The Big Wait

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quantum_wave, Aug 16, 2013.

  1. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    The forums, like all things, are the subject of change. Many of the posters we engaged with have undergone significant changes in their personal life, which has placed new priorities on their time. New partners in life only have time for each other, as I'm sure most of us can recall and attest.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Some others have passed on to the realm of speculation that begins when biological function ends. Many of them were profound thinkers and prolific posters. None of them have succeeded in posting from beyond to date. Probably got tied up with quantum entanglement.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That seems to leave just a handful of 'keepers of the flame' at most of the old haunts. All of the forums that I attend seem to be going through this state of near dormancy which is further enhanced by the season and the additional challenges that many are facing in getting through a brutal winter in North America and a blistering summer in Australia. I have not kept track of weather elsewhere on the globe but there does seem to be enough weather related woes to go around. The Yukon was deluged with snow in December and since then we have enjoyed the warmest January that I can recall. Just waiting for the end of month statistics to see if it was a historical record.

    Anyways, it's nice to see that some things hold a steady course, such as your ponders which I believe to be excellent exercise for the mind. To quote a rather well known film star, "I'll be back."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Your visit brought back many good old memories. Profpat was probably one of the most memorable, and his belief that the universe works on unseen and out of the mainstream laws that go deep into what it is to be human is not far from the hobby that I occupy myself with. We who enjoy contemplation all appreciate being in control of a mind that can survey the vast range of thinking produced by others, and then sort out the consistencies and compatibilities in fine detail along alternative paths for one’s self; that seems quite appropriate to define my approach too.

    Your visit gives me another opportunity to agree with your concept of thought as an energy form. It seems to be an energy the helps keep the brain and the body healthy, and like you say, a great way to exercise the mind.

    And it was nice of you to post the 5470 marker.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I came across an interesting discussion in the Biology and Genetics Forum, and a link to the following article in Quanta about Jeremy England's "New Physics Theory of Life.

    "At the heart of England’s idea is the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of increasing entropy or the “arrow of time.” Hot things cool down, gas diffuses through air, eggs scramble but never spontaneously unscramble; in short, energy tends to disperse or spread out as time progresses. Entropy is a measure of this tendency, quantifying how dispersed the energy is among the particles in a system, and how diffuse those particles are throughout space. It increases as a simple matter of probability: There are more ways for energy to be spread out than for it to be concentrated. Thus, as particles in a system move around and interact, they will, through sheer chance, tend to adopt configurations in which the energy is spread out. Eventually, the system arrives at a state of maximum entropy called “thermodynamic equilibrium,” in which energy is uniformly distributed. A cup of coffee and the room it sits in become the same temperature, for example. As long as the cup and the room are left alone, this process is irreversible. The coffee never spontaneously heats up again because the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against so much of the room’s energy randomly concentrating in its atoms."

    The article interests me because as I mentioned in post #76 above, in my model life is the result of a natural and recurring iterative process. It is the premise in my model that any hospitable environment and the natural iterations of chemical combinations lies behind the generative and "evolvative" processes that produce life. In that post I reiterated: "I don't want to seem to be ignoring life itself as the host of thought and the carrier of memory. In my model, life is naturally generative and "evolvative", and the conditions for the generation and evolution of life, consciousness, intelligence, and self awareness are natural. That discussion is part of what I call Quantum Wave Cosmology, and of the Big Bang Arena process that I have described as "arena action" throughout my threads. That is the source of hospitable and habitable environments and the iterative process I associate with the generation and evolution of life."

    It is nice to sometimes see professionals put forward ideas that are consistent with my alternative model of the universe. It makes my model seem a little less far-out from time to time.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    What are these variables then, that allow time delayed thought and action to be inserted into the invariant equations that govern the next "now"?

    Is it an oxymoron to consider any invariant equation to have variables in it? I Googled "what is an invariant equation" because I seem to be on my own in this line of reasoning. Even though this concept of time delayed thought and action seems incongruent with the deterministic nature of the next now, given the current now and the laws of nature, do I have to back off on the invariant nature of the laws that govern the unfolding of the foundational medium?

