Quantifying gravity's mechanism

[quantum_wave]

Did I miss anything overnight? Hmm, only 18 posts, lol.

Very interesting stuff and a few things on topic and addressed to me. I'll start with the last post and work back.

Hi QW, it was the initial High Density Overlap picture that caught my attention and reminded me of my similar stuff.

I will try and post link to Fermi-bubbles that are similar in shape/pattern to expressing my entropic-end and beginning of Universe but may have some resonance with your concepts also. *I dunno *

http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1011/11fermi/

r6

That is an awesome link, thanks.

Many people believe that our galaxy was formed out of the remnants of an eruption of a super massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. Of course in my so called model I have stated an alternative view somewhere in the maze of past threads. That is that our galaxy, and most others, are remnants from the first round of super giant hydrogen stars that formed in the early life of our big bang arena. These stars were huge and fast burning, and collapsed/exploded into huge clouds of cosmic dust with a black hole in the center. The stars of the Milky Way then formed from the dust that was filled with the heavy nuclei formed by the extreme compression and super nova.

 

[quantum_wave]

Somewhere in all that off topic chat I think there was a misconception:

"As I understand it, every quantum entity (I guess that means particle) is expanding."

That might be a reference to the diagram of two converging spheres but the spheres do not represent particles, they represent two converging quanta within a standing wave pattern of a particle, and a particle might contain hundreds of millions or billions of quanta, depending on the type of particle and the energy of that particle. Particles are not expanding, they are stable configurations composed of wave energy in quantum increments, lots and lots of quantum increments, lol.

Particles move as a whole, but each of those quanta within the particle space are continually refreshed by quantum action. Most of the quanta are refreshed from the out flowing wave energy of parent quanta right there within the particle space. Only the wave energy leaving the particle space has to be refreshed from the wave energy traversing the space between particles. So be sure you can distinguish between quanta within a particle, and particles themselves.

The motion of the whole particle is caused by the directional wave energy inflow. Need I remind you that the inflow is from the spherical out flow of other particles and objects. The highest wave energy density source might not be the direction that a particle moves however, because there are always multiple gravitational influences on a particle or object. The motion is in the direction of the net highest wave energy density inflow. And the motion has a time delay relative to the distance from the source.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

On the topic and your comment about "time delay" at convergence process event center, may I make a suggestion to support this possibility? I have come across "mutual entanglement" processes in both QM and Classical wave physics descriptions (don't ask for references because it was not recently), so this may happen when your waves "interfere" with each other and create an energy "knot" where waves wrap each others "surface topologies" at contact areas?

Yes, that concept has some applicability to the process of quantum action. My problem is that I can understand the general popular media presentation of those ideas, but I cannot mention the idea as part of my model because the pop media version is shallow relative to the depth of understanding of physics and mathematics that support it. If I were to mention it or include it as part of the model, I would be lost when asked to defend someone else's theory. That is why I rarely mention specifics from the many sources that I have drawn upon for my so called model.

Also I remember reading about "Z-pinch effects" where streamlines also "pinch together" and concentrate for a time as a "plasmoid". Maybe if the space which your waves are spherical currents in attract each other where they make co-moving contact of streamlines to form convoluted self-entangled plasmoid kind of "knotted space wave segments" or such like?

Yes, maybe, and that might translate into the compression of the medium and the resulting time delay which creates a tiny duration for something to occur that would seem to be taking place instantly if observed from outside the convergence event. In some theories there are things that seem to suggest that time was slowed down or sped up relative to the perspective of observation. In my so called model time doesn't slow down or speed up, wave energy changes velocity depending on the energy density of the environment. Some people equate the change in velocity to a curved path which would also explain the time differential observed from different perspectives and motions.

I have read where space is a sort of plasma of sub-sub-baryonic "stuff" (Quark-Gluon Plasma?), so such "plasmoid" and self-entangled streams of plasma coming together at a common interfernce event centre is not too wild a thought? That's all I cn remark on that. I hope it may be useful to you and Cheezle in your discussions in future about your ideas.

