The Infinite Spongy Universe Cosmology, 2014

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quantum_wave, Apr 8, 2014.

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

    Messages:
    6,677
    #18. 6/12/2014
    This post comes from a thread on Bell's Theorem and Nonlocality. It is where I took some time to distinguish between the interpretations of QM call the Hidden Variables Interpretations, and local hidden variable theories themselves:
    HVI vs. HVT
    A recent quantum coffee session with the FlipBookMan (a local friend and fellow science enthusiast) lead to a conclusion that would make the question of loopholes in experiments to eliminate all hidden variable theories moot. The conclusion is that even if you theorize a way to close all of the loopholes at the same time, the question of Hidden Variables Interpretations (HVI) stays alive and well. That is because our ability to observe reality, even the time delayed reality of human perception, does not allow us to detect continuous wave energy in the medium of space, which is part of the hypothesis that leads to my statement that my hobby-model is, "not inconsistent" with scientific observations that we presently understand.

    The recent discussions about QM interpretations on line and among friends have lead to my latest disclaimer which says that:
    My hobby-model is internally consistent to the best of my ability, and it is not inconsistent with known scientific observations and data, stipulating that those observations are understood and explained with the mechanics that they operate by.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. flip Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Images would help this a lot, and I offered to work with you on images, but if you want to use MS paint instead of a reasonable software package, you are on you own

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I will still enjoy talking through the topic of cosmology with you, as usual, but I'm not going to enter into forum chat, for reasons we have discussed.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Been away from this part of the forums for a while, decided to pop back in and make a quick note on this topic. I'm glad you've been taking Bell's Theorem a little more seriously than you were before, although I still don't think you grasp the real gist of it.

    The problem has nothing to do with human perception somehow disguising classical wave behaviour occurring beneath the surface, it's about nonlocal effects which have been consistently observed in lab conditions for decades, and which cannot under any circumstances be statistically duplicated by any localized deterministic mechanism (as the simple math proof I gave for Bell's Theorem demonstrates). The only option for saving local determinism is to postulate that nature intelligently exploits whatever loopholes are available in whatever necessary combination so as to consistently spoof the exact same results in a manner that matches precisely with the predictions of the Copenhagen interpretation, and even this absurd leap of faith (ascribing intelligent behaviour to lifeless particles) is scheduled to be put to the test in the coming year or so.

    Besides, if you're going to start speculating about how flawed human perception can limit experimental measurements, then you ought to address the actual mechanisms, methods and calculations employed in these experiments and explain how you think that human flaws are what make the results appear to be quantum in nature, otherwise you're just making a blind guess as to how things work in real life.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    6,677
    Welcome back. I am taking it just as seriously as I did when you and I nearly beat it death earlier this year. Being dismissive of each other is great sport, but I suppose neither of us really knows the other well enough to make generalizations like "taking it a little more seriously", or "you don't really grasp the implications", etc.
    I can't imagine that we would ever agree on our personal views about local reality, and any "debate" would certainly end in disparagement, as opposed to openness and acceptance of two completely different takes on the completeness of the invariant natural laws of the universe.
    "Human flaws". Is that what you take away from me saying that there could be a level of reality that we cannot yet observe? You make it sound like we should be able to observe the full details, and if we can't, ... what ..., there are no details there, so there is no local reality without accepting the strict Copenhagen interpretation of "spooky action"? Is that it?

    Can we know the mechanics behind the physics involved in the experiments when we don't even know the exact nature of the photon, or wave-particle duality? To have a belief about those things is inherently speculative.
     
  8. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    You must be kidding me. You didn't make a single argument to address any of the simple postulates or conclusions in the Bell's Theorem proof, so how does that constitute "nearly beating it to death"?

    What has been decisively demonstrated by experiment is that any potential underlying mechanism, no matter how intricate, cannot be both local and deterministic. You haven't cited a single example of a local deterministic mechanism that can avoid making the experimentally flawed prediction required by Bell's Theorem, nor can you possibly do so, because it would be like proving that 1+1=3 under certain conditions.
     
  9. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Put it this way: I assert that any local deterministic mechanism which can account for the results of Bell test experiments without appealing to loopholes, must necessarily also contain one or more mathematical self-contradictions in its postulates. This assertion follows directly as a logical consequence of the proof I gave for Bell's Theorem. I can prove that there are infinitely many prime numbers without trying to count them all out, and I can prove that no local deterministic mechanism can explain established results (sans loopholes), no matter how intricate or ingenius.
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I didn't take exception to the math, and said that even before you reported me to a moderator, twice.

