First, I haven't really done any research about this idea I have. It is just the collimation of multiple boring English classes with nothing to do, so I decided to start my own theory.
Now for the actual theory. What I propose is that the before the big bang, neither space nor time existed only energy because matter is needed for space to become something relative and at the speed of light, which energy is at, time is no longer a factor. From here, I thought then, if it was all energy, how did the big bang get jump started. My solution was the constructive and destructive interference of light waves. Before the Big Bang, all the energy was constructively and destructively interfering to form larger and smaller amplitude waves. This goes on randomly until, upon extremely random chance, all the energy that consists of the known universe constructively interferes and causes the wavelength to nearly go to 0 and the amplitude to shoot up to infinity. Then, the wave-packet form of light would just because solid due to the waves or packets becoming infinitely large and thus turn into matter. Light going to matter would be possible because of the concept of the conservation of energy and in actually, we could consider matter to just be energy with a wavelength of zero and an amplitude of infinity. All in all, I really haven't found anything to help me substantiate or debunk my idea. Very curious to see what everyone has to say about this. Thanks!

Discusfish99: Your idea regarding an energy (only) pre-universe has merit. Keep on thinking innovative thoughts! It may be worthwhile to at least scan the Alternative Theories forum on Sciforums and elsewhere for similar ideas. However . . . "prepare yourself" . . . such ideas typically are met with much scrutiny by the Standard Model groupies.

Regards,
wlminex

It's word salad.

Wlminex likes the taste of it.

First, I haven't really done any research about this idea I have. It is just the collimation of multiple boring English classes with nothing to do, so I decided to start my own theory.

What you have isn't a scientific theory but it is certainly a creative speculation. It probably should be in the "Alternative Theories" subforum.



Now for the actual theory. What I propose is that the before the big bang, neither space nor time existed...

Ok.



...only energy...

What form of energy and how does that form exist without space-time?



...because matter is needed for space to become something relative...

I am not sure what the statement means nor why this is a reason for only energy existing before space-time.



...and at the speed of light, which energy is at, time is no longer a factor.

This is incorrect. Heat energy for example doesn't travel at the speed of light. If you are referring to photons specifically then yes they do travel at the speed of light and they do not age; however, their existence is dependent on space-time.



From here, I thought then, if it was all energy, how did the big bang get jump started. My solution was the constructive and destructive interference of light waves. Before the Big Bang, all the energy was constructively and destructively interfering to form larger and smaller amplitude waves. This goes on randomly until, upon extremely random chance, all the energy that consists of the known universe constructively interferes and causes the wavelength to nearly go to 0 and the amplitude to shoot up to infinity. Then, the wave-packet form of light would just because solid due to the waves or packets becoming infinitely large and thus turn into matter. Light going to matter would be possible because of the concept of the conservation of energy and in actually, we could consider matter to just be energy with a wavelength of zero and an amplitude of infinity. All in all, I really haven't found anything to help me substantiate or debunk my idea. Very curious to see what everyone has to say about this. Thanks!

Sorry, photons by themselves don't spontaneously gain mass. You would need a boson or fermion to share a photon's momentum for a photon to gain mass. Either way, photons, bosons, and fermions, all require space-time to exist so it's a moot point.

Discusfish99 . . . . see what I predicted?

Discusfish99 . . . . see what I predicted?

You are such a whiner. Someone gets called on pseudo-science and you whine - that is quite predictable too.

You are such a whiner. Someone gets called on pseudo-science and you whine - that is quite predictable too.

Origin: Get back ON TOPIC!! . . . . . not whining . . . just observing that my prediction is true . . . .

Haha, I like this forum, much better than others I have been at. I don't get snide remarks from you guys, just fun jokes. Anyway, my question is, why are photons, fermions, and bosons need space time to exist? What i'm curious about is what if before the big bang, (and I know this will start a flaming discussion) could the energy in my idea be dark energy? Also, in terms of the light gaining mass, I am curious, would it be possible to overload the wave-packet representation of the light and turn it just into a packet, also called mass? Please, be gentle :D, i've got a fragile ego!