    The answer is no. An equation with variables can be applied to a given set of waves at a given time, and the resultant change at the next measured point in time will not only depend on the energy gradient of the wave-particles involved (position), but will be dependent on the past motion of those particles (momentum) leading up to their current positions. Therefore, an equation that fits the moment to moment change in the wave energy density gradient of the foundational medium is invariant, but the values related to every point in the pertinent volume of space will have different values in that invariant equation.

    That conclusion, not surprisingly, makes the prediction of change in the gradient on the point by point scale, dependent on the previous change in the gradient of the surrounding points leading up to the statues of each point in the medium at the current "now". Confused yet, lol?

    Obviously I am talking about information that is unattainable. But my model predicts that there is action at that point by point level of order in the foundational medium, and the action is continuous, and not discrete, only because a point is defined as having location but no dimension. When I say that a point has a specific energy density within a range of all possible densities, and the energy density at that point in the medium will change continuously based on invariant equations related to the change in all surrounding points in the previous "now", I am saying there is invariance in the next "now".

    The concept of invariance then is confined to the change from the current "now" to the next "now" at a fixed point in the medium; that is quite "alternative" given the generally accepted theory that there is no absolute space or time. However, the generally accepted view of relative spacetime just doesn't apply to my model, as I have pointed out previously.

  8. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    That invariance at the foundational level is not true at the fundamental level. As you know by now, I refer to the current generally accepted physics as "fundamental", because the particle physics features the Standard Particle Model, and that model features what are referred to as fundamental particles; particles that have no internal composition. Invariance does not work at the fundamental level because particles are said to have energy determined by a set of equations that are not applicable at the foundational level. The foundational level equations require variables that are not recognized at the fundamental level, i.e. point by point energy density fluctuations.

    There in lies the reason that the current generally accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics leans toward the Copenhagen Interpretation, and my interpretation is clearly Hidden Variables.

    In my alternative model, those "fundamental" particles are composed of wave energy that is inflowing and out flowing from the particle's "point" space at all times. Further, in my model, every point in space has a particular wave energy density, and the densities of all points within a given patch of space determine the relative energy density gradient of that space vs. any surrounding patch of space, no matter how large or small.

  9. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    So the burning question in your mind must be, "What is different between the foundational level and the fundamental level that makes the generally accepted equations fail at the foundational level?" The answer is that the equations applicable at the foundational level apply to all of the points in space, and the values that those equations yield for each point are simply the relative energy density of that point on a scale of possible energy densities. The common denominator of foundational equations is an energy density value of a point, or group of points in space, and that (those) values change from one "now" to the next.

    Though that concept is not incompatible with the generally accepted math at the fundamental level, the math that would be appropriate at the foundational level is excessively complex, given that "fundamental" particles at the fundamental level contain a huge number of variable points in space that are existent at a level of order that is not recognized by fundamental physics, i.e. the points within the fundamental particle's space that are grouped into a one point value in the Standard Particle Model.

  10. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Hello Quantum_Wave
    I picked up your reference to the Big Wait in the Quantum Particles thread which I started.

    You might be interested in my take on the questions raised in this thread.

    It doesn’t answer the question What caused the Big Bang. Instead it takes the view that the current observations are consistent with an alternate model to the Big Bang which I have called the Spacetime boundary model.

  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Richard, Thank you for the interesting analysis and the Spacetime Boundary Model. It is easier to put our finger on things that might be problematic with the Big Bang Model than it is to get any consensus on alternatives, as everyone like you and me, who has ideas about alternative models will attest. I have taken a different path than you, and I will explain the reason. The path I have taken is that if we are to understand the universe that we can observe, we have to have in mind a model in which a Big Bang event is natural and even common place, because the natural causes of our Big Bang will tell us so much about the things that we can observe. So when to say that your Spacetime Boundary Model does not answer the question, "What caused the Big Bang", you are left with trying to explain the imponderables of what we can observe without any supposition of what caused it all to be the way it is. If, on the other hand, you went through a long series of ideas about what the cause of our Big Bang might have been, eventually you would come to some personal satisfaction with the model that would slowly evolve.