It is interesting to read what the heavy weights who theorize about such things think. We laymen are viewing their work on a time delay and through some what opaque lenses, lol.
(2913)

 

[Cheezle]

I was only expressing gladness that the "tone" of discussion seemed to have improved, even if it may not be perfect (but you and Cheezle would know back your "history" and what your discussions have included or excluded by way of common ground and common purpose to elucidate rather than confront for personal animosity reasons from either party). I will leave that to you and him to sort out between you if possible.

On the topic and your comment about "time delay" at convergence process event center, may I make a suggestion to support this possibility? I have come across "mutual entanglement" processes in both QM and Classical wave physics descriptions (don't ask for references because it was not recently), so this may happen when your waves "interfere" with each other and create an energy "knot" where waves wrap each others "surface topologies" at contact areas? Also I remember reading about "Z-pinch effects" where streamlines also "pinch together" and concentrate for a time as a "plasmoid". Maybe if the space which your waves are spherical currents in attract each other where they make co-moving contact of streamlines to form convoluted self-entangled plasmoid kind of "knotted space wave segments" or such like? I have read where space is a sort of plasma of sub-sub-baryonic "stuff" (Quark-Gluon Plasma?), so such "plasmoid" and self-entangled streams of plasma coming together at a common interfernce event centre is not too wild a thought? That's all I cn remark on that. I hope it may be useful to you and Cheezle in your discussions in future about your ideas.

QW's theory is non-classical. He has stated that he rejects or at least does not use any SR or GR. As far as Z-pinch and Quark-Gluon Plasmas go, I have talked about the problem of supplying too much context from your own understanding when looking at QW's theory. Yes, if you squint your eyes and hold your tongue at the right angel you can imagine how his theory fits in with anything. Try not to supply too much of that context. Sure you do have to supply some, because no theory starts with a blank slate. But you really need to draw the line someplace. Quark Gluon Plasma? Really? Is that what this all looks like to you? You got all of that from his swarm of gnats and drawing earlier in the thread. I think your imagination is working overtime.

 

[Cheezle]

Somewhere in all that off topic chat I think there was a misconception:
That might be a reference to the diagram of two converging spheres but the spheres do not represent particles, they represent two converging quanta within a standing wave pattern of a particle, and a particle might contain hundreds of millions or billions of quanta, depending on the type of particle and the energy of that particle. Particles are not expanding, they are stable configurations composed of wave energy in quantum increments, lots and lots of quantum increments, lol.

Wow! A particle might be composed of millions or billions of your vaguely defined quanta. Of course that brings up the question of why millions and billions and not much larger or smaller numbers. BTW, I am going to coin the term wowions to refer to your quanta and differentiate them from the more mainstream ideas.

Can you give an example? Say a Neutron. How many of your wowions are contained in a neutron? I don't need an exact number. Anything within a couple orders of magnitude will do.

1?
1000?
1,000,000?
1,000,000,000?
1,000,000,000,000?

Somehow I don't think you want to answer that question.

 

[eram]

Wow! A particle might be composed of millions or billions of your vaguely defined quanta. Of course that brings up the question of why millions and billions and not much larger or smaller numbers. BTW, I am going to coin the term wowions to refer to your quanta and differentiate them from the more mainstream ideas.

Can you give an example? Say a Neutron. How many of your wowions are contained in a neutron? I don't need an exact number. Anything within a couple orders of magnitude will do.

1?
1000?
1,000,000?
1,000,000,000?
1,000,000,000,000?

Somehow I don't think you want to answer that question.

Hey man, cool it.

 

[Cheezle]

Hey man, cool it.

Yeah, maybe I was a little rude. BUt this new piece of his theory that he just gave us, the scale of his quanta, is pretty incredible.

And I would be interested in what number he would choose. Aren't you?

It seems like a reasonable question to me.

[video=youtube;gbIv7W7rhx4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbIv7W7rhx4[/video]

 

[Cheezle]

Hey man, cool it.

Oh you might want to scramble the apologist task force to defend rr6 in his thread. He is under attack by the meanies there.

 

[eram]

And I would be interested in what number he would choose. Aren't you?

It seems like a reasonable question to me.

Not really. q_w is too wordy and he seems to be running around like a headless chicken. I can't figure out what he wants.


And is that Phillip Seymour Hoffman?

