Banned
Listen guys, you are not attacking my theory in the slightest. It has been admitted that my theory does not go against mainstream... however, you are all stuck on possibly a quibble, if not a pedantic quibble. The question of whether the BB answers for everything.
This isn't the role of a proper investigation into a theory; This is a side-track.
Banned
Also, I never levelled myself with Hawking --- try again. (sorry I qouted myself) This was to RAF.Originally Posted by Aethelwulf
Senior Member
That is correct.
Banned
I'm ignoring you. If a mod has a problem with this, speak up. My OP provides a logically consistent set of arguements.
Banned
Logically-consistent arguements are good enough as evidence.
Senior Member
What you have here isn't a theory...theories have evidence to "back up" their claims...you have none.
Yes...completely irrelevant as other posters have been "trying" to tell you...It has been admitted that my theory does not go against mainstream...
Sorry, but why should we accept YOU as the arbitrar of what is, and what is NOT a "proper investigation"???This isn't the role of a proper investigation into a theory; This is a side-track.
Banned
I'd just like to repeat post 61
Listen guys, you are not attacking my theory in the slightest. It has been admitted that my theory does not go against mainstream... however, you are all stuck on possibly a quibble, if not a pedantic quibble. The question of whether the BB answers for everything.
This isn't the role of a proper investigation into a theory; This is a side-track.
Banned
I'd just like to repeat post 61
Listen guys, you are not attacking my theory in the slightest. It has been admitted that my theory does not go against mainstream... however, you are all stuck on possibly a quibble, if not a pedantic quibble. The question of whether the BB answers for everything.
This isn't the role of a proper investigation into a theory; This is a side-track.
Senior Member
So you will be presenting a "logically consistant" argument, when??
Senior Member
Twice more???
Do you believe that repetition will "somehow" make your "argument", better???
It has not....
Banned
get a mod to make me argue you.
you are ignoring everything in my OP, whilst it has been noted nothing I have said in the OP really goes against mainstream, or atleast, the general idea's. I am not going to sit by and listen to someone say I have not provided evidence when logically-consistent arguements are evidence.
Investigation which reach court of law are made by such consistent-arguements.
Order of Kilopi
That is because you decided to turn it into an (irrelevant) attack on the big bang theory.
Banned
Well, considering you ignore the OP without even tackling the most fundamentals of it, you seem like in no position to even argue anything.
Banned
The BB is not my theory, this is why. Nothing about BB theory even matches the ensemble of my own theory; As I have said, my theory more closely matches a parellel universe theory, except for the fact that there is nothing ''parallel'' about these universes in my model.
Senior Member
Why?....because I question your claims? If your claims can't withstand the scrunity of a single internet poster, then you might consider that your claims might be invalid...at least that is what I would think...
No, the mods don't have a problem with posters ignoring each other, but consider how that makes you "look". If your claims are on such "shaky ground", that you can't withstand criticism without ignoring that criticism....well, it certainly doesn't make you look like someone looking for rational debate.If a mod has a problem with this, speak up.
Sorry, but no...you have presented NO evidence for your claims...simple as that.OP provides a logically consistent set of arguements.
Senior Member
What "fundementals"???....you have presented ZERO evidence for your claim, and I would appreciate it if you would stop doing that.
edit to add...in other words, STOP implying that I haven't read the OP...
Banned
What claims in the OP have you actually questioned?
Yes, none to very few if at best.
Banned
READ THE OP... I don't pull words out for buzzword drug addicts.
Senior Member
Well, that is to be expected. One is science...one is not...
Order of Kilopi
That crosses the line. Infraction given.
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Senior Member
I question ALL claims made from ignorance...is there a "reason" why I should take your claims any differently than any other "alternative thinker"??
Order of Kilopi
R.A.F. your own posts have largely been argumentative rather than factual. Don't let yourself be drawn into (or cause) tit-for-tat exchanges. You are just under the line at which you too would have been infracted (e.g. for baiting).
Thread closed while the OP is on leave.
Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-May-02 at 11:04 PM. Reason: youerself to yourself
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Moderator
Aetherwulf is back from a break, this thread is reopened.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Banned
first of all...
Any posts which are purely arguentative with very little imput at tackling the OP I am going to out-right ignore. Any quibbles concerning things like ''but the big bang doesn't need to explain the before state because it was't created for that,'' will be largely ignored as well. I don't see how any of these approaches even tackles the OP or the real science behind the conjectures of the OP.
Now, my little break from this place, may have been a blessing in disguise. I have been able to understand the roles of my theory more by taking time to refresh my memory on the cosmological models.