    Don't take that as me being smug, or trying to say I have come up with something that could be meaningful to the scientific community. That is not a part of what I am doing with my hobby of speculating about the nature of the universe. I have no ideas that haven't been previously contemplated by professionals, and all I do is tinker with different combinations of ideas and see what I like.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2014
  12. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    I am responding here to your point about whether the universe is finite or infinite (from the quantum particles thread).

    Lets deal with the space dimensions. The Spacetime Wave theory and the Spacetime boundary model take the universe to be finite in its space dimensions. In the time dimension the Spacetime boundary model predicts an infinite future. Expansion of space will continue for ever.

    Moving to the past in the time dimension I am in some difficulty in being clear about whether we can say that there was a beginning. The problem is a well known metaphysical one of first cause which in physical terms can be stated as: For events to occur we require the existence of spacetime.

    I have said in the paper:
    that space and time are defined only within the spacetime boundary and within the spacetime boundary there is no beginning event. So we can record the time now and we can identify times in the past with reference to time now but what happens as we approach the time zero boundary?

    With no matter or energy present and the radius of the universe reducing towards zero we would be in a state where time slows down to the point where in the limit time is stopped at time zero volume zero and this limit is never reached. In this sense we can say that the time dimension stretches infinitely into the past and future. Either approach is not entirely satisfactory. Either we say there was a beginning event which created spacetime which expanded with zero matter and energy as per the evolution described above. Alternatively we say that the universe exists and stretches infinitely back in time with no beginning event. Either way I am comfortable with my description of how a universe can evolve from a non-zero volume and zero energy into the universe we observe today.

  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I'll acknowledge that here, and leave it open to come back to for further discussion .
    You don't have to wonder if there was a beginning. If not, what caused the beginning, and if there is a cause, then what caused the cause; infinite regression. The solution is that there was no beginning. I have been contemplating that for years. My hobby, among other things, is to model various causes for our Big Bang, and then to see if they fall apart somewhere based on what we can predict about the future from what we model as preconditions, and from what we observe around us now.
    Yes, and that is a very good example of rationalization, which is a tool that I too use, and has to used if we want a personal answer to the questions that have no obvious answers. My personal view of your rationalization is that it doesn't answer the question about the cause of the Big Bang, let along the philosophical question about whether the universe had a beginning or has always existed. I offer you my thread bandwidth to wrestle with that "imponderable" and I will take shots at you as you do, if you want. You seem to have reached a point where it makes sense to take a position on "before the big bang" if you want to muck around out here in the fringe, lol.
    Two things and I will stop pestering you about it: 1) You are right that the approach is not entirely satisfactory, and the path to satisfaction is ahead. Follow it or not; it is up to you. 2) Rather than accept the concept that the universe will expand infinitely (like the photon and electron I mentioned in your Quantum Particles thread just now), if space is and always has been infinite, and time simply passes and has always been passing, then you might find it appropriate to contemplate whether, in the case of the two infinities, space and time, you can then consider the third infinity, that of energy; energy in the form of wave energy traversing the medium of space.
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2014
  14. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    The position taken in the spacetime boundary model is that space is finite and energy is finite. The concept of total energy which comprises mass, energy and spacetime curvature results in an approach to matter formation based on the expansion of space caused by expansion at the boundary of space. The expansion of space is paced at the rate of one light year per year at the boundary. In any model which assumes that space is infinite I cannot see how there can be a realistic explanation of the expansion of space.

  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    That is true, and it is certainly the consensus to interpret the observational evidence of increasing separation between galaxies and galaxy groups as space expanding.

    We mentioned some things that were problematic with BBT. To me, space expanding is one of them. I always wondered about what caused the initial expansion. Also, how do we describe "nothingness", which would seem to be associated with what space would be encountering as it expanded? And how could an encounter between expanding space and nothingness create matter? I know these things can be rationalized, but did you ever consider the concept that the galaxies have momentum through space, and the observed separation between them is natural momentum? It seems to me that if matter forms as the expanding big bang arena encounters the low energy density space surrounding it, that the particles would have relative momentum imparted to them as they form. If that momentum is conserved right on up to galaxy formation then the observed expansion based on the separation of galaxies/groups would have an alternative explanation.

