Hi All,
I accept Dave's complete scenario of setting this to a serious discussion of science/physics. I also invite all serious contributions and agree the non-scientific should be deleted.
I, as David, have many problems with the standard model's idea of everything banging, expanding or inflating from an extremely undersized
point of extreme mass___extending infinitely to zero space/nothing, thus I will state some of my reasons, and further open the discussion as to why thermodynamics must play such an important role in understanding a better model of physics. First, my science interpretations are based in what I would call "The law of symmetry of the laws of physics___Any science verring from any and all of these laws does not conform to true science and physics, unless better science can show where these laws are provably wrong." This very statement would annul much of present physics' models and the guage theories representing them. The three main quantum models I have problems with, under these above conditions are 1.+c; 2.-0; 3.point... I say all physics, quantum and true standard models can be represented by 1.True c and -c; 2.Absolute zero and above; and 3.All point ideas being able to be described with standard logic and much simpler maths, i.e., no renormalized infinities. I would further point out, the above conditions would annul zpe, m-theory, string theory, chaos theory, info theories, and more unnecessary dimensions theories. Much of what I have stated, being annuled, I would class as the a-symmetric "Mythos" interpretations of the symmetric laws of physics and true scientific observations.
My model of the macro universe and absolute wave matter, as many of you may have already guessed is the same substance David refers to, but as a real dark matter singularity of emmense size___arrived at logically by using a decay theory of a static state finite universe, in conjunction with the laws of physcis and scientific observations___through trans-finite, trans-infinite virtual observer logics of deduction, induction and abduction___this is still no more than the finite mind's capabilities. All I'm doing with this logic process is macro-logically arriving at micro-logical conclusions of the wave matter structure, by using the greater possible universe's decay mechanics, and the present history of cosmologies most recent advances___they are many. From the above, you may see I'm using this static decay model, to look behind the first singularity, and it's true thermodynamic past history. Just as a doctor studies dead bodies to help the living, I'm studying the death of a static finite universe model, to peer into its possible birth. David has correctly stated what is true of much of quantum and standard model mechanics, most with clear classical interpretations, and I agree with most of his physics; however I can not agree with quantum foam without substantiating evidence. To me, this is where the picture gets too murky, and thermodynamics is the only set of laws to set the picture clear, in all perceptions. We must have a clear mechanical classical model from the lowest entropy___to the highest entropy___completely mechanically connected, for any of our models to make sense, to ourselves or others.
As I stated above, I say the first obstacle to overcome is thermodynamics "The Past Hypothesis Law"___I say the past started in low entropy because it's physically impossible for it not to. Now Guille stated;
Quote:
|
Is there any further explanation with arguments or experiments that you can give to back up that proposal? Well, also it depends with what you are talking about. If you mean the universe just after the Big Bang, then I think that the entropy was lower than it is now, and in fact the universe is still accelerating in it's growth, therefore the disorder must be growing now and thus be lower at the universe just after the Big Bang. But if we are talking about the universe before the Big Bang, that is a very different thing. We cannot really now yet if the entropy was big or small. Maybe it seems that it had to be small for it was all so concentrated, but think that all the mass was concentrated and thus all gravity, and all forces were mixed in their origin, so it might have been really the higher level for entropy than any other time.
|
To the above Guille, I have a few questions. If entropy were lower just after the Big Bang, then what would happen if one theoretically collected back all the matter and radiation since, and re-installed it in the original singularity___would it be higher entropy or lower___would the mass density be higher or lower___does mass density require higher or lower entropy? And as to the second part of your statement about before the Big Bang, could you not know the state of entropy, if all wave/matter/energy structure were concentrated in an initial singularity, except for the infinite space that David and I both agree must exist, to house the entire low to high/high to low entropy universe, or vice versa, if your thinking is such___by just realizing, through theory, the mass density increase of such singularity, if all matter and radiation were restored, or first installed there? Finally, what about the possibilities of all the fundamental forces of mass concentration, gravity, electricity, magnetism, light, etc., being first produced in the first finite singularity, and not existing at all before, in a state of linear absolute wave matter motion?
