[guest39538]

I go with the definition that here is just one universe, and one set of invariant natural laws.

I agree. ...

[guest39538]

Your model of high energy density spots is interesting, would you like to elaborate on this more ?

This creates vacuum  high enthalpic pressure ?

Are you acting on your model ?

Writing a paper?

Would all the lesser energy spots be  isolated from the denser spot ?

Or do you consider they all converge ?

Is your model an accurate reflection ?

Does your model consider  dissipate at c ?

Quite clearly photons are super fast . Understand that if   then c, d and e are independent of

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Your model of high energy density spots is interesting, would you like to elaborate on this more ?


This creates vacuum  high enthalpic pressure ?


Are you acting on your model ?


Writing a paper?


Would all the lesser energy spots be  isolated from the denser spot ?


Or do you consider they all converge ?


Is your model an accurate reflection ?


Does your model consider  dissipate at c ?


Quite clearly photons are super fast . Understand that if   then c, d and e are independent of

I will do that for you (I just saw your edits, so I will do some of that for you).


According to the model, the energy that occupies all space is carried by the wave fronts of gravitational wave energy emissions from all wave-particles (and objects composed of wave-particles), and those wave emissions expand at the local speed of light. Each gravitational wave is produced by the convergence of two or more spherically expanding gravitational waves. When two or more spherically expanding wave fronts, each carrying energy in proportion to the energy of the converging "parent" waves and inversely proportional to the the radius of the spherical expansion of the parent waves, intersect and overlap, the point of intersection and the subsequent overlap space contains the high energy density spot that represents the combined energy of the parent wave fronts. Those points do act as high "pressure" points in a sense*. It is a hint of mass frozen in space and time for an instant. That instant is over in an instant, lol, and the high energy density spot expands, becoming what is called a third wave. The third wave produced by the convergence of two or more parent waves goes on to expand and intersect with adjacent expanding third waves, to produce new high energy density spots, and in turn, a new generation of third waves. It is dizzying when you think about it,


In the vacuum of space, those intersections are individually quite insignificant, and can be viewed as random virtual "particles" that pop onto an out of sight. In total though, even in open space, those recurring tiny hints of mass add up, and account for the as yet unexplained "dark matter".


Within the space occupied by particles, i.e., within the complex standing wave patterns of wave-particles themselves, there are billions of those tiny parent wave intersections occurring all the time, and at any point in time, all of those tiny hints of mass add up to the mass associated with the individual wave-particle.


*In regard to a high energy density spots acting as high pressure points, there is a force that is recognized in the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, called energy density equalization. When a high energy density spot forms, it is always surrounded by space that has lower energy density, and the force of energy density equalization causes that high density spot to expand into the surrounding space to equalize the density between the two adjacent density differentials.

[guest39538]

Each gravitational wave is produced by the convergence

In consideration of your convergence , do you consider that the entirety of cubic volume could have multiple density spots as opposed to just a few?
In my n-field model, any given point can have high density and we already know that a volume has multiple points.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Each gravitational wave is produced by the convergence

In consideration of your convergence , do you consider that the entirety of cubic volume could have multiple density spots as opposed to just a few?
In my n-field model, any given point can have high density and we already know that a volume has multiple points.

Each convergence originates at a point in space which is the point of intersection of two or more parent expanding waves, but the point of intersection becomes a volume of overlap space very quickly, and of course that volume has an infinite number of points. However, though each gravitational wave convergence event produces an overlap, that overlap immediately becomes a new expanding wave, the third wave as I call it.


You can have an immediate intersection between that new third wave and an adjacent wave front, but that isn't characterized as multiple density spots within a single convergence (or within an overlap space). What is happening right at that instant, at nature's tiniest scale, as that point space evolves to an overlap space, is a time delay, or more appropriately called a slowing of time in that tiny volume of space due to an increase in local wave energy density. The rate of the advance of the wave fronts in that overlap space slows down as the density increases, and speeds up again as the third wave expands; very imperceptibly I might add.

[guest39538]

You can have an immediate intersection between that new third wave and an adjacent wave front, but that isn't characterized as multiple density spots within a single convergence (or within an overlap space).

I am just trying to understand this part,  two waves converge, the energy from this convergence then expands , then the expansion energy converges into other expanding waves.  Then it all forms back to a singularity ? 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #406

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

You can have an immediate intersection between that new third wave and an adjacent wave front, but that isn't characterized as multiple density spots within a single convergence (or within an overlap space).

