ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology) Update 2016

[Xelasnave.1947]

Back now.
I was wondering why our big bangs need to come from very compact space.
Do we need to get to singularity could we just have a region somewhat larger than the current big bang model suggests.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

Back now.
I was wondering why our big bangs need to come from very compact space.
Do we need to get to singularity could we just have a region somewhat larger than the current big bang model suggests.
Alex

Are you suggesting that instead of a singularity, defined as an infinitely dense, zero volume, point of space, we might be able to consider the source of a big bang as being a precondition where the energy equivalent of our big bang arena is compressed at t=0 into a somewhat larger, i.e. measurable volume of space, not a point of space?

In the context of my model, you are talking about a big crunch that precedes the big bang event. I have often thought about its physical dimension, and my own wild guess, for talking purposes, is that the crunch, before it collapses, might be several light years across, and might take tens of millions of years to form from the in-swirling galactic material of two or more parent arenas. Hooky, huh.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Are you suggesting that instead of a singularity, defined as an infinitely dense, zero volume, point of space, we might be able to consider the source of a big bang as being a precondition where the energy equivalent of our big bang arena is compressed at t=0 into a somewhat larger, i.e. measurable volume of space, not a point of space?

This is mere speculation but in a word yes.
GR talks of a singularity and this is just saying the math tappers off somewhere here.
So we may have a little wiggle room and the though of compressing down to a region rather than a point seems to offer a notion of a ordered transition.
More spongy if you like.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

This is mere speculation but in a word yes.
GR talks of a singularity and this is just saying the math tappers off somewhere here.
So we may have a little wiggle room and the though of compressing down to a region rather than a point seems to offer a notion of a ordered transition.
More spongy if you like.
Alex

Well, I agree, but just giving that tiny leeway from the standard model leads to opening the door to all kinds of preconditions. If it isn't "something from noting" giving rise to the singular event of our hot dense ball of energy, expanding from a point of space into new space that makes way for it, then God knows what the crazies will suppose next, lol. Maybe even something sort of infinite and forever spongy; yikes. In that kind of fantasy, even a Trump could win the presidency.

 

[quantum_wave]

The excitement of ISU cosmology has reached a peak, as indicated by the fact that the last post was viewed a hundred times without a comment, :shrug:. So I asked the "Man on the Street", and he pointed out that the ISU includes the Big Bang, so those who defend the big bang aren't sufficiently motived to comment or criticize.

Though he may be right, the fact is that the ISU is quite opposite of Big Bang Theory in several ways. Its premise is that the universe has always existed, instead of originating from a Singularity. Also, in the ISU there is a proposed scenario of the preconditions to each occurrence of the multiple big bang type events that it predicts, instead of being quiet about beginnings and infinities.

The preconditions are that there is infinite space, time and energy, and it has looked the same as it does now for all time. That means that though the universe is isotropic and homogenous on a large scale, as in BBT, it is not evolving through various states as the energy density declines over time on that grand scale. That premise is well said in the The Perfect Cosmological Principle, which states that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will.

You can look here to compare the PPC with Olber's Paradox and the simple Cosmological Principle.

 

[quantum_wave]

The ISU is an eternal multiverse, without eternal inflation; an infinite open universe, steady state proposal. It features local big bangs, each with the same set of invariant natural laws, and each of which inflate and expand, until their expansion is interrupted by encounters with other expanding big bang arenas. Those encounters produce big crunches of galactic material contributed by the converging "parent" arenas. Crunches, under natures maximum gravitational compression, collapse/bang into new expanding big bang arenas. The ISU is a perpetual and infinite universe model which defeats entropy.

 

[quantum_wave]

The ISU is an eternal multiverse, without eternal inflation; an infinite open universe, steady state proposal. It features local big bangs, each with the same set of invariant natural laws, and each of which inflate and expand, until their expansion is interrupted by encounters with other expanding big bang arenas. Those encounters produce big crunches of galactic material contributed by the converging "parent" arenas. Crunches, under natures maximum gravitational compression, collapse/bang into new expanding big bang arenas. The ISU is a perpetual and infinite universe model which defeats entropy.