I am now going to call for help. The theory I have proposed is conceptually easy to understand but I keep facing problems which I cannot rectify.
In my reinvestigation of the Cosmological Standard Model, the model we deal with the expansion of the universe seems to have parameters which do not change, when they need to.
Solving the problem of time in the WDW-equation seems like an easy task for me. Radiation fields dominated the early universe when temperatures where high. When they sufficiently cooled, matter fields broke off of the radiation fields in a process called symmetry breaking. Writing the math for this is easy as well. This is not where the problem lies. I wish to reparamaterise the time variable which can be recollected from Bradyon Fields. Now, where the problem lyes is in the Freidmann-Robertson-Walker universe model --- I shall take you through my problem.
I don't expect anyone to help me unless they take my model seriously, which I do. I think it is a novel way to view the birth of universes and give a true answer to the origin of everything where the BB fails to even account.
I'm in two minds about how to treat this non-conservative energy in this universe. Should, for instance, the Hamiltonian for instance preach a non-conserved energy and perhaps this is what the Wheeler de Witt equation hints at because it's time derivative vanishes? If its wave function purports to a global time, then perhaps this is a global case we are thinking about, because on local scales things seem pretty much conserved - plus, time is local it seems, so maybe this is why things seem conserved on a local level?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co...not-conserved/
something Sean Carrol says:
''In the case of dark energy, that evolution is pretty simple: the density of vacuum energy in empty space is absolute constant, even as the volume of a region of space (comoving along with galaxies and other particles) grows as the universe expands. So the total energy, density times volume, goes up.
This bothers some people, but it’s nothing newfangled that has been pushed in our face by the idea of dark energy. It’s just as true for “radiation'' — particles like photons that move at or near the speed of light. The thing about photons is that they redshift, losing energy as space expands. If we keep track of a certain fixed number of photons, the number stays constant while the energy per photon decreases, so the total energy decreases. A decrease in energy is just as much a “violation of energy conservation'' as an increase in energy, but it doesn’t seem to bother people as much. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how bothersome it is, of course — it’s a crystal-clear prediction of general relativity.''
Once someone here asked me ''please don't be saying you support tired light theory?'' I do believe that Sean is advocating, at least a part of that. Crazy? Maybe. This is what I meant a while back about the scientific community [sometimes] being far too critical about certain work when new idea's should be embraced.
However, moving on, I am coming across difficulties in the FRW-metric equations because the-part is in fact supposed to be constant. The metric, or energy if you like in question of that metric takes the form:
From this, we can actually neglect the very last term, which has to do with curvature. On very large scales, our universe does appear to be mostly flat. So this term which has to do with curvaturecan be negligable.
The matter fields. The term
is in fact a kinetic energy term. Let me go back to what Sean said:
'' It’s just as true for “radiation'' — particles like photons that move at or near the speed of light. The thing about photons is that they redshift, losing energy as space expands. If we keep track of a certain fixed number of photons, the number stays constant while the energy per photon decreases, so the total energy decreases.''
It seems, that whilst this is true, the decrease of energy may not be true. To have an increase of energy in the universe, you require that you pressure is in fact negative which brings us back to the comsological description of the energy-volume relatioship
If the pressure was positive we could expect the energy to decrease. If it is negative, then it increases. So which way does the wind blow?
After studying the Cosmological Models to gain a more accurate veiw of how we might approach this theory mathematically, I arived at the following.
We shall letbe the universes energy. In this theory, energy increases - this has been attributed to the increasing and now accelerated expansion of the universe.
and
calculates the energy as released into the vacuum.
If the pressure is positive, then energy is decreasing. This is actually a standard energy-volume equation. If energy is positive, then the energy is exponentially increasing. There is a conserved case of energy called the Null energy hypothesis. It is a strange conservation law stating that the total energy content of the universe is zero. This is because:
When the mass is equal to zero, the energy content is also zero and what one is left with is the metric. In this theory it does us no good to think about the energy content as being zero.
Since the universe is accelerating in expansion, the energy cannot be constant. This must also mean we are inferring on the vacuum energy - the termin the FRW-universe model cannot be constant as it is treated in that theory.