I am just trying to understand this part,  two waves converge, the energy from this convergence then expands, then the expansion energy converges into other expanding waves.  Then it all forms back to a singularity ? 

Two spherical wave fronts intersect and overlap, and that is what I call a convergence of two parent gravitational waves. I know you get that.

The intersection/convergence concentrates a little wave energy into the overlap space, starting at the point of overlap, because each parent wave front carries energy into that space as the overlap forms. Therefore, it is said that each parent wave contributes a little energy to the convergence/overlap via the energy carried by its wave front.

Where you say, “The energy from this convergence then expands”, you should say that there is a third wave that emerges out of the overlap space, and the wave front of that third wave carries energy and expands spherically until its expansion is interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent expanding third wave.

Note: I haven’t used the word “singularity” anywhere in regard to the mechanics of the ISU model. If you are suggesting that the definition of a singularity applies in the case of a point-space intersection between two parent gravitational waves because you conclude that there is a positive energy value at that point, and when divided by the zero volume of a point, the result is infinite energy density (a form of singularity), you should notice that when I talk about the point of intersection, I quickly follow with “and overlap”.

The reason is that the intersection occurs in an instant with no duration, i.e., at a point in time. The overlap hasn’t formed yet, and so there is no volume to the new third wave. The energy that will be carried by the new third wave’s wave front is still associated with the surface of the wave fronts of the two parent waves. The parents don’t contribute their energy to the overlap space until the overlap space forms, and the overlap space is a volume of space, not a point in space. (Yikes, I thought I was never going to have to explain that, but you just pulled it out of me, lol.)

[guest39538]

Reply #406

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

You can have an immediate intersection between that new third wave and an adjacent wave front, but that isn't characterized as multiple density spots within a single convergence (or within an overlap space).

I am just trying to understand this part,  two waves converge, the energy from this convergence then expands, then the expansion energy converges into other expanding waves.  Then it all forms back to a singularity ? 

Two spherical wave fronts intersect and overlap, and that is what I call a convergence of two parent gravitational waves. I know you get that.

The intersection/convergence concentrates a little wave energy into the overlap space, starting at the point of overlap, because each parent wave front carries energy into that space as the overlap forms. Therefore, it is said that each parent wave contributes a little energy to the convergence/overlap via the energy carried by its wave front.

Where you say, “The energy from this convergence then expands”, you should say that there is a third wave that emerges out of the overlap space, and the wave front of that third wave carries energy and expands spherically until its expansion is interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent expanding third wave.

Note: I haven’t used the word “singularity” anywhere in regard to the mechanics of the ISU model. If you are suggesting that the definition of a singularity applies in the case of a point-space intersection between two parent gravitational waves because you conclude that there is a positive energy value at that point, and when divided by the zero volume of a point, the result is infinite energy density (a form of singularity), you should notice that when I talk about the point of intersection, I quickly follow with “and overlap”.

The reason is that the intersection occurs in an instant with no duration, i.e., at a point in time. The overlap hasn’t formed yet, and so there is no volume to the new third wave. The energy that will be carried by the new third wave’s wave front is still associated with the surface of the wave fronts of the two parent waves. The parents don’t contribute their energy to the overlap space until the overlap space forms, and the overlap space is a volume of space, not a point in space. (Yikes, I thought I was never going to have to explain that, but you just pulled it out of me, lol.)

That made sense, thanks for explaining .  I will think some more on the subject, I am just thinking of a different thread,  neurology and brain interfacing.  A complex subject indeed, a tough one to fathom .

[guest39538]

Just to add, what is in the centre of your volume ?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #409

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

Just to add, what is in the centre of your volume ?

Can you look uncertainty in the face and say there is nothing there?

There is a saying that goes like this: Something infinitesimal can be almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never.

Energy is something so it cannot be nothing.
Space is somewhere so it cannot be nowhere.
Time is passing so it cannot be never.

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

The conclusion is that there is no “nothingness” so when you look nothingness in the face you can say there is something there.

A point is at the center of volume.

[guest39538]

A point is at the center of volume.

There are lots of points within a volume, some more prominent in density than other points. There would be obviously a point at the center of volume,  your theory would be too good too not have a central point of the ISU model.  You know quite a bit of science but miss out some of the why's ..  The ageing universe that is expanded , just wants rest,   quite boring compared to a high density centre that creates constant action from isotropic gravity focusing the action on the centre. 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #411





Reply to Thebox
ISU perspective

A point is at the center of volume.