1. ISU stands for the Infinite Spongy Universe model of cosmology
2. It is eternal, meaning that it had no beginning and will not end
3. Multiverse refers to the multiple big bang arenas that comprise the landscape of the greater universe
4. The big bang events are common here and there across the landscape of the greater universe
5. Big bang arenas interact across that landscape which is the greater contingent space of the infinite universe
6. The same set of invariant natural laws are in effect throughout the greater contingent space
7. Inflation is not eternal, but is a concept to explain what happens to the energy released in the immediate aftermath of each big bang event
8. Inflation and expansion continue until arenas converge
9. Arena convergence is the precondition to big crunches which form from the galactic material of converging "parent" arenas
10. The crunches are natural events across the universe
11. Big crunches grow through accretion until they reach critical capacity
12. Big crunches are the precondition to big bangs
13. When crunches reach their critical capacity, they collapse due to gravitational compression
14. Particles comprising the crunch are composed of standing waves with inflowing and out flowing energy components, and are said to "contain" energy within their particle space
15. Standing wave particles have complex patterns of multiple wave intersections characterized by high energy density spots at the point of each wave convergence
16. High energy density spots within the particle space equate to the mass of the particle
17. At the collapse, the particles in the crunch are forced to give up their individual space; "She bangs" as Ricky Martin would say
18. Collapses result in an increase in wave energy density around the deep core of the crunch
19. At the collapse/bounce, particles are "negated" into a compressed state as their constituent "standing" wave energy patterns occupy the minimum space possible
20. Nature's maximum energy density is achieved at the core as the collapse occurs
21. The collapse is reversed to a bounce as the inflowing particles and wave energy are repulsed by encountering nature's maximum energy density that has formed at the core of the collapse
22. There are three Infinities invoked as postulates in the ISU; space, time and energy
23. The Three Infinities support the concept of an open universe, which means that any finite space is subject to inflowing and out flowing energy
24. Entropy is defeated as old cold galactic material from "parent" arenas is compressed into a new, hot, dense, low entropy ball of compressed energy that is released by the collapse/bounce
25. Steady State refers to the concept that an infinite open universe, as a whole, does not expand or contract
26. Various aspects of the ISU model have received some independent support over the years, with hints toward the pop science nature of some of the explanations of various features of the standard Big Bang model; glad to discuss those areas
27. The ISU addressses preconditions to the Big Bang events, which the standard model does not attempt or even mention
28. The ISU model has speculative answers to common questions that the standard BBT model does not
29. The speculative answers within the ISU model are all internally consistent
30. The ISU model addresses a version of quantum gravity that has a logical basis, and that is consistent with the macro level scenario
31. Quantum gravity occurs when the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components of the particle's standing wave patterns are not in balance
32. That imbalance condition causes newly forming high energy density spots surrounding the particle space to have a directional bias, and particles continually reform or "move" in the direction of that bias

Given some individual contemplation of the ISU's features, you might find the ISU model to be reasonable, responsible, and more complete.

 

[quantum_wave]

Activity slows at this time of year in the ISU Update business. I entertained myself with the Yaldon Theory thread, and then my "Alternative to Yaldon Theory, A Wave-particle Suggestion" thread. In that thread I put together a sequence of words that I think have particular application to this years ISU update, particularly bullet points 14 to 20, and I am including them
here by reference to that thread and post:http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an...wave-particle-suggestion.158356/#post-3421099, which says:
In reply to Danshawen's comment,

Higher "energy density" spots. I like the sound of that. How about time dilation nearer the higher energy density spots? Higher/lower/no change from empty timespace?

Time dilation is every where, lol.

There are no two adjacent points in space (spacetime in the standard view) that have the exact same energy density, because of the numerous gravitational waves traversing each point, coming from all directions, all the time. The case I have been offering, where two or more meaningful gravitational energy waves converge, and thus form a momentary high energy density spot at the point of convergence, is only one example of a tiny location in space that has a specific level of density relative to the energy density surrounding it, i.e., relative to either of the individual "parent" waves involved in the convergence.

In my model it is the energy density of the local space that equates to the curvature of spacetime. Waves travel slower as the wave energy density of the local space increases. It is local energy density that governs the rate that a clock will measure the passing of time because clocks are made of particles, and particles function slower as the energy density increases. There is the old adage that time stops at the event horizon of a black hole, and if that were true, it would be because the energy density in that location was so great that particles making up the clock could no longer function. In my model, a black hole slows the rate that clocks measure time almost to a stop, but unless we are talking about a big crunch type black hole with nature's ultimate density, particles still function. They get negated when the crunch collapses at the big bang, and cease to function individually for a period of time until the hot dense ball of energy produced by the crunch expands, cools, and decays into a progression of exotic particles until stable particles re-form.

If the local space is defined as a tiny patch of space at the convergence of two or more waves, it has its own individual density, and its own measure of the rate of time passing, assuming you could get a small clock at that point to measure it. Put an identical clock at an adjacent point and the two clocks will measure the rate that time is passing at a minutely different rate. But they have to be quick, because at the local energy density of such a small patch of space, the density fluctuates as each moment passes.