This is perhaps, where the local energy conservation and its conflicting brother, the global case are at loggerheads. yet, we should expect that as the universe expands, so there is an equal release of energy into the vacuum. It seems from calculations that as the universe expands, it takes atleast, or approximately 10 billion years to double in size according to the Hubble Constant. Now with accelerated exapansion, even this amount of time will be decreased now because of the rate in which spacetime is continuously expanding... and getting faster at it. So if with each passing moment, more energy is released into the vacuum, then we have an accelerated use of energy. The quantum leap theory of the universe is then strengthened more than any other theory which entertains a universe in its ground state. Ground state universes must faid into the past if this is true. Indeed, we just need confirmation from Sean:
''If that spacetime is standing completely still, the total energy is constant; if it’s evolving, the energy changes in a completely unambiguous way.''
This arguement concerns the momentum of fields inside of the universe, whilst my original argyuement was one that was justified by not being able to find a global time in GR. Either way, both posit arguements of an energy that cannot be conserved. One is more conceptual than mine, whilst mine was an arguement from a purely mathematical sense/case.
Perhaps not too surpringly, Sean has actually already been concerned with the universal conservation symmetry my arguement consisted of but he makes no mention of the Global Time which my arguement heavily relied upon
The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved, there was a reason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance. A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve, as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not changing with time.''
Yet a real clue that my argument holds, is when you go back to my comments concerning a special case of conservation: the energy content of the universe equalling zero, Sean, just reitterating again:
''If that spacetime is standing completely still, the total energy is constant''
One may actually believe that maybe the WDW-equation and the no-energy proposal are hinting at different sides to the same coin. This possibility should not be ignored. But for now, because of the content of my arguements and since my model heavily depends on non-coservation of energy, this will be ignored, but respectfully.
..................
I can actually say a bit about this violation of conservation and the momentum of the fields.
The mechanical Langrangian actually has its form in my equations govering the fluxian fields of matter. I have made a post on this, but to keep the mind refreshed of my approach, my idea was to redefine time with Bradyonic Fields... I also provided pretty much, a full ground with this using a dimensional analysis to calculate their changes (THE entropy of a field(s)) - the work went like this:
The only way to recover time from the Wheeler de Witt equation is by introducing matter fields - slow moving individual systems which tick off real time local to the constituents of that field. There are only so many options open for me to do this, and I need to use my Induced Time Hypothesis which I wrote about up here in this forum which you can read in the ATM.
Geometrogenesis explains that as temperatures cooled in the universe, radiation fields experienced a symmetry breaking and gave way to the matter fields which dominate our observable universe today. Let us call these matter fields. The wave function
is the wave function of these fields and the equation I derived for this understanding at the low energy phase of the universe to regain a sense of time again in the universe is a flux equation
Wherecalculates the distance between the particles and the Laplacian Operator calculates the divergence. The matter field
measures the rate in which these fields change in respect to the derivative of time and tick off real time events in their slow relative coordinate systems. The net flow rate would be given as
Plugging this into the statistical analysis of entropy, one can obtain simply from a dimensional analysis that
This way, we measure the density of states in relation to our mass flow field(s).
will be continued... needs to split thread
Banned
..................
the Mechanical Langrangian part has the form. In some texts, we may see that this mechanical term is in fact equal to an angular momentum term
. But in the text required here, this is basically the momentum Canonical Conujugate to
and has the form
If the Lagrangian does not change when a small translational shift occurswith the transformation property of
is taken into consideration, then the system is inherently conserved. However, as we have seen from the non-conserved arguements that expansion and perhaps accelerated expansion requires the momentum of energy-matter fields. Indeed, momentum itself is conserved by virtue of a symmetry as well as energy itself. Perhaps it is enlightening to realize that as the universe expands, you can't not have energy increase as well without expected a little more momentum each time. The field momentum is given as
A good point to mention is that it is not Lorentz Invariant. What does that truely mean though? I don't know if there are any arguements out there like mine, but I came to realize just yesterday that this is an indication that something awry is up. Lorentz Invariance in its full glory means that no matter what reference frame you are in, the laws of physics themselves are always the same. The global parameters of any investigation seem to prove a violation or completely incompatible to work with. I dare say... what if when we are dealing with Global models, even Lorentz Invariance is broken? Perhaps energy conservation is not the same in every reference frame... what is energy itself is not conserved because from a universal frame of reference the physical local laws are not permitted to hold?
So I think it is concievable that it is broken in global cases. After I arrived at this conclusion, I decided to look for work which could varify my speculations. Turns out that I was correct - Interestingly, searching for an answer this morning, I do find that GR does have violations of Lorentz invariance in global cases. Another model which embraces this fact is LQG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_in … um_gravity
I like it when I get things like this correct. It reassures me that I am possibly on the right track with my model.