There are lots of points within a volume, some more prominent in density than other points. There would be obviously a point at the center of volume,  your theory would be too good too not have a central point of the ISU model.  You know quite a bit of science but miss out some of the why's ..  The ageing universe that is expanded , just wants rest,   quite boring compared to a high density centre that creates constant action from isotropic gravity focusing the action on the centre. 
It is a bit like life, some of just want to settle down and be left alone (expanding universe),  where others have more drive and ambition (central core),  I consider there is far more spooky actions close up , rather than at a distance away where the matter just wants to retire into the distance. 

But in the ISU, the matter/energy (density) doesn’t just retire into the distance. Its expansion is interrupted by intersecting with other matter/energy that is also, as you say, "trying to retire into the distance" from another direction. So the two converge and contribute to a new attempt "to retire into the distance" that also fails at reaching oblivion because of a similar interruption.

I agree with you that if there is anything spooky, the more spooky action is close up, and in the ISU, the ultimate close up shows the oscillating wave energy background that we have discussed before, in replies like #215 and others. Maybe it is the best I can offer without solving the deepest secrets of nature. You don’t have “nothingness” in even the tiniest space, there are forces and action there, i.e., energy at work.


Here is an edited version of …
Reply #215
Title: Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on November 10, 2017, 12:12:59 pm
Quote from: Thebox on Yesterday at 03:49:26 pm
I consider that the ''surface'' is both positive and negative polarity and there is central void , the void being a product of the repulsive forces of the likewise polarities of the surface.  A sort of spherical shell with an empty inner.  A bit like a football.
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on Yesterday at 03:36:44 pm
Not in the ISU. There are no voids; all space is filled with gravitational wave energy density. But that statement does require some explanation if it is going to stand as my argument against the existence of a void. For example, in a wave energy density environment, you have meaningful wave fronts expanding from their “point” origins, so after the first instant of expansion, 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?

Do you remember the earlier discussion about the oscillating wave energy background of space? I first mentioned it when I defined Wave Energy in Reply #21, and then when I equated the oscillating background and its function, to Wheeler’s Quantum Foam, in Reply #56, and elsewhere.

That is the answer to the question of what is behind the wave front, between the front and the point of origin. It is the oscillating wave energy background. The oscillations are less meaningful gravitational energy waves, less than quantum, and therefore less than the amount of energy necessary to create a high energy density spot that qualifies as a quantum of energy, in the process of quantum action. The convergences at the oscillating foundational level are sub-quantum hints of mass, a necessary part of the process of quantum action that maintains the presence of wave-particles. There is a striking similarity between the wave action at all levels (in accord with the "sameness" principle of the ISU).

There is a finer point of explanation about the mechanism that keeps the oscillating background functioning, and assures there aren’t even the tiniest of voids down there among the oscillations. That explanation is that each oscillation is composed of two of nature’s tiniest parent waves, that are there and gone in an instant, but that instant of time delay is enough time for them to converge and form their hints of mass, the oscillating background's version of a high energy density spot, at a “moment in time”. I discussed this time delay as part of the process of both quantum action and arena action earlier, as reported in reply #56:

“In the wave-particle discussion, each wave convergence has a time delay as the combined energy of the 'parent' waves equalize in the overlap space. In the case of the oscillating background, nature’s tiniest possible size limit of wave action occurs while the energy carried by the individual parent waves merges and equalizes, allowing the lens shaped overlap space to trend toward a spherical shape; it is a mechanical effect that occurs during the time delay and plays out under the influence of the force of energy density equalization that is always present in the ISU. [So you don’t have “nothingness” in that space, there are forces and action there, i.e., energy at work.] The new ‘third wave’ thus emerges from the overlap space, to become a new oscillation in the space being vacated by the parent waves.”

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #412



I have taken some time to conduct a thread in the Cosmology sub-forum, about the concepts of Quantum Field Theory related to the vacuum of space, specifically the False Vacuum and the True Vacuum called “False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why?” and there has been modest participation from the membership. That thread and those concepts have a logical connection to the ISU model, and I want to include the content from there to here in my “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bang events”.  This is reply #56 from the “False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why?” thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74264.msg550443#msg550443

Reply #56

Let me address your last two posts together:

  …The comment should be confined to the presence of virtual particles, when they pop into and out of existence, presumable from the energy of the local vacuum….

