Quantum Wave Cosmology is my TOE :)

[Bogie]

A question. So are you still going to preview your current views here, from your thoughts and your words??


Regards Mikal

In a word, yes.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Now, if the secondary particles, which, remarkably, we call “fundamental” or “elemental”, such as electrons, neutrinos, and maybe even protons, sometimes, (although they might be made of quarks) were really primary and eternal, there there would be a great paradox of “How could there be a certain exact amount of stuff around, such as in the universe, with nothing prior to determine that specific amount, like, you know, how could a definite thing be “made” without ever being made?” So, it seems that time is only of the motions of definites, but maybe there’s more to that one, such as some Planck instants ticking away, plus our psychological time.

Well, anyway, those secondary definites do change, combine, interact, and wear out, although some, like the proton, may be quite enduring, to perhaps 10**34 years.

So, still, what the amount, even though they are secondary granulations? As we have seen, the amount varies, the granulations coming and going into and out of the substructure of the quantum foam, plus they all cancel to zero anyway, so no real paradox there. Whew!

Further, if these secondaries were really real, primary, definite, lasting forever, and always having been, then we would be faced with the paradox that infinities and eternities have completed, but that they can never be completed, as by definition, these hypothetical “actual” infinities and eternities being just words erroneously used in place of potential infinities and eternities. A “ray” may go out, towards forever, but, it never gets there.

[Bogie]

True. I often use the term potentially infinite. But I don't have any problem considering space, time and energy as infinite. I would qualify some things as potentially infinite like when I say the arena landscape of the greater universe is potentially infinite.

[austintorn@aol.com]

If anything were infinite, such as energy, we would all be packed in closer than sardines.

And, yes, we can get into trouble using some shorthands of words, as neither Nothing (total) nor Infinity can exist, as Nothing is not there, having no properties, in fact, being the lack of anything and everything, while the infinite is "that sequence or amount or such real thing (not math) that can never be gotten to (completed)".

We even have "consciousness" floating around all by itself, whereas it is really a processes of a being with a mind-brain-neurons-cells-molecules-atoms-particles.

So, what would an "infinite consciousness" be but a "that which could never be" "what can't just float around".

Looking to the future, towards more and larger complexity, on up from the tiny and the simple, it could be then that our mind—>Mind—>MIND—> MIND—> something really INTELLIGENT, even many minds joining.

And as for anything that came from Nothing, well, Nothing is not productive.

Etc,. etc.

So, as neither Nothing nor Infinity can be, "something" had to.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Bogie, I might have some semi-recent quantum stuff in the 'Idea' thread, which thread is usually active and under 'Your Toe Theory', and, going by your profile, if you like thriller novels, Nelson DeMille has several, as does David Baldacchi (spelling?).

[Bogie]

If anything were infinite, such as energy, we would all be packed in closer than sardines.

And, yes, we can get into trouble using some shorthands of words, as neither Nothing (total) nor Infinity can exist, as Nothing is not there, having no properties, in fact, being the lack of anything and everything, while the infinite is "that sequence or amount or such real thing (not math) that can never be gotten to (completed)".

We even have "consciousness" floating around all by itself, whereas it is really a processes of a being with a mind-brain-neurons-cells-molecules-atoms-particles.

So, what would an "infinite consciousness" be but a "that which could never be" "what can't just float around".

Looking to the future, towards more and larger complexity, on up from the tiny and the simple, it could be then that our mind—>Mind—>MIND—> MIND—> something really INTELLIGENT, even many minds joining.

And as for anything that came from Nothing, well, Nothing is not productive.

Etc,. etc.

So, as neither Nothing nor Infinity can be, "something" had to.

I'm glad you have an opinion on the infinities because QWC starts with three of them as axioms. Space, energy, and time. I drop the "potentially" and just go straight to infinite on those characteristics of the universe. The idea of using them as axioms is to take a shortcut to getting into the mechanics of QWC, but just because they are givens in my cosmology doesn't mean I am not ready to defend my position on them. In fact that is a good place to start this thread.

The Basics of QWC

What is space?

Space: Space has always existed; space is infinite; space is where things exist and where things happen; space is independent of anything that exists in it or anything that happens in it; if nothing but space existed space would still be there and would be empty; there is no empty space and never has been; all space has energy density; the average energy density of space is a constant on a grand scale; the energy density in any patch of space is always fluctuating; space is not expanding, is not inflating, and is not tied to an origin or a beginning of time.

If we describe a scenario where there is nothing at all but empty space, space would still be infinite in extent. I start with space because it is the most important characteristic of the universe and without it I don’t have to tell you how cramped things would be.

You could define a point in space and you could extend a straight line through space in all directions from that point and each line would never have to end. You could have lines of infinite length going in all directions from every point in space. There would be an infinite number of points and all the straight lines from all points could be of infinite length. You could go crazy trying to think about it extending further and further unless you just accept it as one of the infinities of the universe.

A point in space has location but no dimensions and no volume. Can a single point in space even be said to have location, maybe not. In order for a location to have meaning there has to be something physical in space as a reference point. When things exist in space they have location relative to each other. We can quantify the volume of space that they occupy and we can make reference to directions and distances between objects.

Objects do not shove space out of the way, they occupy space. If something happens to cause an object to move, that movement occurs through space and does not affect the space through which it moves at all. Space is unchanged by what is in it and by what happens in it. Space is infinite and space is eternal.