If anyone had any idea what happens at t0 and why, we would all be living like gods, shooting flames out our finger tips at each other just to kill the boredom that comes with godhead status.

My observation about your scenario is that if there is no space and time at t0, then there can be no cause or effect. Causation requires time which doesn't exist "yet" (notice there is no "yet" before time is created).

The other possibility to consider is that the Big Bang has no cause, it always was that way, springing forward at t0.

It's not that appealing but it solves the dilemma of initiating anything without any clock to get you off the starting line.

Interesting. Sadly, i can't really accept that we don't know lol. I'm the type of guy who just believes that everything can be determined.

I'm the type of guy who just believes that everything can be determined.

Maybe so, it just hasn't been determined yet. So 'We don't know' is really all you can say.

Is word salad a phrase meaning what used to be called double talk?

Is word salad a phrase meaning what used to be called double talk?

Here's the definition of word salad from wiki.


-deleted-

I did a cut and paste of the definition in another post, and then got banned because the definition apparently insulted a word salad master.

So I'll leave it to you look up the definition yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

Anyway, my question is, why are photons, fermions, and bosons need space time to exist?

Because that's how the laws of physics work? The question is kind of like asking why does water need hydrogen and oxygen to exist?



What i'm curious about is what if before the big bang, (and I know this will start a flaming discussion) could the energy in my idea be dark energy?

Your idea unfortunately doesn't mesh with actual reality so the answer to this question is no. There are however several real science theories about what happened / existed "before" the big bang. The one that matches your thought process the closest (and by no means is that a validation of your thought process) is that there exists a super-symmetric substance outside of our universe (I will refer to it as "the stuff" from here on because I don't think it presently has a name even in the theory). Presumably "the stuff" has no beginning, has no end, and is utterly equal. Think of it like water, you move up, down, left, and right, but you just get more of the same thing. In addition to "the stuff" there are higgs fields that move about the "the stuff". Sometimes those higgs fields interact with the stuff and cause it to freeze. When this happens, "the stuff" suddenly gains structure (like the crystalline structure of water when it freezes). In this model, the "big bang" that resulted in our universe was a higgs field freezing a cross section of "the stuff".



Also, in terms of the light gaining mass, I am curious, would it be possible to overload the wave-packet representation of the light and turn it just into a packet, also called mass? Please, be gentle :D, i've got a fragile ego!

Again, to give a photon mass would require that its momentum be shared with a boson or fermion.

Chrunchy Cat, I would be extremely grateful if you could supply what theory that is! Also, sorry to harp on this but I gotta do it, so then what happens to E = hc/ wavelength, if the wavelength goes to zero, the energy shoots up to near infinity. So that when you look at the light, it looks solid because the amplitude of the waves are so close together. Also I'm not saying that the whole photon needing a boson or fermion is wrong, rather could you do it without them?

Discusfish99: I just posted (yesterday) an interesting (to me, at least) calculation (simple maths, for you physicists) in a thread on the Alternate Theories forum that follows onto your last post. Calculates E down to Planck wavelength.

....the energy shoots up to near infinity.

....near infinity???? wtf?

sorry but i hate this expression.

i also don't understand this talk about giving photons mass.

Discusfish99: I just posted (yesterday) an interesting (to me, at least) calculation (simple maths, for you physicists) in a thread on the Alternate Theories forum that follows onto your last post. Calculates E down to Planck wavelength.
- All right, thanks, I'll take a look at it! BTW what do you mean by simple math, no math is simple :rolleyes:


sorry but i hate this expression.
- Sorry, but it sounds much better than a really really big number. I'd get used to it, calc is all approaching infinity calculations! (well at least some of it)


This is incorrect. Heat energy for example doesn't travel at the speed of light.
- I just realized this is wrong for my context, which I should have stated, sorry, slipped my mind. I am referring to a vacuum which means that heat energy, also known as infrared light, travels at c. So my energy traveling! at c stands

Discusfish99: I just posted (yesterday) an interesting (to me, at least) calculation (simple maths, for you physicists) in a thread on the Alternate Theories forum that follows onto your last post. Calculates E down to Planck wavelength.