This is my simplistic understanding:

1. Energy is borrowed from the vacuum energy to bring a perturbation into existence.  This is identified as a virtual particle.

2. Repayment of the energy is to the vacuum.  Some authors say it must be replaced “before the vacuum misses it”.  I would question this.

3. The vacuum is an integral feature of the Universe.

4. If it were possible to observe the energy while it was being borrowed, it might not be where classical physics says it should be, if classical physics could be applied, here.  However, it must still be in the Universe.

5. At no time does energy leave or enter the universe; therefore, conservation of energy is not violated.  Any violation of energy conservation in an expanding universe does not arise from virtual particle creation/annihilation.  (Sticking my neck out!)

There is a tendency to equate the use of the phrase “expansion of the Universe” to the implication that the whole universe is expanding, when actually only a portion of the space that is referred to as “causally connected to our big bang event” is visible in our Hubble view.

As far as I am aware, we have no direct evidence of anything that is not “causally connected to our big bang event”.  It would seem reasonable to suggest that anything “beyond” is either expanding with the observed Universe; or is not in direct/active contact with it.

Is it just me, or is there an inclination to equate such bubbles in QFT to some version of the initial events related to Big Bang Theory with Inflation?

It’s not just you!

Here's one I thought earlier.

Ref. #10:

If/when a scalar field settles in a “valley”, what determines whether it remains or discharges its energy?

Those replies show very astute analysis, IMHO.

The links we have looked at, and that are connected to them, tell us much about the theory of QFT. My take so far from the material and from generally accepted scientific observations and data about our known universe (influenced by the conclusion that we may well be in an expanding QFT bubble within the greater universe) is that the greater vacuum is an active place of bubble nucleation, bubble collisions, particle formation at the locations in the vacuum where those collisions occur, and expansion of resulting nucleated bubbles, governed by their vacuum density and by the vacuum density of the surrounding false/real vacuums.

The determining factors that govern the disposition and future course of events related to the energy contained in the vacuum of a particular bubble that settles in a “valley” is the relative vacuum energy density surrounding that bubble. That determination should have causes and limiting factors. A causative factor would be random nucleation and subsequent collisions of bubbles. Limiting factors would have to do with how the local vacuum densities react to the presence of adjacent bubbles and their vacuum densities.

The results of those possible events, including the collisions, the particle formation and nucleosynthesis at the boundaries of those collisions, and the evolution of galactic structure moving apart as the space occupied by the expanding bubble grows, all seem to nicely equate with what we observe in our Hubble view.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_08_18_1_00_04.jpeg

Bubble Nucleation in QFT

———————
Here are two more posts, Replies #59 &#60 from the same thread in the NS Science section which I want to include in this ISU thread:

If we backtrack the currently expanded state of our observable universe, going back in time we would get to an initial event. Under QFT that event could be caused by the colliding nucleating bubble “walls” or perhaps what we could call wave fronts, that result in the production of particles. The collisions, coupled with at least speed of light “bubble expansion” that one should expect to be associated with of the velocity of electromagnetism in the quantum field, the extreme high energy density vacuum at the outset would quickly evolve, resulting in the advent of the more stable vacuum states for particles. That means that as various sequences of massive particles (exotics relative to the standard model of particle physics as far as we know) form and decay in correspondence with the rapidly declining vacuum energy density of the local environment as the nucleated bubble evolves, longer periods of stability should be expected along with the normal course of particle decay.

That course of decay would continue until the resulting vacuum density can support the stability of the resulting particles for an extended period of time, as is the case with our own experience as an expanding bubble after some 14 billion years; one of a potentially infinite number of nucleated bubbles within the one greater universe .

———


In the last post I referred to expanding bubbles as wave fronts, and related the velocity of bubble expansion to an event in the QFT Wiki called bubble collisions. Bubble collisions are supposed to produce particles and matter, and following the QFT scenario, it would seem safe to equate that to our own circumstance. That would mean that bubble collisions account for the production of particles, and set particles into motion.

Photons have to be part of the particle mix, and so it can be concluded that it would be consistent with QFT that the bubble collisions would set photons into motion in all directions through the vacuum energy density of space. That could be equated to an expanding wave of electromagnetic energy traversing the quantum field right along with the bubble expansion.

