Quantum Wave Cosmology is my TOE :)

[AntonioLao]

The effect was proposed by Casimir and Polder in 1948 and measured accurately by Lamoreaux of LANL in 1997. The force truly exists. For further detailed info please refer to their original articles in the various scientific journals.

[Bogie]

The effect was proposed by Casimir and Polder in 1948 and measured accurately by Lamoreaux of LANL in 1997. The force truly exists. For further detailed info please refer to their original articles in the various scientific journals.

I don't know why I'm so lazy today. But that experiment is the one that I was thinking about and though the effect observed may be a fact of nature, are you able to extrapolate that to the possibility that a freak convergence of virtual particles equal to the sum of all virtual particles that it would take to leave a residual of real particles equivalent to the total matter in the observable universe? And without the precisely separated plates to boot?

I think that I concluded long ago that the probability of that event is significantly lower than the possibility that a big crunch preceded the Big Bang.

Why is it so hard to consider the preconditions that could easily explain big bangs throughout a greater universe, keeping in mind that the inability to observe the greater universe is a feature of the Big Bang itself, i.e. the event horizon?

[AntonioLao]

that a freak convergence

The idea is alignment of directions analogous to how we add vector quantities. In the theory of classical electromagnetism, it is called the Poynting vector but in advanced physics it became known as the propagation tensor or spinor or twistor, etc. Spacetime vertices never converge, at the least separated by a minimum distance, say Planck length. So, if we vertices are aligned in the same direction we say they are connected and the combined configuration produces a greater force than its immediate infinitesimal neighborhood. Black hole theory defines an event horizon but BB theory must explains the naked singularity without horizon. One suggestion became knwon as the inflationary universe. It explains the different rates of expansion. But now, it can be explained as accelerated expansion since acceleration is the time rate of change of time rate of change or the time rate of change of linear velocity. There is another type of velocity called angular velocity which has a constant rate of change called the angular acceleration.

[Bogie]

There is a probability associated with this transformation and my preliminary calculation is the inverse sixth power of lightspeed: 1/c⁶ this indicates that BB is not a regularly occurring phenomenon.

That 1/c^6 is what I was calling a freak probability.

...Spacetime vertices never converge, at the least separated by a minimum distance, say Planck length. So, if we vertices are aligned in the same direction we say they are connected and the combined configuration produces a greater force than its immediate infinitesimal neighborhood.

I stand corrected. Let me try this: Instead of saying, "are you able to extrapolate that to the possibility that a freak convergence of virtual particles equal to the sum of all virtual particles that it would take to leave a residual of real particles equivalent to the total matter in the observable universe?", to, "are you saying that the tiny 1/c^6 probability came to pass, resulting in the Big Bang which occurred when a sufficient number of vertices were aligned in the same direction, an event that is analogous to a freak convergence of virtual particles like those produced by the Casimir effect equal to the sum of all virtual particles that it would take to leave a residual of real particles equivalent to the total matter in the observable universe? I guess that still sounds like a freak event doesn't it?

Black hole theory defines an event horizon but BB theory must explains the naked singularity without horizon. One suggestion became known as the inflationary universe. It explains the different rates of expansion.

I agree, but sometimes the commonly used reference to an event horizon in conjunction to the Big Bang can be better understood than a reference to Guth's Inflationary Theory which is also based on the Big Bang.

[AntonioLao]

A chain of derivation is as follows: The spacetime continuum (S) is given by S=Ec, E is the energy; c is the speed of light and Einstein’s E=mc². Now, substitute E=mc² into E in S gives S=mc³. The three distinct factors of rate and probability transformation are respectively c, c², and c³ together with 1/c, 1/c², and 1/c³. Next, by the law of probability for independence events, the combined probability must be the product of each probability. So, by probability normalization to unity the product is (1/c)(1/c²)(1/c³)=1/c⁶. Actually,the alignment of wavelengths creates standing waves between the plates. Standing waves similar to sound waves are the basis of musical tones.
Inflation is an explanation not a reference of scientific truth. It was replaced by accelerated expansion which was proved by astrophysics observation.

[Bogie]

A chain of derivation is as follows: The spacetime continuum (S) is given by S=Ec, E is the energy; c is the speed of light and Einstein’s E=mc². Now, substitute E=mc² into E in S gives S=mc³. The three distinct factors of rate and probability transformation are respectively c, c², and c³ together with 1/c, 1/c², and 1/c³. Next, by the law of probability for independence events, the combined probability must be the product of each probability. So, by probability normalization to unity the product is (1/c)(1/c²)(1/c³)=1/c⁶. Actually,the alignment of wavelengths creates standing waves between the plates. Standing waves similar to sound waves are the basis of musical tones.
Inflation is an explanation not a reference of scientific truth. It was replaced by accelerated expansion which was proved by astrophysics observation.

Amazing that you can keep up with all of that. Do you find it corresponds to reality. I ask everyone who has the math down pat to show me an instance where such correspondence exists. Maybe you are saying that it exists in the standing waves between the plates but then how do those plates and the experimental observation of standing waves apply to natural phenomenon that could produce our observable universe?

Maybe you have a mathematical answer for that but the QWC physical picture of a big crunch bursting into expansion based on there being a maximum level of energy density beyond which matter and gravity cannot function seems much more probable to me .