So, took a look at the post, according to your math, the energy is Epl = 1.23x10^18 x 6.24x10^11 = 7.68x10^29 eV. I think that this at least doesn't disprove my ideas. 10^29 is a long ways away from what the LHC currently produces in terms of energy (LHC = 450 x 10^9). Epl is roughly 1x10^18 times larger than what the LHC can put out. It may actually not be possible to figure anything out because we can't produce the requisite power and will never be able to, because that energy would cause some funky things to happen with our space-time!

Yes. Difficult to experimentally 'test' . . . . that's why, with our current (rudimentary, IMPO) technology, one must loop 'outside the box' to envision viable alternatives to the SM . . . IMPO, of course (James R) . . . .

WLminex, is there any chance that the SQR matrix of high energy could be dark matter? Or something like it? Because going with what you are saying, the energy in SQR can interact with both MR and SQR. Could this interaction be gravity then?

Chrunchy Cat, I would be extremely grateful if you could supply what theory that is!

I tried to find a link to it in an older post but was unsuccessful (SciForums started giving me zero results after looking beyond page 40 of my posting history). You are welcome to try.



Also, sorry to harp on this but I gotta do it, so then what happens to E = hc/ wavelength, if the wavelength goes to zero, the energy shoots up to near infinity.

I would not even consider dividing something by zero. It's an invalid math operation; however, if you are using asymptotic values then I would first ask what formula are you using? It *appears* like the formula for EM energy but that would be E(energy)=h(planck constant)f(cycles per second).



So that when you look at the light, it looks solid because the amplitude of the waves are so close together. Also I'm not saying that the whole photon needing a boson or fermion is wrong, rather could you do it without them?

Close waves, distant waves, light still doesn't spontaenously gain mass. Additionally, I am not aware of a method of giving photons mass without utilizing existing mass.

- I just realized this is wrong for my context, which I should have stated, sorry, slipped my mind. I am referring to a vacuum which means that heat energy, also known as infrared light, travels at c. So my energy traveling! at c stands

This is incorrect. EM raditation is only one of many transport mechanisms for heat. Additionally your theory is outside of space-time. EM radiation requires fields to exist (which are intrinsically part of space-time). Then there is chemical energy, sound energy, electrical energy, nuclear energy, kinetic energy, etc... all out of bounds of light speed travel (not to mention they also require space-time in order to exist).

This is incorrect. EM raditation is only one of many transport mechanisms for heat
I realize this but I am talking about in a vacuum devoid of any particles, it has to exist only as IR radiation!

I realize this but I am talking about in a vacuum devoid of any particles, it has to exist only as IR radiation!

A vaccum devoid of any particles still has length, width, height, time, and fields (i.e. space-time). On top of that the fields naturally jiggle around and those disturbances render self-cancelling temporary particle pairs.

If you are talking about outside of space-time (assuming that such an entity is real), that is not a vaccum.

:wallbang: Can we just agree that infrared light travels at c and leave this part of the discussion alone?

WLminex, is there any chance that the SQR matrix of high energy could be dark matter? Or something like it? Because going with what you are saying, the energy in SQR can interact with both MR and SQR. Could this interaction be gravity then?

Discus: Thanks for your discussions!. I have speculated about this (your query) in some other thread posts on sciforums and in the EEMU Thread . . . Perhaps, SQR "IS" Dark Energy and Dark Matter is a resultant intermediary state between SQR and mass. One might also speculate that Dark Matter is the CMB source . . . this being an alternative interpretation (speculation) to the Standard Model interpretation of CMB as a BB left-over.