That is not intended to equate the bubble wall to the advance of photon energy, but from what I have read, I would expect the expanding bubble to be filled with light, and thus with photon energy. However, the quantum field is not just an electromagnetic field, it is all fields, and all forms of energy expand through it according to their individual fields. The electric field and the magnetic field combine to govern the speed of light. …


There is not yet a quantum field solution to gravity, so when we talk theory of the universe, we have to rely on General Relativity for now, which is a macro level force. Gravity, according to GR is caused by the presence of matter and energy, which tells space how to curve, and that curvature tells matter how to move. Eventually, the scientific community will come to a consensus on gravity, and the work effort is toward quantum gravity, as I understand it.

Since it seems right to say that the quantum field occupies all space, and photons being electromagnetic radiation, would logically be traversing the field at the speed of light, their velocity is presumably governed by the local density of the vacuum.

What ever relative velocity that is, c is always the same in a perfect vacuum. However, we know that the energy density of the vacuum in QFT can vary, and is never a perfect vacuum, and so the velocity of light will vary from one level of vacuum energy density to another, and therefore from one bubble to another. Some might take exception to that, and so it is open to discussion.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #413



Here at The NakedScientists, I find it appropriate to move back and forth between posts in New Theories and in the main science sections of Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology, and from time to time I provide links between the sections for reference.

In the main science sections, there is a limit as to how far members are expected to go when personally interpreting what the Wikis and various more scientific sources have to say about what the consensus model of Big Bang Theory (BBT with Inflation) and the developments in Quantum Mechanics (QM) as presented in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) mean in layman terms. Out here “On the Lighter Side” I have a great deal of liberty in how I can compare and contrast various models, and to show how and why the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model is my preference for one model that is internally consistent, not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, and addresses the “as yet” unknowns with a methodology of reasonable and responsible speculation. I always ask that members comment freely, and encourage comments and corrections from the membership at any time.

The ISU is a layman science enthusiasts model that combines known science with speculations that fill the gaps left by the “as yet” unknowns. It is a layman level view of the cosmology of the universe, that I keep updating as I learn, and as the scientific community publishes layman level papers and articles that I incorporate into it. If you have ever browsed through this thread you will see that I don’t hesitate to edit and revise previous posts when I find it appropriate to do so, and I try to keep a section updated that has links to an updated series of posts that represent the latest version of the ISU model. I revise the OP to include a link to that section of updated posts.


Edit:
For example, I have added some material to Reply #412 that was posted in my “False Vacuum, Who, What, Where, When, Why?” thread. Note that when I revise a post, the latest revision data appears at the end of it.


Note:
Here is a list of my Last 20 Posts, which I find a handy tools in organizing and updating the ISU thread:https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=43933

[guest39538]

Reply #412



I have taken some time to conduct a thread in the Cosmology sub-forum, about the concepts of Quantum Field Theory related to the vacuum of space, specifically the False Vacuum and the True Vacuum called “False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why?” and there has been modest participation from the membership. That thread and those concepts have a logical connection to the ISU model, and I want to include the content from there to here in my “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bang events”.  This is reply #56 from the “False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why?” thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74264.msg550443#msg550443

Reply #56

Let me address your last two posts together:

  …The comment should be confined to the presence of virtual particles, when they pop into and out of existence, presumable from the energy of the local vacuum….

This is my simplistic understanding:

1. Energy is borrowed from the vacuum energy to bring a perturbation into existence.  This is identified as a virtual particle.

2. Repayment of the energy is to the vacuum.  Some authors say it must be replaced “before the vacuum misses it”.  I would question this.

3. The vacuum is an integral feature of the Universe.

4. If it were possible to observe the energy while it was being borrowed, it might not be where classical physics says it should be, if classical physics could be applied, here.  However, it must still be in the Universe.

5. At no time does energy leave or enter the universe; therefore, conservation of energy is not violated.  Any violation of energy conservation in an expanding universe does not arise from virtual particle creation/annihilation.  (Sticking my neck out!)

There is a tendency to equate the use of the phrase “expansion of the Universe” to the implication that the whole universe is expanding, when actually only a portion of the space that is referred to as “causally connected to our big bang event” is visible in our Hubble view.

As far as I am aware, we have no direct evidence of anything that is not “causally connected to our big bang event”.  It would seem reasonable to suggest that anything “beyond” is either expanding with the observed Universe; or is not in direct/active contact with it.

Is it just me, or is there an inclination to equate such bubbles in QFT to some version of the initial events related to Big Bang Theory with Inflation?

It’s not just you!

Here's one I thought earlier.