Time, for practical purposes, has to be measured in larger patches of space, and where the clocks are moving relative to each other, in order to get meaningful reading of time dilation.

 

[quantum_wave]

I find it like going down a rabbit hole, trying to piece together the randomness and uncertainty in the fundamentals of the present quantum mechanics, and then syncing them to something so precise as quantum gravity. Quantum gravity is logically the result of a quantum action process that employs local wave energy density and quantum wave action, governed by limits and thresholds in the invariant wave energy density laws of nature.

Trying to make the randomness and uncertainty that I read about in quantum mechanics theory, work to the precise demands of the reality that is present at the micro level of nature, is like repeatedly throwing a thousand dice and expecting them to all come up sixes, every time.

With that optimism, I close out my year 2016, and look forward to a good year for the ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe model) in 2017.

 

[quantum_wave]

Though we all have to close out 2016 as the year ends, that doesn't mean the threads end there. I did a Google search again for "The Infinite Spongy Universe" like I did as I started this thread (see the OP), and I got into reading some of the old threads. "Quantifying Gravity's Mechanism" (http://www.sciforums.com/threads/quantifying-gravitys-mechanism.134207/) from 2013 was one of my favorites. Almost all of the members who participated are gone now, either banned, or have moved on.

During that same Google search, I came across some of my even earlier threads here, and on other forums, and the model has evolved, but the basic premises have remained the same. A lot of the "improvement" is in my learning, and in how I convey my alternative ideas without butchering the nomenclature quite as much, lol. The use of the word "energy" has always been a topic, and I have redefined it in my model and use it in accord with my own definition of it.

One of the common criticisms of my threads in the past was that I use buzz words, I don't use scientific terms properly, I don't understand the scientific meanings of my words, and/or I am just batsxxx crazy. Show me current examples if you still think that, so I can elaborate, learn, retract, or put you on "ignore" (humor).

And BTW:

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

One of the common criticisms of my threads in the past was that I use buzz words, I don't use scientific terms properly, I don't understand the scientific meanings of my words, and/or I am just batsxxx crazy. Show me current examples if you still think that, so I can elaborate, learn, retract, or put you on "ignore" (humor).

Do not let anything take away from your work.
I don't have one these days but no doubt something would be around in a better form, but I refer to a scientific dictionary.
That could help.
Or if you use a term place your meaning in brackets after.
EG my theory ( my thoughts and ideas which one can regard as speculation) to show the word is used in an everyday sence as opposed to...my theory ( the hypothisis, maths and observations which offers evidence in support of my ideas in a full scientific sence).

I have not noticed buzz words but given you have been working on your model it could be easy to assume the audience is right behind you.
In any business the curse if often found in the use of trade terms.

And I wish you a happy new year.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

Do not let anything take away from your work.
I don't have one these days but no doubt something would be around in a better form, but I refer to a scientific dictionary.
That could help.
Or if you use a term place your meaning in brackets after.
EG my theory ( my thoughts and ideas which one can regard as speculation) to show the word is used in an everyday sence as opposed to...my theory ( the hypothisis, maths and observations which offers evidence in support of my ideas in a full scientific sence).

I have not noticed buzz words but given you have been working on your model it could be easy to assume the audience is right behind you.
In any business the curse if often found in the use of trade terms.

And I wish you a happy new year.
Alex

Thanks for the comments and good advice.

I have seen some train wrecks that can occur when someone responds to criticism about improper usage of scientific words and terms by making up words and then defining them to fit their precise circumstances. It is better to expand the existing definition into what is called a precising definition (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precising_definition) so that it encompasses both the generally accepted definition, and the new definition.

 

[quantum_wave]

I think you're doing fine.

The probabilities in quantum mechanics are there mainly because relativity's prohibition of velocities <= c, and this produced many results that were zero, including and especially those having to do with time. When you attempt to do proportional relationships with those, you get infinities all over the map, and so to fend off such problems before they happened, statistical physics stopped it cold by insisting on asking only the questions for which the only answers were likely to be probabilities between 0 and 1, and so proportions requiring division by zero or near zero are simply ignored. This is chiefly how the variable representing time was purged completely from quantum mechanics. It's brilliant, actually, but it still feels like something is missing in the analysis. Carroll, Smolin, and others have written extensively on this theme: "From Eternity to Here", and "Time Reborn". Neither of these books were very popular, but I thought they were fairly engaging to read.

I for one believe that it's time for time to be put back into physics. Inertia and energy literally cannot exist without it. A description of a universe of time and energy transfer events means almost nothing without a more concise understanding of both. Entanglement may have important probabilities associated with it, but it is anything but random. It is the very heart of the definition of absolute certainty.