    I invoked the HVI which you believe is defeated by your assertion. You left the thread on your own volition without giving us the particulars of the specific experiments, which you said you would. You didn't address the mechanistic explanations of the results. You didn't falsify my assertion that my hobby-model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, to which I included the stipulation that observations and data are explained mechanistically. In other words you failed in the promises you wrote into the OP.

    Go back to your thread, finish it up with the particulars of the experiments, and the mechanistic explanations of the results, including the mechanics of superpostion, entanglement, and decoherence.
     
  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Post #17 added detail from http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ar...ame-as-light-waves.143284/page-4#post-3253261:

    Visualize the particle composed of "contained" wave energy, and those waves continually intersecting and overlapping, forming high density spots as they work their way through the particle space, and you can easily visualize my hypothetical mechanism of gravity.

    As particle wave energy is continually refreshed from the directionally inflowing wave energy, the high density spots within the particle space tend to shift in the direction of the net high energy density gradient in the surrounding medium of space. Therefore, particles and objects move in that direction.

    One more point here. Since I hypothesize that the photon is a wave-particle with directionally inflowing wave energy and spherically out flowing wave energy, and because they are emitted at the speed of light to start with, photons get all of their inflowing wave energy from the direction of motion. Therefore, wave energy traversing the medium of space from any other direction will not be able to catch up with the photon, and so they will follow the gravitational wave energy density gradient of the medium of space. Since that gradient is influenced by the presence of massive objects, photon paths will curve with the gradient.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    #19 12/18/2014

    Energy in the ISU

    One topic that gets a lot of attention in science forums with layman participants is the definition of energy.

    Earlier this year I had a brief discussion with Exchemist about the question of energy, trying to get the consensus view on the concept of energy quanta. Not Planck's constant, which you learn about when you are a kid these days, but a basic source of energy that can be tapped in the tiniest increments. In my model, you will find that the tiniest increments of energy discussed are much smaller than Planck's constant.

    Then, in the same Pseudoscience thread that I quoted for the addendum to post #17, Farsight insisted that the medium of space was energy. My musings over the years had contemplated that, but more recently I had separated the concepts of an energy commodity filling space, and the medium of space itself. The distinction, as I saw it, was that waves carry energy through the medium of space, and so the wave component of the foundational medium was the energy, and the foundational medium was the aether.

    To clarify, the waves I am talking about are gravitational waves, ranging from the tiniest ripples that intersect to form high density spots within particle spaces, to the huge big bangs themselves that populate the landscape of the greater universe. In my model. They are all examples of wave energy traversing the medium of space.

    So in answer to the question of what is energy, not only is it what we teach children in places on the web like http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/enrg-types.htm, but in this model, energy in its tiniest increments, is foundational wave energy that exist at all points in the medium of space. There are gravitational waves intersecting from all directions at all points, and those intersections, each with a tiny time delay for compression of the medium itself, are poised for use by passing particles.
     
  13. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    First what do u know about QM and GR? I really know nothing about them
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Oh, adhams, lol. That kind of question on one of my threads just invites disparagement from my hoard of detractors. Start a thread of your own, post a link to it here if you want, and you'll surely get some advice on good sources. I told you in reply to the private message you sent me, that I'm not a good source for what is QM and GR. My views are alternative, and they are deveolped after years of reading forums, Googling, individual research, etc. Thanks for asking, but that is off topic on this thread.
     
  15. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    You're contradicting yourself here. First you claim that you didn't take exception to my math, yet in the next paragraph you assert that it doesn't disprove the impossibility of matching Bell test experimental results using a local deterministic mechanism. The theorem demonstrates that arbitrary local deterministic schemes, no matter how intricate or sophisticated, must make a certain prediction for a certain type of measurement which demonstrably deviates from known results, and if you're saying it doesn't do that, then I want you to tell me exactly what it is Bell's theorem disproves, since it makes no reference to any specific hidden variable theories or any reference to the contents of those theories, other than the basic universal features of locality and determinism.

    I already gave the essential details of the experiment(s) including links, got sidetracked with other topics and real life, didn't feel like reviving it because it seemed like my points weren't being looked at or understood anyhow. I'll try to go back and tie up any loose ends, but if Bell's Theorem doesn't prove the impossibility of constructing a working local hidden variables theory that matches with known experimental results (aside from resorting to intelligent particles actively exploiting loopholes in existing experiments), then I want to know what exactly it is you think the theorem says. The accurate quantum predictions for Bell test experiments are easy to derive and I can show you how it's done, but I don't really consider it relevant to the topic because the intention is to prove the impossibility of local determinism in the real world.
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Say what you want.