As to Michael's statement;
Quote:
|
These two models that you want to discuss, are we to adopt an "assume it to be true" mode, as both these models are incomplete!
|
This statement is completely agreed to. The attempt here is to complete a workable classical model of the entire mechanical universe, from low to high entropy, IMO. We are to assume nothing unscientific___we are to prove with the laws of physics, logics of, and the true provable observations of. When we conjecture points, we should state so, as the human mind usually functions only with a few conjectures sliding in. If we forget to state so, we must own up to our conjectures, when pointed out. I hope we can all agree to this simple condition. It seems the only way to keep the subject on a scientific track.
As to Greg's statement;
Quote:
|
Yes ... I like it ... even if I can't contribute much ... I do have some ideas .... Thanks Dave ... I am with you on this thread ... If posts stray from the topic ... then delete them !!
|
I completely agree, and welcome.
And as to David's statement today;
Quote:
|
Most of us are aware of the condensate state of atomic particles to form quantum liquids. An accelerator experiment at Launce Livermore that produced conditions of trillions of degrees Kelvin, produced a fluidic substance they claim emulates the state of matter at about 10^-36 second after the big bang. It has absolute zero viscosity. This is the basic fundamental stuff of the universe that my concept is attempting to define. This experiment demonstrates that there is a fundamental substance and that it also has its own property of bonding. The state of motion of this substance is what defines all the other states and phenomena caused by this fundamental stuff of the universe. These details are found in wave theory-AKA, quantum physics.
|
As to the bonding property of the fundamental substance, I would agree the knowledge of this field property is of the highest importance. I have one question of the next statement; What causes, IYO, the state of motion of the fundamental stuff of the universe? IMO, this is the most important aspect of any provable model of the universe. We both know and agree it has always been in motion, but IYO, what is the scientific self-cause of this self-motion? Your last sentence, I have a problem with, as IMO, it is an assumption based on unprovable +c guage theories. I say all quantum models can be re-modeled in classical -c and true c velocities. As an example, Milo Wolff uses 11c in his guage theories to discover the laws of physics in the electron, which I see as pure "Mythos." I myself, found I could, as far back as the seventies, answer just about any question of the workings of the universe, with superluminal tacheons___thus I scrapped all +c velocities as possible "Mythos", and went looking for a better model. Also, at this moment, I might mention the "Mythos" created around -0k___this also allows such an exaggeration of facts, laws and imaginations___it must be thrown out on the same grounds___it too easily answers all scientific questions___thus is not science. Further, I would point out the extremely undersized point problem___a point extending infinitely to zero/nothing___it also too easily answers all scientific questions___thus is not science. There are no examples in nature of any one of these three ideas. Just as an example, take the electron, that seems to blink on and off, so most everyone assumes it's jitterwebung to be superluminal___this need not be so. If we just take Einstein's own original hypothesis of looking in the mirror at true c. When we see the electron it could just as easily be at -c, and when we don't it could be at true c. The fact of the matter is that when an electron has taken on all its true and full velocity, it can not transmit its signature, as all the energy would be installed in itself, thus Einstein surmised, correctly I believe, that he would not see himself in the mirror at true c. Carver Mead has the best quantum physics of wave theories, IMO. Einstein just seemed to have forgot a lot of his original hypothesis. So, as to the point singularity model containing any scientific validity, I can't possibly see how, as it would require the unrequired in two places___the superluminal and breaking the symmetry of the fundamental laws of physics, especially as to the "cosmological censure" of a naked singularity. Hawking and Penrose are trying to say a temporary symmetry breaking of the laws of physics and thermodynamics is acceptable to allow their point theory singularities to work___It is unacceptable to me___It isn't necessary. IMO, a real dark matter singularity can work without breaking any symmetries of any of the laws of physics. It can also show a new model of quantum mechanics.
My main question to you Dave is; Where is the cold low entropy quantum field, in all of quantum mechanics? What is its true state and interactions with the rest of quantum field theories___all of them?
I think that's enough for a starter. Just realize I may have conjectured some, but I premised my statements as possible models of a possible universe.
Sincerely,
Lloyd
p.s.
David, I'll go over your other statement more thoroughly, and reply in depth later.