Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing  Hi Lloyd;
May I suggest we start a little slower and take one issue at a time and keep our posts a reasonable size that can be responded to. ........
........ PRIOR TO THE UNIVERSE EVENT:
As I see it, we have agreed on an axiomatic concept of existence that states:
Axiom 1.. An infinite void or place does exist. (Absolute void)
Axiom 2.. An entity that promotes physical phenomena exists. (Fundamental matter) |
Dave ... If Lloyds model is called the 'Past Hypothesis Law', then this would give three models proposed
1.. The Standard Model
2.. The WingIt Model
3.. The Past Hypothesis Model
I am a 'disciple' of the Standard Model. By disciple, I mean that I do my best to understand the Universe using the principles of this model. I am not a fanatic about the defense of this model ... But it has a great body of evidence and scientific support, to back it up. Are we to recognise this in this thread ?? ... May we quote 'Science' as taught by recognised EDUs and such..??
I also have a Model (or Conjecture) that I would like to introduce. When I first joined the TOE forum I was bewildered by the number and variety of ideas and opinions... How to sift the facts from the fiction for a beginner like me. In the end I found this impossible. So I set myself a rule for a model........
Background of Model. (this will be my longest post in this thread)
Accept every fact/idea that appears meretricious to my idea of 'common sense' .... or even close to 'common sense' .... and then 'tweak' the model until it fits or has to be rejected. So my model has grown from the 'condensed thought' of this forum. Its a child of the forum, no longer directed by me. .. its a freelance model.
What can it do ? If gauge theory can be described as bending ideas to fit facts, then this model is a gauge theory that explains circumstances that gave rise to the Big Bang/expansion theory. If you think it has no place in this thread then we will ignore it and I will be happy to sit back and listen and take notes.
What constraints 'bind' it ? I use a form of Math called 'Normalisation' which is widely used in the design of Relational Databases. This is a math of dependencies. Simply put the data in any table must be wholly dependent on the 'primary key' of that table and no other. Other data must be removed to another table with a new primary key. If the tables are to be related, then the second 'primary key' must exist in the first table as a 'foreign key'. Along with three other rules (and a simple two construct language called SQL), this allows relational databases to 'normalise' data. To present it to 'humans' in digestable chunks without comprising integrity of the data. You don't need to know the 'Normalisation Rules' nor SQL for this model. Using these rules prevents my own bias or prejudice from entering the model (I hope).
The Asymptotic Creation Model.
In the beginning was the Unified Force. The Unified Force was in trouble, something had caused a ripple in its equilibrium. (The Model starts here).
Some thing was resisting the Unified Force's Hexpansion. (The prefix 'H' denotes the same word, in this case, expansion', as happening in a 'Higher Plane', 'Dimension', 'Degree-of-freedom', or reluctantly 'Conscious'). The rate of Hexpansion was so great that the weakest part of the Unified Force lost its 'Helasticity' and 'Shelled Out'. It formed an independent force of its own. The possibility of acceleration or motion was born.
Shells. (or Balls)
I call the Unified Force 5th-Normal-Form or 5th-Normal-Force or 5NF.
When a force shells out it is no longer 5NF. Nor is the product of the now two separate forces equal to 5NF. 5NF no longer exists, and with it went a degree-of-freedom or degree-of-Integrity (whatever) that is no longer available to either of the remaining two forces. The Universe can now only be rationalised to Fourth Normal Form (Its lost a degree of integrity). The payback for the loss of 5NF is the possibility of Motion. (not Hmotion)
Forces have Resources.
Why the possibility of Motion?
In this model I have 'gravity' or the 'possibility of gravity' as the first force to become independent. Its the weakest and was the first to let go. This created an 'arena' for the 'remains of 5NF'. When a force shells out it takes with it, it needs to for its own identity, the resources that could no longer remain unified. These resources are no longer available to the other remaining force. The remaining force can no longer Hexpand, the 'resource' has gone.... along with the shelled out, independent force.
The remaining force is 'constrained' to conduct its operations within the 'shell' of the independent force. Both forces are now independent in their own right, but constrained by the absence, or presence, of the resources held by the other force. Neither of the two forces is any longer accountable to the other. But they cannot disobey the constraints of the other. In other words the new mathematics of each force no longer needs to be explained by the other. But the 'output' or results must be within the constraints placed there by the absence, or presence, of the other force.
I think of this as a non-hollow shell, all pervasive, dense according to the Hpressure at which it shelled out. For example, the electro-magnetic force would have required an Hpressure of 10^38 times greater than gravity. and consequently its shell would be that much denser.
When gravity shelled out it left (or created) an all pervasive shell that had the possibility of motion. When the electro-magnetic force shelled out (within the constraints of the first shell) of the remains of 5NF (energy), the possibility of Matter was born. The possibility of acceleration (first shell) and energy (second shell) means that Matter may be realised. It is not disallowed. Matter, if realised, it will be the product of two independent and non-accountable forces, working within the constraints of each other. Other lower, and incredibly more dense shells will govern its existence.
1 .. Each force is both independent and accountable. 2 .. No force is required to explain its independent operations, only its accountability. 3 .. When a force shells out, the product of the two seperate forces are not equal to the original force. This loss of a degree of freedom or degree of Integrity is manifested as the 'independence' of the now two separate forces.
How does it explain
Quantum Mechanics? ....If you accept the rules, or at least suspend your disbelief, then it becomes easy to explain why Quantum mechanics is bizarre. Quantum Mechanics are 'denser shells' that govern the rules of Matter. They cannot describe space/time or to a lesser degree effects of the electro-magnetic force, because they no longer have access to these resources. These resources have become the exclusive property of less dense shells. So we can predict the outcomes (constraints of other shells) of quantum experiments, but not 'see how' the experiment is practically realised (independence of these shells)...
Anthropic Principle?.. Well, if each force always shells out at a set Hpressure, the Universe will always be relationally perfect. Its integrity is guaranteed.
Holographic? .. Matter is the product of independent and constrained shells.
Consciousness, or Intelligent Design? .. The only explanation I can bend to fit the facts here, is that 5NF may itself be independent and constrained by a higher less dense shell... But I admit I have no concept of this.
The way we see things? .. Well, it could be said that the possibilty of Life was born within the first two shells. We are matter, governed by energy within the constraints of gravity. We are not accountable to QM and QM is not accountable to us. We have a degree of freedom or integrity over and above more dense shells, but not as high as less dense shells. Not terrific I know.
As I said, this is a
'Designer Model' built to suit circumstance, it does however meet your two axioms ?? Also, the sequence is only the tool of explanation. For all I know everything occurred instantaneously.
Greg