[Lloyd Gillespie]

I propose David and I discuss "The Past Hypothesis Law"___The past started in low entropy because it's physically impossible for it not to. What say David?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie The past started in low entropy because it's physically impossible for it not to.

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.

[dleviwing]

Hi Lloyd;
Sounds like a good start. Rather than “invitation only”, let’s just say that all posts not relevant to the pure science theme will be removed. I have seen too many good science threads destroyed by creationist infiltration and pure nonsense.

Let’s start with everyone posting in this thread must submit their scenario of the initial event, adopt another members, or use the standard model Big Bang. You may also start before the event if you wish.

THE STANDARD MODEL: The standard model describes our universe as having expanded from a “singularity”; a point-like region of space (or in space) that was supersaturated with energy that formed an ultra-hot ultra-dense medium in which the gravity was so strong that it curved space back on itself in a distance of about 10^-36 cm. As the universe became larger it cooled from its ultra-dense ultra-hot origins. The fundamental interactions sorted themselves out into the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces. The resulting mixed soup of matter, neutrinos, and radiation, cooled and separated, and the components went their separate ways. The radiation component, we still see today as the cosmic microwave background. The matter congealed into dust clumps that became galaxies. Stars formed, exploded in supernova violence, and formed again, repeatedly recycling matter into heavier elements. The result is what we call the Big Bang even though it is really a Big Swelling.

To clarify this inflation model further, we must also accept the notion that nothing existed prior to this event. By nothing, science means that there was not a place for the universe to expand into. No empty void and no existence of any kind. As a realist, I have a problem with this something from absolute nothing scenario. The Standard Model as it stands, may just as well start with the words "Let there be light". This model is another form of the Genesis philosophy.

THE WINGIT MODEL:
The Wingit scenario starts by saying that fundamental substance of the universe was concentrated in units of enormous quantities. These units may have been whizzing through the cosmic void with absolute linear motion (2x10^20 m/s) in all different directions. By some remote chance, two of these units where on a collision course ordained to create a remarkable existence from this single substance. In this scenario there is no need to comprehend entities of energy, forces, antimatter, or gravity, to explain the existence of stars, planets, and galaxies, only an understanding of the basic properties of the fundamental substance that is about to collide. These properties are primarily, “Self-affinity” (bonding) and “Absolute Motion”. These units of matter had these properties before this event and all the material systems formed from these units will have these properties after the event. This scenario infers that a place and a substance has always existed and thus no real beginning.

Total uniform motion of this entity is like saying it is total kinetic energy and thus only one degree of freedom – absolute zero temperature. The collision converts the uniform linear motion to chaotic vibrations to maximum temperature and entropy. With a little tweaking of the standard model, the rest is history.

WHO’S NEXT?

[mkirkpatrick]

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!

In the standard model,I can agree that the universe "expanded from a singularity" I have
said this all along! Albeit my follow on, and leading up to are very different.

regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Michael;
This is Lloyd’s thread and as yet he has not commented on my proposal for it. In your case, my suggestion is not a multiple choice but is a format to post your own scenario or comment on others scenarios (“Let there be light” is not acceptable without some form of supporting evidence). Comments or critiquing require PROFFESSONAL demeanor and explanations – sarcasms will be removed.

If you wish to accept Lloyd’s offer along with me, then do so. Since you agree with the standard model, then you must defend it. I believe it is the only Geneses model that can be considered here.

Both models are incompletely presented here. This thread will endeavor to go into the details with discussion of supporting evidence and theories.

[Graybeard]

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 !!


Greg

[dleviwing]

Example of Wingit model support:
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.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

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;

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;

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;

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;

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.

[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. Let’s start by looking at what we both, and hopefully others, recognize as flaws in the current BB and try to define the fundamental substance and its properties; Then we can go on to discuss the more complex issues.

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)

We could call this substance “Dark Matter”, but dark matter is defined as producing gravity. At this phase there is no mechanism to produce gravity. So let’s go on and define our concepts of “FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES” of this substance.

I have expressed one property as being the property of “Bonding”. In my view this is just a function that the substance will adhere to itself upon contact. You interpreted it as saying it had quantum field properties. Quantum interpretations do not come into play at this phase. QED does not come into effect until the substance evolves into structure and interactions of structures. (thermodynamics and wave mechanics)

If this “Bonding” property is agreed upon, then we can state it as a third axiomatic concept of “SELF-AFFINITY”. If not, then let’s continue to discuss fundamental properties and debate our differences.

Axiom 3: Fundamental matter adheres to itself – Self-Affinity.

BTW: My calculations for the volume of the substance prior to the universe event is approximately a 50,000 kilometer diameter sphere. We can discuss the math latter. Relative to the infinite void, I guess we could call it a zero point, but not as it is currently interpreted.

Are we ready to go on, or does someone need to discuss this Pre-event state further or think it is just mythomania?

Lloyd: I would like to change the name of your thread to something more fitting to what we are doing. Maybe “Universal Evolution”. Let me know.

[Graybeard]

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 pos