Anyway, the point about accelerating expansion replacing inflationary theory may be accurate but accelerating expansion is part of the logic of QWC. Accelerating expansion can be restated to be what the observed data supports, i.e. the view that the rate of separation between the galaxies is increasing. Gravity, which spacetime does not support as such, obeys the inverse square law in QWC. The increase in distance between galaxies has an inverse relationship to the gravitational attraction between galaxies and a direct relationship to the increase in separation momentum displayed by the galaxies.

In other words, in a maturing arena the galaxies have conserved the expansion momentum from the initial expansion event (Big Bang if you like). That expansion momentum has phases through the maturing process. Before matter and gravity formed the rate of expansion was perhaps at the speed of light or even superluminal. As matter formed and gravity began to be expressed by that matter, the expansion became a factor of the net effect of two forces, expansion and gravity.

In the close quarters of the period of early matter formation gravity was strong enough to cause clumping of particles and you can follow that line of reasoning through the formation of stars and galaxies. But when the distance between "clumps" became measured at the galactic level the inverse square law resulted in the inability for gravity to cause further clumping and the galaxies and clusters that exist today are no longer displaying the ability to "clump". Expansion momentum as won out over gravity within the arena and that means that the separation of the galaxies will continue to accelerate until something comes along to interrupt that separation; like the intersection and overlap between our arena and some nearby arena expanding toward us, yikes.

[AntonioLao]

Before we continue this kind of discussion, I would like you to tell me what is it that is really expanding in the Einstein's 16 nonlinear field equations of general relativity? I asked because you never refer your discussions to GR which is the one and only theory of BB. Your answer will allow me whether we will or will not continue to discuss the importance of the cosmological constant which was an addon made by Einstein to produce a static universe but now needed to reverse the BB into a BC.

[Bogie]

Before we continue this kind of discussion, I would like you to tell me what is it that is really expanding in the Einstein's 16 nonlinear field equations of general relativity? I asked because you never refer your discussions to GR which is the one and only theory of BB. Your answer will allow me whether we will or will not continue to discuss the importance of the cosmological constant which was an addon made by Einstein to produce a static universe but now needed to reverse the BB into a BC.

My view is that the EFEs are the best we can do at describing the effect of gravity, but they are not a perfect representation of realty and there are some phenomena that don't fit. If GR must stand or fall based on the EFEs alone then there is something missing in the equations.

My discussions don't refer to GR because my view is that everything that we gain via GR can be explained by other practical considerations like I just displayed in my discussion of accelerating expansion.

The existence of a cosmological constant is not part of QWC because the universe is not finite and the galaxies within each of the arenas will always continue to separate at an accelerating rate until interrupted, meaning that arena by arena the same constant would apply and it is invariant.

The term 'static' universe or 'steady state' can be interpreted to apply to QWC if you consider that an infinite universe can comply to the cosmological principle and still be characterized by an arena landscape. In an arena landscape, if you view the universe on a grand scale from any location or at any point in time it will appear essentially the same in all directions.

Also, if you're saying that invoking the cosmological constant was added on by Einstein to explain the steady state, and then the steady state was replaced by expansion making the constant useful again to explain the big crunch then that may be true within the discipline of GR, but I don't find myself within that discipline . The QWC big crunch occurs as a result of expansion, i.e. the simultaneous expansion of adjacent arenas that overlap. The convergence of galaxies in the overlap space allows gravity to form a QWC big crunch. The QWC big crunch is not the same as a GR big crunch which requires a constant greater than 1 if I recall correctly.

[AntonioLao]

What I hate is to be critical, at best constructive criticism, at worst outright proclaiming crackpotism. All I can say is that your view is neither mathematically logical or scientifically sound unless you can show me where I am wrong in my narrow judgment. At the least you need to provide a guiding physical principle and also a simple mathematical equation. Everyone in the scientific community do that since Newton and even the unverifiable superstring theorists also upheld the scientific method. The missing ingredient for superstring is physical proof derived from experiments but the energy needed is beyond our present technology, so they say. GR equations generate infinite solutions but a few of these solution were verified by experiments. Likewise, superstring also generate infinite number of solutions but none can be verified by experiments. So you see, if your solutions are among the infinite solutions of GR, you have to tell me what they are so that others can attempt to verify their math logic and physical soundness.

[Bogie]

What I hate is to be critical, at best constructive criticism, at worst outright proclaiming crackpotism. All I can say is that your view is neither mathematically logical or scientifically sound unless you can show me where I am wrong in my narrow judgment. At the least you need to provide a guiding physical principle and also a simple mathematical equation. Everyone in the scientific community do that since Newton and even the unverifiable superstring theorists also upheld the scientific method. The missing ingredient for superstring is physical proof derived from experiments but the energy needed is beyond our present technology, so they say. GR equations generate infinite solutions but a few of these solution were verified by experiments. Likewise, superstring also generate infinite number of solutions but none can be verified by experiments. So you see, if your solutions are among the infinite solutions of GR, you have to tell me what they are so that others can attempt to verify their math logic and physical soundness.

Don't worry about being critical and I do appreciate constructive criticism. I don't feel compelled to prove anything in my speculations and if you understood the role of speculation in science you wouldn't be asking me to quantify them. If speculations could be quantified then ... they wouldn't be speculations.

Not be critical but you have not persented any rebuttals that addressed my views accept for the mathematical representations and if you find my lack of mathematical or scientific professionalism to be worthy of reproach then I accept that as a sign of your preconceived idea of what is and is not fact and an acknowledgment that you find speculation to fall short of fact. So we agree .