Quantum Wave Cosmology is my TOE :)

[Bogie]

A quantum theory of spacetime allows us to state that 3D space by itself must be finite since there is a well defined concept of physical volume. One the other hand, if time is added as a physical dimension then using 4D non-Euclidean geometry there exist at least two topologies: elliptic and hyperbolic.

Well, that's right from the spacetime perspective but the catch is that there has to have been a beginning in order for that to hold. The beginning and the start point where energy density first emerges is the perfect way to establish the connection between time and space. They began together and anything the happened to the initial space also has a time associated with it at all points in space so the fabric of spacetime is finite.

Let me ask you how much of a problem it would be to the quantum theory of spacetime if there was no beginning; if space was infinite and had always existed. And let me ask you if there is a single piece of evidence that indicates that space did not always exist and that a Big Bang type of event didn't happen within existing space and from existing energy density?

Spherical symmetry is a special case of elliptic topology as used by both special and general relativity. Both tried to hold on to a defined concept of volume. However, in hyperbolic geometry the definition of physical volume is unnecessary and counter productive. A new definition of virtual volume can be replaced by a principle of directional invariance. In elliptic topology, any particle implies a corresponding volume and radius. In hyperbolic, the same particle is connected to its local spacetime vertices and the directional non-equilibrium configuration help determines its existence without a defined physical volume. If dynamic equilibrium is achieved then the particle becomes conjoined with the spacetime continuum and cease to be observable.

I've often heard it stated that the universe doesn't care what seems logical .

[austintorn@aol.com]

Space does seem to be expanding. If there was a Bang then its cause could be that, given that if we wait long enough, which we can, since all was forever, then low probability events must eventually happen, such as the quantum froth being just right to go through some kind of chain reaction in which kazillions of particles spew forth at about the same time.

Or, as you suggested, there is accumulation over time, the antimatter somehow going somewhere else so as not to get in the way by canceling out our uncle matter.

Or, red-shift is really just photon decay.

If there is true expansion, then I guess the universe will become a rather lonely place someday—unless other arenas move in or clash within ours.

There has to be some way of the universe keeping on going, it would seem.

[AntonioLao]

A physical beginning of 3D space is a state of zero volume (zero length, zero width, and zero height). In 3D spherical geometry, this is a sphere of zero radius and translated into non-Euclidean geometry as a 3-space of infinite positive curvature since the curvature is defined as the reciprocal of the radius. On the other hand, in hyperbolic geometry zero radius means that two principal curvatures (relatively defined as the positive and the negative curvature) come in contact at a point and the total cuvature is zero at that point. Since the infinite spacetime continuum is composed of infinity of points, each point defines a localized total zero curvature as the sum of a H-plus and a H-minus spacetime charge.

[Bogie]

A physical beginning of 3D space is a state of zero volume (zero length, zero width, and zero height). In 3D spherical geometry, this is a sphere of zero radius and translated into non-Euclidean geometry as a 3-space of infinite positive curvature since the curvature is defined as the reciprocal of the radius. On the other hand, in hyperbolic geometry zero radius means that two principal curvatures (relatively defined as the positive and the negative curvature) come in contact at a point and the total cuvature is zero at that point. Since the infinite spacetime continuum is composed of infinity of points, each point defines a localized total zero curvature as the sum of a H-plus and a H-minus spacetime charge.

The physical beginning of 3D space being zero volume seems to fit the implied beginning in Big Bang Theory. BBT also seems to imply that the energy density in that zero volume of space was infinite. In QWC that combination of zero volume and infinite energy density is impossible.

There is one view that I have come across that is a spacetime view that does not require zero volume or infinite energy density. Some of you might be aware that the solution to the “beginning” problem for space time is offered by RascalPuff in Total Field Theory: Reinstatement of Cosmological Constant & Steady State Theories.

I read it last year and enjoyed it and his style. He goes back to what is suggested as the initial meaning of Einstein’s statements about matter, space, and the cosmological constant indicating that matter itself expands to maintain a relatively fixed relationship to the space that it occupies. I may not be stating that very well but if he is right then the concept of the infinitesimal becomes operative in reality. Going back in time to examine the volume of the finite universe reveals a smaller and smaller universe but familiar objects would not seem closer to each other or smaller than today because the size of material things would be smaller and smaller too.

That is one way that TFT explains how spacetime can exist in an expanding universe without invoking a beginning. Very thought provoking; I admire that view but prefer the Quantum Wave Cosmology view that space has always existed and is infinite and that matter exists in a potentially infinite number of arenas across the landscape of the greater universe.

[AntonioLao]

A compehensive theory for QWC would then be very closed to one I'm working on, of which vindication comes if and only if cold fusion of deuterons is successfully achieved.

[Bogie]

A compehensive theory for QWC would then be very closed to one I'm working on, of which vindication comes if and only if cold fusion of deuterons is successfully achieved.

Of course QWC is very speculative but then any complete cosmology must contain speculation because we just don’t know some things about the nature of the universe. One clear observation that we can rely on though is that the universe works and so there is a complete set of facts that if known would describe the interconnected details.

In QWC, when matter forms in an arena the volume of matter itself holds essentially fixed particle by particle even though the arena is spatially expanding into already existing space. That is why the galaxies and clusters all appear to be moving away from each other. The separation momentum imparted to the particles when they formed during the early expansion of the arena is conserved right up to the observed separation of galaxies that formed from them.