Ref. #10:

If/when a scalar field settles in a “valley”, what determines whether it remains or discharges its energy?

Those replies show very astute analysis, IMHO.

The links we have looked at, and that are connected to them, tell us much about the theory of QFT. My take so far from the material and from generally accepted scientific observations and data about our known universe (influenced by the conclusion that we may well be in an expanding QFT bubble within the greater universe) is that the greater vacuum is an active place of bubble nucleation, bubble collisions, particle formation at the locations in the vacuum where those collisions occur, and expansion of resulting nucleated bubbles, governed by their vacuum density and by the vacuum density of the surrounding false/real vacuums.

The determining factors that govern the disposition and future course of events related to the energy contained in the vacuum of a particular bubble that settles in a “valley” is the relative vacuum energy density surrounding that bubble. That determination should have causes and limiting factors. A causative factor would be random nucleation and subsequent collisions of bubbles. Limiting factors would have to do with how the local vacuum densities react to the presence of adjacent bubbles and their vacuum densities.

The results of those possible events, including the collisions, the particle formation and nucleosynthesis at the boundaries of those collisions, and the evolution of galactic structure moving apart as the space occupied by the expanding bubble grows, all seem to nicely equate with what we observe in our Hubble view.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_08_08_18_1_00_04.jpeg

Bubble Nucleation in QFT

———————
Here are two more posts, Replies #59 &#60 from the same thread in the NS Science section which I want to include in this ISU thread:

If we backtrack the currently expanded state of our observable universe, going back in time we would get to an initial event. Under QFT that event could be caused by the colliding nucleating bubble “walls” or perhaps what we could call wave fronts, that result in the production of particles. The collisions, coupled with at least speed of light “bubble expansion” that one should expect to be associated with of the velocity of electromagnetism in the quantum field, the extreme high energy density vacuum at the outset would quickly evolve, resulting in the advent of the more stable vacuum states for particles. That means that as various sequences of massive particles (exotics relative to the standard model of particle physics as far as we know) form and decay in correspondence with the rapidly declining vacuum energy density of the local environment as the nucleated bubble evolves, longer periods of stability should be expected along with the normal course of particle decay.

That course of decay would continue until the resulting vacuum density can support the stability of the resulting particles for an extended period of time, as is the case with our own experience as an expanding bubble after some 14 billion years; one of a potentially infinite number of nucleated bubbles within the one greater universe .

———


In the last post I referred to expanding bubbles as wave fronts, and related the velocity of bubble expansion to an event in the QFT Wiki called bubble collisions. Bubble collisions are supposed to produce particles and matter, and following the QFT scenario, it would seem safe to equate that to our own circumstance. That would mean that bubble collisions account for the production of particles, and set particles into motion.

Photons have to be part of the particle mix, and so it can be concluded that it would be consistent with QFT that the bubble collisions would set photons into motion in all directions through the vacuum energy density of space. That could be equated to an expanding wave of electromagnetic energy traversing the quantum field right along with the bubble expansion.

That is not intended to equate the bubble wall to the advance of photon energy, but from what I have read, I would expect the expanding bubble to be filled with light, and thus with photon energy. However, the quantum field is not just an electromagnetic field, it is all fields, and all forms of energy expand through it according to their individual fields. The electric field and the magnetic field combine to govern the speed of light. …


There is not yet a quantum field solution to gravity, so when we talk theory of the universe, we have to rely on General Relativity for now, which is a macro level force. Gravity, according to GR is caused by the presence of matter and energy, which tells space how to curve, and that curvature tells matter how to move. Eventually, the scientific community will come to a consensus on gravity, and the work effort is toward quantum gravity, as I understand it.

Since it seems right to say that the quantum field occupies all space, and photons being electromagnetic radiation, would logically be traversing the field at the speed of light, their velocity is presumably governed by the local density of the vacuum.

What ever relative velocity that is, c is always the same in a perfect vacuum. However, we know that the energy density of the vacuum in QFT can vary, and is never a perfect vacuum, and so the velocity of light will vary from one level of vacuum energy density to another, and therefore from one bubble to another. Some might take exception to that, and so it is open to discussion.