    That then leads to an alternative explanation for existence of space and for the observed expansion of space, and it eliminates the need to define "nothingness". It does make the concept of pre-existing space and time necessary though, but to me, that is better than wondering how space, time, and energy were created out of nothing.
  16. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    I note your point about the difficulty of having to conceive of nothingness and how an encounter between space and nothingness produces matter. My best answer to this is to focus on the region of the universe which does exist and apply the laws of physics within the spacetime boundary.

    At the heart of the approach is the extended law of conservation of energy which applies to mass, energy and spacetime curvature. What this means is that under certain conditions mass, energy and spacetime curvature can be converted one to the other as long as the total energy (the sum of mass, energy and spacetime curvature) is conserved. An example of this would be the collapse of a massive star into a black hole. Here we have mass and energy which collapses in onto itself resulting in the pure spacetime curvature of the black hole.

    The law of conservation of total energy works in the other direction when considering the evolution of the universe from a state of small radius with no energy or matter present to a state with a larger radius. The expansion of space caused by the expansion at the boundary has the effect of changing the spacetime curvature within the boundary resulting in an imbalance in the total energy equation of the universe which must lead to matter formation to balance the total energy at zero. The energy of spacetime curvature starts at zero and becomes increasingly negative as space expands.

    The total energy equation is the equation from the general theory of relativity which relates a mass energy distribution to a curved spacetime distribution. Reordering the terms of this equation gives an equation of the form

    mass energy + spacetime curvature = 0

    The problem I have with your proposal for an infinite universe with galaxies expanding under their own momentum is that there does not seem to be any realistic means by which the galaxies could acquire this momentum and be travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light for the more distant galaxies.

  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I acknowledge that, with the concern that it is the best answer if you don't think there was a cause of the Big Bang. Without a cause, and with the stipulation that it is meaningless to refer to "before" or out side of the Big Bang, your answer is sufficient. However, I noted the difference between your path and mine, and mine is to consider various options for the preconditions to the big bang, in a personal search for a satisfying hypothesis.
    Well said, and again, our different paths necessarily require us to address different aspects of the nature of the universe. I am addressing supposed preconditions and big bang causation, and you are comfortable leaving that topic unaddressed, perhaps because it requires untestable hypotheses. I'm just saying that I hypothesize about a scenario that would explain the observed expansion of the known universe, and every explanation has its advocates. Some like the "God did it" option, but the Supernatural is not part of science, and some see the "something from nothing" option as being more palatable than the infinities that come from any causation/preconditions. I'm not sure you have said which of the explanations for the existence of the universe that you prefer, but my personal choice is public knowledge.
    Your reliance on "realistic" becomes a matter of personal evaluations of the hypotheses involved. My model's solution to the problem you have with how galaxies might have separation momentum isn't too bad when you consider that everything has to work together, and my solution works with all other parts of my model.

    I might point out that your model does call for matter to become present at the surface of expansion. Mine does too. Certainly there are many differences in how we come to that hypothesis, but both predict the formation and presence of particles as the surface advances, presumably starting from the time when the volume of the baby Big Bang arena was in its early stages, just beginning to permit the presence of particles.

    I am talking wave particles composed entirely of complex patterns of wave energy in the medium of space. Any two such particles that form at the advancing surface of expansion will have different relative momentum imparted to them as they from because the surface is moving spherically in my model. I'm not sure that you would characterize the surface as moving in your model, but I'm pretty sure that once particles form in your model they are immediately in relative motion. The direction of that motion would be different though, I imagine. In my model, the particles are imparted with separation momentum, but because gravity is very strong relative to the separation momentum in the early stages of expansion, clumping of particles occurs in my model. During the clumping process momentum is conserved. Eventually the clumping reaches galactic proportions, and so the galaxies have separation momentum due to the conservation of the momentum imparted to the particles as they formed back at the surface of expansion; but there is a lot more to the story.

    Of course, I have also hypothesized about the detailed mechanics for the effect of gravity, called quantum action, which if you have scanned my thread you may have encoutered.
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    The recent discussion has reminded me how different people speak in different terms when it comes to discussing alternatives to the scientific consensus.