Whatever is left when time is removed from a description of nature isn't exactly physics. I don't recognize what it is. It's more of a game.

If you mean that spacetime changes the meanings of time and space, such that in Special Relativity the time dilation between two events in different inertial frames can be addressed logically, and quantified mathematically, as if the differences were due distance differences caused by the curvature of spacetime, instead of being due to differences in the velocity of light through different wave energy density environments, I agree.

If you mean that time is not a central factor in quantum mechanics because in the quantum realm there is little chance of quantifying time as it relates to quantum events, I couldn't disagree.

My explanation for it all, call it the wave energy density hypothesis, models a universe that is nothing but wave energy. All wave energy action is in accord with an invariant set of natural laws that govern local wave energy density, wave-particles, and processes, with limits on the maximum density permitted by nature, and thresholds that come into play during action processes and wave-particle interactions.

There are energy to matter processes, and there are matter to energy processes, and all wave intersections involve local changes in wave energy density, as well as a time delay as the density changes occur.

I simply describe and model the speculative consequences of a set of axioms, and hypothesize processes as the natural limits and thresholds are reached and play out.

For example, we have good observational evidence for a Big Bang event that has set our observable universe into expansion billions of years ago; the raw redshift data.

We have good observational evidence of a cosmic microwave background radiation, but I predict a better explanation for that is that there is a greater universe, a multiple Big Bang universe, beyond our expanding arena. The greater universe is characterized by a potentially infinite history of big bangs and expanding arenas that merge, form big crunches out of their shared galactic material, then collapse/bang into new arenas. Each new expanding arena fills with the residual light/microwave energy background from a lengthy heritage of big bangs and arena action as they "inflate"/expand out into pre-existing surrounding space. I also predict that the arena process of matter-to energy-to matter defeats entropy, providing a basis for a universe that has always existed, and has always supported life, which I model as an interative and generative process leading to life forms, that then can evolve to fit their local and changing environments.

That all leads me to derive my philosophy of Eternal Intent, but that is in a different chapter, lol.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020429080540.htm
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Clearly QW you were ahead of your time I hope you have a book ready.
I hope you are well.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I also predict that the arena process of matter-to energy-to matter defeats entropy, providing a basis for a universe that has always existed,

That sounds reasonable.
I have often thought the notion that the universe ultimately stops inconsistent with the matter is energy and energy is matter...
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

That sounds reasonable.

I have often thought the notion that the universe ultimately stops inconsistent with the matter is energy and energy is matter...

Alex

Thank for the comments. And happy new year. This is an old thread, the ISU 2016 update. I started the 2017 ISU update here too, but have continued it elsewhere for the past eight months.


Your comment about the ideas on the defeat of entropy in my model, and your rationale view along the lines that (everyone has heard it said) matter cannot be created or destroyed, make us of like minds. I will repost, for your benefit, what I call the "reasonable and responsible" methodology that I use to support my logic, and to put my speculations into context:


Let me elaborate on that methodology by pointing out that there is known science and ‘as yet’ unknown science. I incorporate all known science into the ISU if it is based on observations and generally accepted explanations that are consistent from theory to theory, which, I think, includes most of known physics in general, and much of the theoretical physics that is generally accepted.


There are incomplete theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community as far as they go, and various theories that are inconsistent from one theory to another. I hope by saying that I'm not required to list them all. Either you agree with me or you don't on that point, but I'm pretty sure I could find a lot of agreement on that within the scientific community.


Science is also tentative, meaning that as progress is made by members of the scientific community, there is a ‘publish and peer review’ process, and sometimes previously accepted theory is superseded by the new theory. Science is tentative in that respect, and I find almost no objection to that concept. I simply address the ‘as yet’ unknowns in my own way, as I wait for the scientific community to grow their improving consensus.



However, the ‘as yet’ unknown portion of physics and cosmology is what makes all of the models incomplete. My approach is to apply the ‘reasonable and responsible’ methodology to the gaps, and speculate about ideas that fill the gaps. That is how the ISU evolves, and has evolved for many years, through several major false starts that have taken me back to the drawing board. I anxiously and readily seek falsification so I can revise and evolve a better personal view of cosmology. I encourage counter arguments, and I listen to them, and incorporate those that I consider reasonable and responsible. I am the arbiter of what is reasonable and responsible, because the ISU is my personal view of cosmology. It is not a scientific paper for peer review, it is a personal view for discussion with the intention of continual improvement.


That attitude, along with the very alternative views in my model are sometimes not acceptable to forums or some forum members. When my welcome wears thin, I move on to see if maybe there is more discussion elsewhere, as I attempt to advance the ISU layman science enthusiast’s model. But I stand ready to continue to discuss it with you here at SciForums as well.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I stand ready to continue to discuss it with you here at SciForums as well.