IMPO, SQR is omnipresent. It pervades MR and MR constituents, but is (as of yet) not observable (i.e., not detectible) by our MR current technologies. I hint at some (IMPO) innovative detector technologies. SQR (IMPO) does interact with MR . . . . particularly at the quantum and subquantum level . . . but our 'detectors' don't weem to work well at such scales (Planck scale).

I don't think that SQR "IS" gravity, since gravity seems (as we now understand it, at least) dependent on mass; but SQR may contribute (or be the source) gravity precursors (e.g., gravitions?, gluons?)

Regards, wlminex

WLimex, I like your theory, it definitely ties into what I was thinking about the original post in this thread, you just summarized in a very interesting way. Also, in your idea, how would you explain wormholes and black holes?

discusfish99:

You were asking about what happens to E = hν as t approaches zero from the right. You were speculating that E tends to infinity.

I want to point out that space compresses "at the same time" (going backwards that is) so ν is going to hell in a handbasket, too, as both space and time are converging to zero.

I suppose you could go back as early as you wish and you could reason that E remains constant, simply by assuming that time and space follow the same law of "reverse compression". Obviously, there can be no vibration without space and time, so E is increasingly moot as you look backwards closer and closer to t0. The whole universe is moot, it would seem. This would seem to be the case when you reach one Plank time, or around 10-43 s.

WLimex, I like your theory, it definitely ties into what I was thinking about the original post in this thread, you just summarized in a very interesting way. Also, in your idea, how would you explain wormholes and black holes?

I've never seen a wormhole (or a black hole) . . . . others may claim that they have. IMPO, black holes make a bit more sense than wormholes. Black-holes have a role in my hypothesis. The represent local regions of intense gravity wherein MR mass may be reconstituted to SQR. Perhaps SQR --> mass is an all-pervasive (everywhere, at every point, all the time) mechanism, whereas black holes are more localized (point-specific) MR --> SQR loci. Interesting that ypu previously mentioned white holes (didn't you, not sure) . . . I've never seen one of these either. One could speculate that a white hole is what a black hole would appear from an SQR point-of-view, where MR --> SQR

Thanks for your continued interest, clarifying input, and constructive discussions/criticism.

wlminex

universe is moot, it would seem. This would seem to be the case when you reach one Plank time, or around 10-43 s. -Aqueous Id
I've been thinking about this. So what you're saying is that reaching a certain time frame in the past, this one Plank time, the universe wasn't even started yet.

What I am generally confused by is what you mean by things being moot because moot could mean they don't matter anymore or never mattered in the first place, just some clarification please!?!


One could speculate that a white hole is what a black hole would appear from an SQR point-of-view, where MR --> SQR -wlminex

Personally, I think I saw Elvis once :rolleyes:, so let people think they saw a black hole.

On to your point, I don't think white holes would be what a black hole would appear to be from a SQR pov because as you say in your EEMU hypothesis,
"Thus, the material, or observable, universe (i.e., MR) is directly and continuously derived from SQR by an disequilibrium thermodynamic process (which I call quantum evaporation) in which total energy (Esqr) fluctuations in SQR tend toward a loss of quarkal components from SQR through a quantum evaporative process "
So I would think that the black holes would look the same because they would still be taking in all the SQR and converting it MR, which could be released as something along the lines of Hawking Radiation? Just an idea, let me know!