    Am I the only person you can find that invokes the HVI. Find someone else who won't keep reminding you that you are repeating yourself.

    Your best plan, if I am the only one who you can play this out with, and in order to keep me interested, is to give the details of the experiments, the intruments used to make the measurements, the physical laws that are at work, and the explanations of those laws as to the mechanics of how they work. Either that or you can't say we understand what the experiments are telling us. And say anything you want about this response, if you don't get on with the details you promised, I'm not interested.
     
  17. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    I was already doing a lot of those things, but I'll be happy to get back to them and finish what I was discussing. Perhaps I should start off by showing how quantum mechanics gets the correct prediction?
     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Fine. Do it on your thread or start a new one. And word games aren't what I was asking for. To play this out ...
     
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    #20 12/26/2014

    Connection between Light and Gravity

    I'll begin by picking up with the earlier discussion about the nature of a particle:

    If there is an internal wave energy structure to particles, and this thread follows that reasoning, each particle's presence is sustained by inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy. The particle contains wave energy in an extremely dense state (meaning tinier and more compact wave action) relative to the surrounding medium of space. The out flowing energy is a spherical emission from the particle boundary, i.e. the outer reaches of the particle space. This boundary is not a finely demarcated surface, but a generalized outer region of the particle space where inflow meets out flow.

    The out flow occurs evenly from all points around the boundary and is describe as a spherical outward wave, continuously emitted by the particle. The inflow to the particle is also continuous, and always has a net directional bias, given that surrounding particles and object are the source of the inflow.

    The spherical out flow of a moving particle or object never precisely equals the directional inflow, i.e. no particles are absolutely at rest. In my model, that inflowing energy is distributed throughout the particle space in accord with the process of quantum action which features continuously intersecting and overlapping waves within the particle space. Each intersection expands to an overlap of energy waves which produces a momentary high energy spot, a quantum of energy, and those spots expand spherically until they too insect and overlap, perpetuating the process of high energy density spots within the particle space.

    Given the above, and in reference to the particular case of a photon, the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component emitted by the photon particle is the wave state of light. The particle state is composed of the contained wave energy emitted from an electron at the speed of light, and is being sustained by inflowing gravitational wave energy. In the sole case of the photon, all of its inflow is coming from the direction of motion. Reference my depiction and discussion of the photon wave-particle described in The Big Wait thread.

    Note that in my model, light energy is part of the gravitational wave energy traversing the medium of space, and is in addition to the out flowing gravitational wave energy emitted by all other particles and objects. All gravitational wave energy, including light energy, travels through the medium of space at the speed of light, and that out flowing energy is the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy that sustains the presence of particles and objects as they move through the medium of space.

    When this photon-emitted light in the form of gravitational wave energy, encounters particles and objects, it can be absorbed at the boundary and into the particle spaces or reflected off of particle boundaries, depending on the compatibility of the frequencies and the angle of incidence. A particle or object, when encountered by a photon, will itself be in the process of emitting and absorbing gravitational waves. A particle or object will be able to absorb photon light wave energy just like it was any other inflowing gravitational wave, but it may not be so accommodating of the photon energy as it is of the flatter plane waves of gravitational wave energy from more distant particles and objects. This is because the photon particle is present right up close and personal and has much higher energy than other gravitational wave energy. Up close, photon light out flow is quite curved and thus more energetic, relative to flatter gravitational plane waves from distant objects.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2014
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Revision to post #11. 4/30/2014 to add link to article discussed:
    http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/sit...f87a00fdcec76e452d8009b/20140601-20140630.pdf

    Yesterday I received the latest free issue of symmetry magazine, which is one good way for a layman to keep up with developments in Particle Physics. There is always an interesting topic in the "Explain it in 60 Seconds" column. This month it is titled, Wave-particle duality, see page #17 at the above link.
     
  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    #21 12/27/2014
    Included in one of my threads this year named, "Where are the Problematic Issues in Science", is a series of posts on pages #21 and #22, posts #414 to #435, where I took a different approach to summarizing my model, and I want to include a link to those posts here:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...issues-in-science.141543/page-21#post-3203930

    And one more link: The ATLAS Boogie
    Dan, don't despair. It takes time for some things to catch on.



    //m.youtube.com/watch?feature=kp&v=WShZVxPZETw
     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677

Share This Page