    I model the universe, and start with some very basic necessary truths or premises. They are generally the things that you can't prove but that the model is going to assume are true. They are the "axioms", and should characterize the underlying concepts upon which a model relies, and within which the model will be completely consistent. Mine are the three infinities; the medium of space, time, and energy.

    To elaborate on those infinities, it seems logical to start with space. Speaking dimensionally, space is three dimensions and has no boundaries in my model. Space contains a medium that carries spherical waves, so when I refer to infinite space, I am referring to it dimensionally with infinite length, height, and depth, and infinitely in terms of the medium that fills all space.

    The medium of space doesn't expand, contract, bend, fold, or break, except to the extent that it hosts wave action, and therefore has a certain responsiveness to the passing of spherical waves. I call that response a sponginess that allows the density of the medium to carry waves and accommodate multiple waves passing through the same space, and to be restored back to its pre-wave natural state after a wave crest has passed. That statement is misleading when it comes to what my model maintains about the possibility of space being restored back to some pre-wave state because in a universe that has always existed, there never was a pre-wave state, but the concept is useful in describing the sponginess of the medium of space.

    If the medium of space is spongy, then the name I give our universe is appropriate, "The Infinite Spongy Universe", or ISU.

  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    The commonly heard term, "space expands", does not apply to space in my model. The concept of space expanding, stretching, folding, or being added is part of various models that imply a "beginning" of the universe; there was no space or time, and then there was space and time, or spacetime. Not in my model though, because the universe has always existed, time had no beginning, and the whole infinite universe is filled with that spongy medium that carries waves.

    The concept of energy is consistent with such a spongy universe because the medium of space is and always has been busy carrying waves, and the waves carry energy through space. Wave energy is conserved, and so energy in the form of waves has always existed and cannot be created or destroyed.

    Wave energy, referred to as spherical wave energy in my model, is at the foundation of everything that exists within the medium of space, i.e. everything in the Infinite Spongy Universe is composed of wave energy.

  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    The reference I made about wave energy being at the "foundation" of everything that exists, i.e. everything is composed of wave energy, nicely defines what I call the foundational level of order in my model. The foundational level is where spherical waves traverse the medium of space, and in doing so they intersect and overlap with each other.

    There are mechanics of the spherical wave action within the spongy medium of space, and in my model those mechanics are referred to as "quantum action" and "arena action". When it comes to waves that are meaningful to the presence of particles and objects in space, the waves are "quantum", i.e. they carry the minimum amount of energy to interact in the medium of space in a way that establishes and maintains the presence of particles.

    The "quantum" part of quantum action is misleading though when it comes to what my model maintains about the range of energy carried by waves, because all wave action is not quantum wave action. Wave action takes place in the medium in many different sizes and many different increments of energy. When the amount of energy carried by the local waves is less than what I define as a quantum of energy in my model, the waves are referred to a sub-quantum.

    Quantum waves, however, come in two distinct groups, those that are sufficient to contribute a quantum of energy to the process that establishes and maintains the presence of a particle or object, and those that are sufficient to contribute an "arena quantum" of energy, the kind of super-sized waves that interact to produce big bangs on a grand scale. Our Big Bang itself carries an arena quantum of energy as it expands spherically through the medium of space. In terms of an arena quantum of energy, everything within it, i.e. everything within our big bang arena is composed of sub-quantum waves relative to the arena wave.

    Last edited: Feb 28, 2014
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    The amount of energy in a given locality or defined volume of space is variable, based on the size of the waves traversing that locality. If the locality is hosting a particle, then the "meaningful" waves are particle level quanta. On the other hand, if the "locality" is hosting the formation, and vast expansion, of big bang arenas and arena waves like our own Big Bang, then the "meaningful" waves are arena level quanta. Those are the two different sized quantum waves in their two different sized volumes of space, that serve as the micro and macro limits of our ability to observe in my model.