Reasonable idea, Discus . . . . . what I'm envisioning is that black holes primarily accumulate mass and anything else (photons?) that pass through the event horizon in response to the super-intense gravity-well of the BH . . . headed for the 'singularity' (albeit, some may argue that to an outside-the-BH observer's POV, nothing 'appears' (to the observer) to ever get to the singularity!). If SQR is included (i.e., interacts with the BH's gravity), yes it would 'get-sucked-in' also. But I'm not sure that SQR interacts with gravity, but it simply proffers the constituents (gravitons, gluons, etc) that contribute to gravity, by creating mass (from energy). I referenced the scenario in which a BH would appears as a white hole (from SQR's POV), because in a BH, accumulated mass is 'going somewhere'. The 'somewhere' it (mass in BH) goes to follows: (IMPO) Accumulated mass is compressed by increasing BH gravity . . . first to single atoms . . . then particles that comprise the atoms . . . then to subatomic particles (e.g., quarks, gluons, etc.) that comprise the subatomic particles, thence to quantum scale (virtual vacuum) . . . essentially the 'reverse' of the SQR --> MR (mass creation) process . . . . BUT happening only locally (at BH's in MR). I am relatively sure that there is some loss, or conversion, to something else in this circuitous SQR -> mass --> BH --> SQR process . . . I'm just not sure what it IS . . . might involve dark matter, or CMB . . . . . from the SQR POV, I think this would be 'observed' as a spontaneous, randum burst (perhaps 'twinkle') of energy that would quickly incorporate into the SQR high-energy matrix. There is most likely a net entropy increase for the entire system.

Discus, does this make any sense to you? . . . . probably NOT to resident detractors.

Regards,

wlminex

:wallbang: Can we just agree that infrared light travels at c and leave this part of the discussion alone?

I can agree tha photons travel through space at c, anything else you have asserted I can't agree with because it's incorrect.

Ahh, I just noted that this thread finally got booted out of the science subfora into the fringe subfora. speculate away!

Ahh, I just noted that this thread finally got booted out of the science subfora into the fringe subfora. speculate away!

Any reason why you're always so negative and angry about subjects such as this. This thread really doesn't need your input to continue. Also, if you try and help people understand without the insulting tone, it would be great, thanks!

WLminex, it actually does make a lot of sense to me.


I'm just not sure what it IS . . . might involve dark matter, or CMB . . . . . from the SQR POV, I think this would be 'observed' as a spontaneous, randum burst (perhaps 'twinkle') of energy that would quickly incorporate into the SQR high-energy matrix. There is most likely a net entropy increase for the entire system.


It would seem that you are talking about some sort of Hawking Radiation which is how Black Holes radiate energy!

Any reason why you're always so negative and angry about subjects such as this.

I don't know. It depends how you are defining negativity or anger. I don't think either is in this thread, but if you clearly define your terms then maybe I will have a better understanding of what you are talking about.

I willl however offer this bit of information that might be feeding your interpretation. You originally opened this thread up in the science subfora and it was scrutinized via higher standards than the fringe fora. It ultimately didn't qualify as science and was moved here.



This thread really doesn't need your input to continue.

That is correct, but keep in mind that you have zero say in the matter. IMO, this thread is now in the best place for it to continue as this subforum is a great place for wild speculation and creative writing.



Also, if you try and help people understand without the insulting tone, it would be great, thanks!

If a sequence of words on your screen that arent disccussing you (the person) can make you feel insulted then that's your problem. If you think that other people are going to should your problem then I suspect that you will quickly find this to not be the case.

Merely trying to get answers and not have someone just say you're wrong. But thank you for explaining your side to me, I appreciate it! :D

@discusfish --

But Crunchy didn't just say that you're wrong, he explained why you're wrong. The laws of physics disagree with your hypothesis, so one or the other is wrong.

Fair enough, sometimes my problem is that I'm too lazy to read back far enough into a thread and collect my thoughts lol!:p

Which can lead to problems, especially on a site full of people who are just itching to take your posts and shred them before your eyes(it's sort of a "science" thing). Just something to remember for the future.

Thanks, I haven't been on forums very much so I still have a little learning to do!

We all have learning to do, what's important is that we recognize where and when we're wrong so that we can correct that.

Fair enough, now on to SCIENCE! My questions are now turned to what is outside a wormhole's tunnel. If you are making a bridge between two points in spacetime, what is on the outside? I think and my friend WLimex thinks (I would surmise he would at least) that outside the tunnel would just be energy!