 

[Cheezle]

Not really. q_w is too wordy and he seems to be running around like a headless chicken. I can't figure out what he wants.


And is that Phillip Seymour Hoffman?

Why yes it is. He plays Brandt, the personal assistant of the other Lebowski.

 

[quantum_wave]

Not really. q_w is too wordy and he seems to be running around like a headless chicken. I can't figure out what he wants.

...

That was a very cool video and worthy of a response if you ask me; a too wordy response of course:

Quantum Units Wild A** Guess updated for this thread

“In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete.” ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

In my model, which is not likely to have anything to do with a change in paradigm, lol, the proton’s presence (three quarks if you like) is literally composed of the high density spots that form at the overlap of the multiple quantum standing waves within the proton.

Spherical waves are bursting out of high density spots, expanding, overlapping, and forming new HDSs within the proton. It is a continual process where the wave energy out flow that escapes the proton from the surface spherically (equal in all directions) is replaced by wave energy arriving at the surface (directionally) from the out flow of wave energy from other particles. Thus the presence of the proton is maintained by the inflowing and out flowing standing wave action.

Let’s say that we can freeze the quantum action process that has established the presence of a proton. That freeze frame will contain a finite number of spherical quantum waves in overlap positions within the proton. Each overlap is a high density spot in my jargon. There are a finite number of high density spots within the particle space where the spherical waves have overlapped at the moment of the freeze frame. That close configuration of high density spots has stability because there is no niche on the surface for any additional surface quanta or high density spots in a stable environment, i.e. the surface wave energy out flow is equal to the wave energy inflow in a stable energy density environment, like at rest. (Increase the energy of the environment or accelerate the proton and there are more surface quanta and proportionately more total quanta, hypothetically.)

The question is, from what we know about the proton at rest, and from what I hypothesize about the process of quantum action at the foundational level, can we derive a ball park figure or even a wild guess of the number of high density spots (or shall we say quantum units) within a proton? A quantum unit would be the foundational unit of energy in a universe composed of wave energy in a foundational medium, i.e. in my so called model.

In this exercise you might point out that the units of measure don’t work unless we define the whole exercise in terms of a new unit, i.e. a speculative “quantum energy unit” that occupies an average amount of space per quanta in the freeze frame or lattice view inside a proton. We are not talking about energy in joules for example because the units of measure wouldn’t work. We are talking about energy in quantum units. Each quantum unit is a quantum of wave energy, not only the individual spherical waves, but the high density spots that accumulate a full quantum and burst into new spherical waves (see my equation). So the number of quantum units would be the total number of spherical wave intersections that are present as hypothetically represented by the high density spots that form and burst into quantum waves. Supposedly we could count the HDSs in a freeze frame of the proton, and if we could we would know the total energy in quantum compression units of a proton at rest.

This hypothetical exercise is to put some perspective on the number of energy quanta in a proton and an electron at rest to quantify my idea of the number of quantum units within a stable particle. For simplicity we will call these “average quantum energy units” which simply occupy the space within the proton. This can also be thought of as the wave energy, in quanta, in a volume of space occupied by the proton, accounted for unit by unit in a whole number. I am suggesting the following widely speculative guess at the number of these quantum units within the space occupied by a proton.

I am using the approximate ratio of the rest energy of an electron vs. a proton, which is 1/1836, to equate the number of quantum units in the proton to the number of units in the electron which give me some basis for a calculation.

In addition, I am supposing that the number of quantum units in an electron is equal to the number of quanta at the surface of the proton for various reasons, but for this exercise that is just to have a relationship to allow us to do the calculations.

Area/Volume = (4 pi r^2)/(4/3 pi r^3) = 3/r = 1/1836,
therefore r=3*1836 = 5508, thus the radius of the proton is equal to 5508 quantum units.

4 pi r^2 = surface area of a sphere
4/3 pi r^3 = volume of a sphere
pi = 3.14159265

Quantum units in an electron = 381,239,356
Quantum units in a proton = 699,955,457,517*

I'll just call it 400 million and 700 billion respectively, or even just hundreds of millions and hundreds of billions respectively :shrug:.