A perfect vacuum is invisible ?  no light reflecting towards the observers direction

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #415


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

A perfect vacuum is invisible ?  no light reflecting towards the observers direction

Quite right, IMHO. But it is a moot point in the ISU, and in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) too, because a perfect vacuum is a void, and there is no void in the ISU or in the QFT concepts of false and true vacuums. If you read the False Vacuum Wiki, you see that even what they call the "True Vacuum" is not referring to a perfect vacuum. The True Vacuum of QFT has vacuum energy density, just like the ISU background is full of gravitational wave energy at varying energy density levels.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #416

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


This post is a work in progress

One of the interesting differences between the ISU, and the Standard Cosmology (lambda CMD model), is the ISU process of Arena Action.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

An example of the inflation in the Lambda CMD Big Bang is depicted in that Wiki as follows:


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_13_08_18_11_45_04.jpeg


That is how the development of one Big Bang arena with Inflation, from bang and through 13.7 billion years of accelerating expansion could be depicted in the ISU too.


If you can picture two big bang arenas using the Lambda CMD model depiction, an ISU Big Bang Arena overlap might be depicted as follows:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_14_08_18_12_02_32.jpeg

Those images are “accelerated expansion cones” where the expanding two dimensional circle leading the widening cone in the images represents the expanding sphere of a big bang arena. Looking at this image I have use to depict a large scale section of the greater universe in two dimensions …:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_33_57.jpeg
You can imagine each circle being one of those “accelerated expansion cones” in order to get a feel for the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

Then, putting that into perspective, look back at reply #344 to see how I relate the cones to quanta at both the micro and macro level of the ISU model.                                                                                             

Note: I borrowed a page from General Relativity and Big Bang Theory to depict the big bang event as a single accelerating expansion cone, and I borrowed a page from Quantum Field Theory by relating each big bang expansion cone to a nucleating bubble in the vacuum energy density of space. In QFT, individual bubbles are false vacuums, and big bang events represent the collision of bubble walls as proposed in QFT. Each bubble collision produces a big bang event, and depicts the collapse of the false vacuum into a true vacuum, or at least to a much more dense state vacuum than existed in the “parent” arenas (parent accelerated expansion cones).



To be further developed …

[Professor Mega-Mind]

To the Flounderers , who have ingested so much "PCP" that they are bouncing off the "Walls".  An infinitely large universe w/universes popping up in it would be called a "Multiverse".  Stephen Hawking believed this likely , as do I .  The biggest problem with cyclic models is that you do not start with the same conditions that you started with .  You start with a sloppy mess (cosmic poo-poo) .  2nd major problem ; an arbitrary & unknown causative factor .  Dis be beeg no-no for believable tearies !  Extra-universal physics may be fantastical , but it's hard to believe that they don't involve entropy , or conservation of energy .  I'd sooner belieb in maagik ! 
Anyhoo , I'm off to see the wizard .  Tell Glinda I said " Hi ! ".
   Prof. Meg.
*For related discussions , go to NSF thread : How does the expansion of space work ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79683.new;topicseen#new 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #418

I think that the above link to the Lambda-CDM model deserves some discussion, and here is some of that Wiki to start with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
The ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the universe contains a cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda (Greek Λ), associated with dark energy, and cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM). It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology because it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos:
the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background
the large-scale structure in the distribution of galaxies
the abundances of hydrogen (including deuterium), helium, and lithium
the accelerating expansion of the universe observed in the light from distant galaxies and supernovae
The model assumes that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. It emerged in the late 1990s as a concordance cosmology, after a period of time when disparate observed properties of the universe appeared mutually inconsistent, and there was no consensus on the makeup of the energy density of the universe.
The ΛCDM model can be extended by adding cosmological inflation, quintessence and other elements that are current areas of speculation and research in cosmology.
Some alternative models challenge the assumptions of the ΛCDM model. Examples of these are modified Newtonian dynamics, modified gravity, theories of large-scale variations in the matter density of the universe, and scale invariance of empty space.[1][2]
———————————————

Note the emphasis on the energy density of the universe, and note that what I call the accelerating expansion cones (see the images in reply #416) represent the time line of individual big bang events. In the Infinite Spongy Universe modle, each of those events equates to the collision of nucleated bubbles described in the Quantum Field Theory Wikis that I have been discussing in my thread “False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why”.



The point is that the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model accommodates elements of both the Big Bang cosmological model, and Quantum Field Theory.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

To Bogart Smiles ,
All of the pustulations you just popped have either been empirically crippled , or reek of infinite causation ( pop-up ism ) .  My incredible gut tells me that the Hawaiian Islands analogy better describes this one-shot ooniverse !  A toast to Multiverse physics !  PM.