Unlike in Total Field Theory (TFT) warmly mentioned in the previous post, the essentially fixed volume occupied by individual stable particles in QWC holds until an arena overlaps with an adjacent arena.

This fixed volume of fundamental particles is compatible with the Standard Model of Particle Physics except for one striking difference. The standard model says that the fundamental particles have no internal composition. That is problematic in QWC where the so called fundamental particles with mass are composed of energy in quantum increments and their presence is maintained by a quantum action process.

For talking purposes I calculate the number of energy quanta in an electron and a proton based on some questionable logic that only someone fairly certain that there is another level of composition of particles would be interested in. It uses the radius, surface and volume of the proton along with mainstream estimates of the relationship between the rest energy of an electron and proton. The supposed quanta at the surface of the proton are speculated to equate to the total quanta in an electron in order to predict the number of energy quanta in a proton and an electron.

If you want to do the math here is the questionable logic that only someone who was fairly certain about the quantization of a proton might find interesting:

The reasoning behind that idea is that the proton is a stable configuration of energy quanta that forms from quarks that previously had formed from dark matter, i.e. energy quanta that form across the entire expanding arena when the energy density declines to the threshold at which matter forms. That is a complex sentence so let me break it down in the order which I speculate that it takes place in the matter formation stage of the early arena expansion:

The big burst (or Big Bang if you like) occurs

Dense dark energy from the core of the crunch is released into superluminal expansion

The energy density rapidly falls to within the range of matter formation

Energy quanta form across the entire sea of unquantized dark energy

Energy quanta represent dark matter that is required for the formation of quarks

Quarks form because the energy density during the expansion of the arena is ideal for them to form and they can remain stable at that extremely high energy density

As the energy density continues to decline the quarks either combine into other stable particles like protons or they decay back to energy quanta in the quantized sea of dark matter

Protons that form from quanta are stable particles that can retain their presence by interacting at their surface with the energy quanta surrounding them

The swarming energy quanta in that sea of quanta are trying to enter the stable proton surface of the proton at every location on the surface at the same time

The swarming quanta cannot establish themselves on the surface due to the stability of the proton where every niche is filled and they are violently rejected

However the surface of a proton continues to strongly attract one quanta surrounding it for every quanta on its surface

If the quanta swarming the surface of a proton are equal to the number of quanta in an electron then the number of quanta occupying the surface to the proton might equal the number of quanta in an electron

If the total energy quanta in an electron equal 1/1836th of the quanta in a proton then the number of quanta at the surface of the proton is 1/1836 of the number of quanta in the entire proton

Using the relationship between the surface and the volume of a sphere, we can solve for the number of quanta in both the proton and the electron

Area/Volume = (4 pi r2)/(4/3 pi r3) = 3/r = 1/1836, therefore r = 3*1836 = 5508.
The volume of a proton is 4/3 pi r^3.
The area of the surface of a proton is 4 pi r^2.
The relationship between the surface and the volume is going to be equal to 1/836.
That means that the radius r of a proton is 5508 average quanta diameters.
Then the surface contains 4 pi r^2 quanta which equals 381,239,356 quanta which then also equals the quanta in an electron.
And a proton volume contains 4/3 pi^3 quanta which equals 699,955,457,517 quanta; let's say in QWC there are 700 billion quanta in a proton.

Now if you say that this doesn’t work because the units are wrong, i.e. the ratio of the masses, 1:1,836, is a dimensionless number, but the ratio of area to volume has dimensions of inverse length, then you have to start thinking in terms of energy quanta as the unit of measure. If in energy quanta units the proton energy is 1,836 times the energy quanta units of the electron energy then these calculations might be a starting point. Sure there are objections but this is just a ball park number for talking purposes and to show the huge numbers of energy quanta that might make up the internal composition of atomic particles in the standard model.

[AntonioLao]

we just don’t know some things about the nature of the universe.

One nature of the universe that is deemed sufficient for the study of all of classical and quantum physics is the principle of least action or the Lagrangian formulation of energy, contrasting the Hamiltonian formalism. This principle states explicitly that the universe does not waste the expenditure of energy.

[Bogie]

...If the total energy quanta in an electron equal 1/1836th of the quanta in a proton then the number of quanta at the surface of the proton is 1/1836 of the number of quanta in the entire proton

Hi Antonio, I know your read the previous post before I noticed that I had typed the word "electron" instead of the word "quanta" in the middle of the above (corrected) sentence. You may or may not have been perplexed when you read it ; I'm betting your were, and maybe still are even after the correction, lol. Thanks for your comments. My approach to the speculations of QWC and the approach used in quantum physics for describing the nature of the universe come from different directions with the same goal.

[Bogie]

Since in QWC we are speculating that the energy in a quantum is 1/381,239,356 th of the energy in an electron at rest, then we can run with that to equate the quantum to any energy that can be calculated in eV, right? But my question is how do I calculate the number of quanta in an eV? And maybe we should establish a designation for the energy in a quantum, something like … eQ or just q for short? So how many q in an average human? Please show the calculations .

[Bogie]

Don't be confused by the reference to the surface of a proton. In QWC the proton has no physical surface as such. At any instant the surface of a proton consists of 381,239,356 quanta. Each quanta at the surface is undergoing the process of quantum action, so the position occupied by each quanta is nothing more than a disturbed patch of space in which the energy in that patch is fluctuating somewhere along in the process of quantization.