*Or should we say gnats?
(3043)

 

[Cheezle]

Quantum units in an electron = 381,239,356
Quantum units in a proton = 699,955,457,517*

I'll just call it 400 million and 700 billion respectively, or even just hundreds of millions and hundreds of billions respectively :shrug:.

*Or should we say gnats?
(3043)

[video=youtube;MpraJYnbVtE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpraJYnbVtE[/video]

 

[quantum_wave]

[video=youtube;MpraJYnbVtE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpraJYnbVtE[/video]

Lol, that's as good as an atta-boy.

 

[Cheezle]

Lol, that's as good as an atta-boy.

In a way it is an atta-boy. You have kind of permanently defined what you are really talking about by those numbers. The jumping of the shark is an event that deserves celebration. But what it means is that its all downhill from here. Your "hobby/model" does not contain the elements needed to describe the world. As I mentioned before, there is no charge in it. There is no spin in it. I think that you must be hoping that those and other features of the world will be emergent from the interaction of wowions. I don't see that happening at least not in your excel spreadsheet. There is another term similar to jumping the shark. It is the Nantucket Sleighride. That is when a whaler has thrown a harpoon and sunk it deep into the flesh of a whale. You have done it! But what comes next is the hard part.

 

[quantum_wave]

I think that you must be hoping that those and other features of the world will be emergent from the interaction of wowions. I don't see that happening at least not in your excel spreadsheet. There is another term similar to jumping the shark. It is the Nantucket Sleighride. That is when a whaler has thrown a harpoon and sunk it deep into the flesh of a whale. You have done it! But what comes next is the hard part.

I did those calcs seven years ago and as I remember I used an excel spreadsheet back then too.
(3159)

 

[Cheezle]

I did those calcs seven years ago and as I remember I used an excel spreadsheet back then too.
(3159)

Well, I would assume that you would want to do a simulation many (1000s) of wowions at once. If you want to attempt something like that I would put in a plug for IPython with Mathplotlib, scipy, numpy, sympy, pandas etc. Fairly easy to use, Python can be learned in an afternoon. Its free. Check out some of these examples. You can even buy time on some large clusters if you have to.

http://nbviewer.ipython.org/

 

[eram]

Well, I would assume that you would want to do a simulation many (1000s) of wowions at once. If you want to attempt something like that I would put in a plug for IPython with Mathplotlib, scipy, numpy, sympy, pandas etc.

Wowions. I like that term.

Oh you might want to scramble the apologist task force to defend rr6 in his thread. He is under attack by the meanies there.

Unfortunately rr6 sounds like a New Age poet. Actually he is, he even wrote a poem.

 

[Undefined]

QW's theory is non-classical. He has stated that he rejects or at least does not use any SR or GR. As far as Z-pinch and Quark-Gluon Plasmas go, I have talked about the problem of supplying too much context from your own understanding when looking at QW's theory. Yes, if you squint your eyes and hold your tongue at the right angel you can imagine how his theory fits in with anything. Try not to supply too much of that context. Sure you do have to supply some, because no theory starts with a blank slate. But you really need to draw the line someplace. Quark Gluon Plasma? Really? Is that what this all looks like to you? You got all of that from his swarm of gnats and drawing earlier in the thread. I think your imagination is working overtime.

I don't understand. The Quark-Gluon plasma is what mainstream physicists call the stuff which might form the "stuff" in LHC collisions (and at big bang start, and maybe in black holes). I read somewhere the LHC collisions "stuff" acts like a highly viscous "fluid" (a type of more fundamental plasma than the plasmas we encounter ordinarily) before the various energy segmentation of that "stuff" into "particles" gets ejected in "jets" of whatever further decay products (transient and stable) are detected. Such fundamental stuff must have something to do with any theory about underlying processes and waves and particles of whatever scale or stability, mustn't it? I don't think it's a "wild speculation" or "too much context" if the mainstream scientists already know about such "stuff" at more fundamental energy scales and processes which q-w is also trying to fathom in his hobby thinking about those scales and processes. Has anyone definitively limited the fundamental things to particular numbers as constituents of observable scale objects? Can anyone yet say what numbers of what things are buzzing around "statistically" and "chaotically" which may through emergent resonances form persisting patterns we can observe at larger scales? I do not know of any such limitations or exclusions of what might be going on at the level which q-w's waves may exist and interact. Do you? I bet "countless and varied numbers and kinds of virtual particles fizzing in and out of a quantum vacuum" sounded like just so many "wowions" to mainstream scientists when first hypothesized by somebody (who was it I wonder)?

