can see where I am coming from when I invoke the term “dynamic steady state” to the overall grand Infinite Spongy Universe.

I am not conditioned to expect any thoughtful response on this topic of derivation, but the most likely counter argument is that there is no evidence for the three infinities, and so though the derivation of the ISU from first principles sounds lofty, without evidence it is just empty words, right?


 
To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #238

Derived concepts from the Three Infinities:
Levels of order, big bang arena landscape, quantum level of wave-particles and quantum gravity, the foundational level of the oscillating background, “parent” waves, meaningful waves, third waves, temporary high energy density spots, the “sameness” doctrine …


Can I provide an example of an ISU concept that is derived from the first principles, or axioms that I call the Three Infinities: space, time, and wave energy?

This is a good one to start with: All three levels of order in the ISU, the big bang arena landscape, the quantum realm, and the oscillating wave energy background, are composed of nothing but wave energy traversing space. In that space, at all three levels of order, two or more meaningful “parent” energy waves intersect and overlap, producing a third energy wave that emerges from the overlap space.

The waves at each level make sense for that level. They are in a range where an intersection between them would produce a meaningful wave crest, relative to the individual wave fronts that are converging. That means that when a big bang arena wave intersects with a quantum wave, or with a lesser oscillating background level wave, the event has no significance. However, when two parent big bang arena waves converge, it is perhaps the most significant type of event in the ISU, followed by the collapse/bang of the big crunch that forms in the overlap space of the arena/arena intersection.

You may have noticed that when I talk about one level or the other, I sometimes refer to “meaningful waves”; it means that the wave is a “player” at that level of order, relative to the other waves that qualify at that level.

Out of the concept of wave intersections and overlaps, and the resulting emerging third wave, is derived the concept of a momentary or temporary high energy density spot. The temporary high density spot is a characteristic of all three levels of order. As mentioned, at the big bang arena level the “high energy density spot” is characterized as a big crunch. At the quantum level, the convergence of meaningful waves and their temporary high density spots establishes the presence of the mass of wave-particles, and is also a key to quantum gravity, and at the level of the oscillating background, the third waves serve as a key part of the mechanics whereby light and gravitational waves are advanced through space.

Notice the “sameness” of the action at all three levels of order. Each level is characterized by wave action, wave intersections and overlaps, third waves, high energy density spots, etc. I refer to that sameness across all levels as the “sameness doctrine”.

If you didn’t pick up on all of that from my thread so far, this post should help put those derived concepts into context. Now go back to the beginning and read the whole thread again, and see if this reply makes for a better understanding (just kidding, lol).


To be continued …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #239
Infinite space open universe

In reply #237, I made this statement and posed a question, “There are different, overall views of cosmological models, and the above “note” must seem wrong to you, if your view isn’t expressed in terms of infinite space and an open universe. If you don’t think in those terms, i.e., if you consider the universe to be finite and closed, what mechanism can there be to defeat entropy?”

The “Man on the Street”, a layman science enthusiast, plays the devils advocate, and says that the arguments for the Three Infinities, along with the premise that the defeat of entropy, on a grand scale, actually occurs, are not falsifiable.

Bogie responds: Two things. 1) If entropy is not being defeated, then the universe does not have an infinite past, otherwise the end would have already come.  2) If the universe had a beginning, the three main explanations for the existence of the universe are cut down to two, by eliminating the “Always existed” option, leaving “Something from nothing”, and “God did it”, and neither of those two can pass the test of being scientific.



Man on the Street: You don’t show any logical mechanism, or offer even simple math to support the Third Wave concept.

Bogie_Smiles: MotS, you are new here, and didn’t follow the thread (or didn’t go back and read it again). The logical mechanism is the third wave concept that I derive from the axioms and known science. The simple math is the sphere/sphere overlap calculations using equations for sphere/sphere overlaps from Wolfram, and some pertinent logic, that depicts the overlap events and calculates the point when a third wave becomes a quantum wave. Go to reply #78 and you will see this diagram and the simple equation as shown in this image from the  NakedScientists image gallery:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg

Welcome aboard to the “Man on the Street”, btw.


To be continued ...