We all know what space is to the extent that we experience space around us and can see great distances through space. The Hubble telescope opened up a panorama of stars and galaxies to our view. It is a view that lets us see galaxies that are billions of light years away from us. The light that we see and record on Hubble images of those faraway places has been traveling through space for those billions of years.

In QWC I refer to the volume of space occupied by our known universe of near and distant galaxies as the Hubble Volume of space. In our Hubble Volume of space we have those stars and galaxies that we can see and it is filled with light waves that traverse the space and that are continually reaching us from distant sources. There are also things in our Hubble Volume that don’t radiate light anywhere along the electromagnetic spectrum but that are theorized to exist in space by the affect that they have on objects that we can detect; dark energy and dark matter are two examples.

Though we seem to see through space, what we really see are wave fronts of electromagnetic radiation reaching us from distant objects. Space between us and those distant objects is occupied by wave fronts traversing space toward us but not observed until they reach us. There is a time delay from the moment of radiation to the moment of observation due to the length of time it takes for light to travel through space. If a star burns out and light stops being emitted from it we don’t know it has burned out for a period equal to the time delay during which the last wave front emitted is traversing the intervening space.

[Bogie]

Bogie, I might have some semi-recent quantum stuff in the 'Idea' thread, which thread is usually active and under 'Your Toe Theory', and, going by your profile, if you like thriller novels, Nelson DeMille has several, as does David Baldacchi (spelling?).

I have been taking a look at the "Idea" thread; interesting to say the least. And I just started "The First Family", which is Baldacci's latest. Love those thrillers.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Indeed, there are quantum fluctuations everywhere that we can tell, also known as the vacuum energy, the zero-point energy (meaning the lowest, not zero), tunneling, and perhaps even uncertainty. It’s a jittery, jitterbugging place that can never sit still.

Einstein didn’t see space and time (space-time) as a fixed stage waiting to be filled, but I do like the fluctuations as being the ultimate ground-state, plus, he can’t post here, and so we can say whatever we want, ha-ha. His theories didn’t really address all of the quantum realm that well, but work for all that’s well beyond. Although QED unites his SR and the quantum, there is not much for his GR doing the same.

Swarms of virtual particles, which are truly real, arise, and may influence other particles around, which is called “screening”.

Anyway, space then is a “where”, a place for the “what” of mass-energy to move around in.

The “why”, for the ground-state’s being, as we’ve already covered, is that Nothing couldn’t cut it, so something had to be.

The “how” is via the fluctuations throwing off particles in pairs, presumably in any old way, but throwing off electron-positrons more often since they are lighter forms.

The “then” is the past and the “when” is the future, all because of the “what” of stuff (appearances) moving through space, the goings from here to there taking “time”, a measure of the change in distance. “Now” is a blend of past, present, and future.

The “who” is us, the ‘spirit of life’ come from all of the above, pretty much reflecting those states, noting things moving through time, and collapsing our own actions and thoughts from scenarios of consequences via various probabilities.

(I try to write some thrillers, too.)

[Bogie]

Indeed, there are quantum fluctuations everywhere that we can tell, also known as the vacuum energy, the zero-point energy (meaning the lowest, not zero), tunneling, and perhaps even uncertainty. It’s a jittery, jitterbugging place that can never sit still.

Einstein didn’t see space and time (space-time) as a fixed stage waiting to be filled, but I do like the fluctuations as being the ultimate ground-state, plus, he can’t post here, and so we can say whatever we want, ha-ha. His theories didn’t really address all of the quantum realm that well, but work for all that’s well beyond. Although QED unites his SR and the quantum, there is not much for his GR doing the same.

Swarms of virtual particles, which are truly real, arise, and may influence other particles around, which is called “screening”.

Anyway, space then is a “where”, a place for the “what” of mass-energy to move around in.

The “why”, for the ground-state’s being, as we’ve already covered, is that Nothing couldn’t cut it, so something had to be.

The “how” is via the fluctuations throwing off particles in pairs, presumably in any old way, but throwing off electron-positrons more often since they are lighter forms.

The “then” is the past and the “when” is the future, all because of the “what” of stuff (appearances) moving through space, the goings from here to there taking “time”, a measure of the change in distance. “Now” is a blend of past, present, and future.

The “who” is us, the ‘spirit of life’ come from all of the above, pretty much reflecting those states, noting things moving through time, and collapsing our own actions and thoughts from scenarios of consequences via various probabilities.

(I try to write some thrillers, too.)

I do intend to post my definition of energy like I posted my definition of space and obviously it is much more interesting to talk about what is in space instead of space it self . But ... I can't help but think that we should wait and see if anyone wants to discuss the definition of space a little more. I know some people are not comfortable with my view that space is infinite and has always existed. It goes against the standard view, against Big Bang Theory and against some interpretations of General Relativity. Would anyone like to take up the challenge to offer an explanation why they think that space is not infinite and hasn't always existed before I toss out my speculations about the nature of energy?

[Mikal]

Hi Bogie…I was wondering if you could share some thoughts on this statement by an Astrophysict who wrote “The God Theory?”

“Instead of an absolute space and time filled with ether that sustains the epiphenomenon of light, light becomes the fundamental thing whose propagation determines the flow of time and the measure of distance. We can almost say that light creates space-time. I suggest that light, in the form of a universal electro-magnetic zero-point field also creates and sustains the world of matter that fills space-time. Thus the words, “Let there be light” may express more than a poetic mythology after all.
(B. Haisch—The God Theory)

I’ll just thank you in advance here Bogie….

Regards Mikal