    A big bang wave is a great wave of energy that encompasses every thing we can observe in the visible universe. The volume of space within which we can observe, our Hubble View, contains a wide range of macro configurations of particles; the galaxies, galaxy groups, and galaxy group structures that make up the observable universe. But looking inward into the depths of the foundational medium, we can look in upon the simplest forms of matter that form and interact at the foundational level to establish and maintain particles within the Big Bang arena.

    The observables in the macro direction and in the micro direction all hint at a universe beyond our ability to observe; the as yet unknown.

  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    You can use those last four posts to take the meaning of various terms that I use in my model:

    You can see that the term "universe" means there can be only one universe, which is what the word has always meant to me; the universe is all encompassing. The universe encompasses the three infinities of space, time, and energy, i.e. all there is, all there ever has been, and all there ever will be".

    Space in my model is described both dimensionally and physically. There are three dimensions and no boundaries to space, and axiomatically, all space is filled with the "medium of space" that carries wave energy.

    The medium of space carries waves, and to do so, it exhibits a compressibility that I characterize as "sponginess". There are natural limits to "sponginess", and big bangs test the maximum compressibility of the medium by providing the maximum possible wave energy density in the medium.

    On the other end of the energy density scale is space that has nature's lowest level of wave energy traversing it. That might be found in the "quiet" space that occupies the corridors of low density that wind their ways around the expanding big bang arena waves. Technically, in my model, that is the space into which arenas are expanding. Incidentally, that is the same space that the arena waves that lead to the presence of our Big Bang had previously filled, and have subsequently vacated as time passed.

    My model is based on the axiom that time simply passes at the same rate in all locations. That perspective invokes the concept of wave energy density in the medium of space. If particles exist in localities where the wave energy density is different, those particles function at a different rate. It follows that if you construct two identical clocks in a given locality featuring a volume of space where the energy density is consistent across that volume, then the identical clocks will measure time in sync.

    It also follows that if you move one clock relative to the other, they will not measure time in sync. They will measure time at a rate that is consistent with the difference in the wave energy density of the environments that the individual clocks are functioning in. From that, you can see that in my model, relative motion changes the wave energy density of the environment of both clocks, and the clock in motion measures time at a slower rate because the particles composing that clock are functioning slower, due to the increased wave energy density.

    And one last definition for this post. "Motion" of objects through space anywhere within our Big Bang arena, is not just relative to all of the other particles and objects in our arena, but motion is relative to the background wave energy that is traversing the arena, commonly referred to as the Cosmic Microwave Background.

  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Going back a few posts, there is a mention of a very important distinction between the consensus model of cosmology, and my unknown "hobby" model. I am referring to the explanation for the observed separation of the galaxies and galaxy groups. The consensus model and mine agree with the observed separation, but not on the cause, and not on the implication that the cause in my model has on the nature of the separation. The galaxies have relative momentum in my model, as opposed to being pushed apart by the formation or addition of "new" space.

    I model the separation as the affect of momentum that is imparted to particles as they form during the early period of expansion of our arena wave. There is a "boundary environment" as the advancing surface of the spherical arena wave encounters the relative low energy density of the space surrounding our infant Big Bang arena. It is at that advancing boundary where the extreme energy density difference exists between the high wave energy density of the big bang, and the low energy density of the surrounding "corridor" of space that has recently been vacated by the advancing parent waves. Those parent waves contributed to the formation of our expanding Big Bang arena by converging, and they provide the low density space for us to expand into by continuing to expand spherically on through and past the point of convergence, while our infant arena forms and "bangs" in the overlap space.

    The boundary is significant in my model because it provides the rapid drop in energy density that the contents of our arena experience as they intrude upon the relatively low wave energy density of the surrounding space. The consensus model does not invoke such a boundary, at least not a boundary that converts high wave energy density into particles at the boundary. In my model, that boundary environment is conducive to the initial formation of particles, and to the fact that they form as that surface is rapidly expanding. Those two factors explain why those newly formed particles are all moving away from each other, i.e. how they acquire their initial separation momentum.

    The distinction between my model and the consensus model is that I hypothesize about preconditions to and causes of the existence of our arena, and it is the nature of those preconditions that account for the formation of particles that are initially all moving away from each other.


Share This Page