And a very happy new year from me, if I have not said so earlier...I forget so much these days and being on a small phone it is so hard to go back.

Few would agree but I think cosmology is something that may well surprise us...

There are folk who can not imagine the big bang model may not reflect reality and will talk about it as being absolute fact.
Personally I think total commitment to a position is foolish as it excludes any possibility that one could be wrong.

So have you considered a universe that has no big bang?
That would stuff up the universe as you see it.

I personally like a steady state model with facts like red shift and expansion left out so it works very simply.

That way I can believe it has always been and always will be but that would leave you, and the spoongy universe, with a model that fits a reality that does not exist.
You need a big bang event whereas steady state always just is...see why I like it.

Once I really believed the big bang was reality but try as I may I cant get around the idea of inflation.

So I believe at least it needs adjustment to include something more believable.

And folk will say that I am just a little human and should not expect to understand how inflation could work...and that may be reasonable but I just cant accept the idea and although it is called a theory it seems, to me, that there must be something more acceptable.

Maybe the problem inflation seeks to fix or explain was not really a problem in the first place..maybe there is some factor we dont know about that means inflation is not required.

But like so many things that come in to save the day folk are happy not to play with it.

And inflation seemed to save the big bang from the problems some saw...

But one can not speculate in these matters and escape those who must have you admit the current model is flawless...but hey if folk can argue about everything else why must cosmology be set in stone and only qualified folk allowed to comment.

Well that will be met with ...you know nothing so you cant say anything..
Surely if there is anything where one is entitled to speculate it must be cosmology.

But I can hold that view and say to someone who questions the current model...that is our current model and if you have a better one present it along with testable predictions but know it must do what the current model does better. And then refer them to Karl Poppers work.

And that means I prefer the philosophy of science to hold us to a steady approach and move on basically without folk speculating in the way I claim an entitlement to do so.
Dont do as I do do as I say.

I am most happy to know you are well and still working on these matters.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

So have you considered a universe that has no big bang?

Yes. I look at the Hubble deep field view that shows there are more galaxies beyond what was once thought to be out of sight. A new space telescope will be launched in 2018, and I hope that will give us an even better view of the deepest space.


I can’t help but wonder if the universe is like what the Hubble deep view reveals, more galaxies beyond, across potentially infinite space. If so, there needs to be an alternative explanation for the observed redshift before we can abandon big bang arena expansion. Until then, the ISU has it covered as a single infinite and eternal universe in a steady state, with an active and ongoing multiple big bang arena landscape, that defeats entropy, and has therefore always existed and hosted life here and there, forever. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-space-telescope-would-take-better-images-than-hubble/



It appears you read post #106, that said:

“The ISU is an eternal multiverse, without eternal inflation; an infinite open universe, steady state proposal. It features local big bangs, each with the same set of invariant natural laws, and each of which inflate and expand, until their expansion is interrupted by encounters with other expanding big bang arenas. Those encounters produce big crunches of galactic material contributed by the converging "parent" arenas. Crunches, under natures maximum gravitational compression, collapse/bounce into new expanding big bang arenas. The ISU is a perpetual and infinite universe model which defeats entropy.”


Note that in my version of a steady state model, the greater universe is not expanding because it is already infinite, and has always existed; no big bang beginning, but a greater universe filled with so much wave energy that matter is forced to exist, and forms galaxies that intersect, resulting in crunches and bangs all over the place, lol.


I would expect you also read and considered the 32 points in post #107, and see how I maneuvered the details of a steady state model to include a multiple big bang arena landscape where there are continual big bangs here and there across all (infinite) space.



Each big bang renews the low entropy status of the galactic material it captures, and therefore, big bang by big bang, entropy is continually being defeated in big crunch sized increments across the entire infinite universe.


I know you are hoping that the scientific community will abandon the big bang and big bang inflation all together. However, the redshift is observed and I invoke it. I am with you on inflation to the extent that the greater universe is not expanding or inflating; it is infinite, and steady state, on a grand scale. The infinite landscape is composed of a potentially infinite number of active big bang arenas at all times.


However, based on pretty sound redshift evidence, we appear to be inside an expanding big bang arena of our own, which will expand and intersect and overlap with adjacent expanding arenas, and the galactic material in our arena, including yours and my dust, will have its entropy refreshed back to the low entropy of a hot, dense ball of wave energy that will emerge from the collapse of the impending future big crunch that our arena will eventually get caught up in (according to my layman level model).

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I do enjoy reading your words.
I would buy your book if you have one.
Alex