 

[eram]

I don't understand. The Quark-Gluon plasma is what mainstream physicists call the stuff which might form the "stuff" in LHC collisions (and at big bang start, and maybe in black holes). I read somewhere the LHC collisions "stuff" acts like a highly viscous "fluid" (a type of more fundamental plasma than the plasmas we encounter ordinarily) before the various energy segmentation of that "stuff" into "particles" gets ejected in "jets" of whatever further decay products (transient and stable) are detected. Such fundamental stuff must have something to do with any theory about underlying processes and waves and particles of whatever scale or stability, mustn't it? I don't think it's a "wild speculation" or "too much context" if the mainstream scientists already know about such "stuff" at more fundamental energy scales and processes which q-w is also trying to fathom in his hobby thinking about those scales and processes. Has anyone definitively limited the fundamental things to particular numbers as constituents of observable scale objects? Can anyone yet say what numbers of what things are buzzing around "statistically" and "chaotically" which may through emergent resonances form persisting patterns we can observe at larger scales? I do not know of any such limitations or exclusions of what might be going on at the level which q-w's waves may exist and interact. Do you? I bet "countless and varied numbers and kinds of virtual particles fizzing in and out of a quantum vacuum" sounded like just so many "wowions" to mainstream scientists when first hypothesized by somebody (who was it I wonder)?

Whatever we've been discussing is too vague.

 

[Cheezle]

I don't understand. The Quark-Gluon plasma is what mainstream physicists call the stuff which might form the "stuff" in LHC collisions (and at big bang start, and maybe in black holes). I read somewhere the LHC collisions "stuff" acts like a highly viscous "fluid" (a type of more fundamental plasma than the plasmas we encounter ordinarily) before the various energy segmentation of that "stuff" into "particles" gets ejected in "jets" of whatever further decay products (transient and stable) are detected. Such fundamental stuff must have something to do with any theory about underlying processes and waves and particles of whatever scale or stability, mustn't it? I don't think it's a "wild speculation" or "too much context" if the mainstream scientists already know about such "stuff" at more fundamental energy scales and processes which q-w is also trying to fathom in his hobby thinking about those scales and processes. Has anyone definitively limited the fundamental things to particular numbers as constituents of observable scale objects? Can anyone yet say what numbers of what things are buzzing around "statistically" and "chaotically" which may through emergent resonances form persisting patterns we can observe at larger scales? I do not know of any such limitations or exclusions of what might be going on at the level which q-w's waves may exist and interact. Do you? I bet "countless and varied numbers and kinds of virtual particles fizzing in and out of a quantum vacuum" sounded like just so many "wowions" to mainstream scientists when first hypothesized by somebody (who was it I wonder)?

It is always dangerous speculating on quantum_waves theories, and I don't know anything about quark gluon plasmas except what I read in the wikipedia page. But QG plasmas are made of free quarks and gluons. Because qw says the proton (which contains 3 quarks) is made of 699,955,457,517* wowions. I am going to go out on a limb and say that his theory is not describing a quark gluon plasma. Now add to that the fact that his wowion energy is of two types inflowing and outflowing, I don't see how quarks are going to get their flavors from that. You can't get 6 flavors from 2 energies unless there are more qualities. You can get 6 from 3 via permutations. His energy only flows in and out and when ever a region contains exactly one quantum (its a set value of energy and has to be homogenous) it becomes a wowion. Now in the original diagrams that energy was donated by two quanta which are now just partial quanta and that just continues on until it eventually joins with other free energy to make new quanta. How there can be partial quanta is hard to say. Maybe someday qw will tell us.

Basically what I am saying is that you are trying really hard to believe in quantum_wave's theory. And in the process, you are seeing things that are not in the theory. quantum_wave might agree with your assessment of the plasma being is some way similar to how his wowions work, but they aren't the same thing. Now I might be completely wrong about all of that because quantum_waves theory is kind of hard for me to follow. Maybe you got it all right.