The Interpretation of the matter-fields
I just wanted to cover quickly, the dynamics of this field equation I created. The mechanical Lagrangian term can actually be thought of a ''field momentum''. Therefore the equation can also have the form
In respects to this new form, one should not forget that the Langrangian is actually ''wrapped'' up in this field momentum term. Assuming now that we can retrieve the time description of all the constituents of the universe via the slow moving clocks which make all the matter fields ofby summing over all the possible
states, one must keep in mind that the is just a reinterpetation of local time - we are adding up all these clocks and using them to describe time where we may be unable to find a global time. The only way that I could redefine time like this (yet keeping to the contention that time still essentially vanishes on the global description of a universe) is by using my Induced Time Hypothesis which can be read about here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....f-Induced-Time .
In this theory, when the universe experiences a certain a certain critical change in energyit will quantum leap into a new configuration - that is that it will give up all these constituents making the matter fields by quantum tunelling them into a universe which is just beginning in its excited state form. The treatment of tunelling particles between universes has actually recieved a lot of attention in Brane theories. What makes this theory different however is that there is no real seperation between the universes as you might find in a string-brane theory http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0610119.pdf. Therefore, the treatment of the tunelling phenomenon in this theory could be inherently more difficult.
It seems, that it takes about 10 billion years for the universe to double in size - so the quantum leap will be a consequence of this expansion as more energy is released into the vacuum.
Global time is concerned with all the systems of the universe, never one alone. As I have explained in my ''is time an induced phenomena thread?'', I explain Geometric Time as follows:
''And thus the question is asked, why does it seem like time exists then? Why should we experience time if it does not exist? What makes us so special?
It's not that we are special per se, but we are in an important energy phase of the universe, called the low energy phase. The low energy phase happened late in the universe's history - do not mistake ''late'' as implying a time however. This is where the english language breaks down and we need to use different approaches to explain what we mean. There can be change in Julian Barbours eye's, but there is no such thing as a time. So can we reconcile change without time?
Yes, we can. It may not seem obvious at first, but things like the zeno effect gives us evidence that even if time really did exist, systems don't need to change.''
It is therefore the time in which is encompassed by every moving system in the universe, and looking at all these systems from the universes reference frame (if it has one), these systems are essentially frozen and non-changing and this has to do with out innability of finding a global description of time. These matter fields are simply a new way to look at the Global Time, redefining it so that slow moving matter systems will experience changes. To do this, one would simply locally-gauge slow moving matter systems and out of it you will get the same laws for General Relativity. In fact, by locally gauging special relativity is how you would unify it with the general case.
Moderator
This Forum is not a place for you to develop your ideas. It is for you to present them, show evidence that supports them and to answer questions asked about them. You have 30 days to do this then it's over, the thread is closed.
Please read the rules for posting and also the advice for ATM Posters, both are linked at the bottom of this post.
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple
Order of Kilopi
Why must there be a cause? Why can't the universe just exist? Time might only have meaning within the universe. It isn't established that "before" would have meaning before T=0.
If the universe must have a cause, then does whatever caused it have a cause too? If I understand your claim, you're arguing for a finite number of universes. If finite, why can't that number be one?
I think there's an issue of what is science versus philosophy and personal preference.Think of it this way, do you just accept BB without any question of it's origin?
The science issue comes down to what can be tested. There are ideas about something before T=0, but the trick is how it would be tested. Unless it can be tested, it isn't science.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Banned
As far as the OP is clear, those idea's have been with me for a long time. As for anything beyond it, there has been nothing in the form of maths and that troubles me. All I have done is support the OP, by answering questions and [presenting evidence].
Banned
I said I would not answer anyone who brings up this issue, but I will this once.
I keep hearing people say ''but you don't get it. BB wasn't created to understand where BB came from, it's only concerned with the afterwards.''
Yes, this is true, and I was well-aware of this before anyone mentioned it to me. It's also an inherent problem - I don't believe for one minute, the creator of BB understood how to answer for a before state to this universe - so in effect his idea couldn't and wouldn't. Don't you think, if he could, it would have even answered the origin of the BB? That is much more acceptable in the eye's of someone who is fixated on the fact we live in a mechanical universe, with reasons behind why things happen the way they do, why anything should have a reason at all.
Saying the BB does not [[need]] to answer where it came from is almost certainly a relative point of view. I could never believe that our universe appeared sporadically without a prior cause. That just goes against the way my brain is wired - there is a cause and effect to everything, and without one before BB, to me posits a mechanical problem of the universe.
Moderator
Aethelwulf You do not get to decide what questions you will or will not answer. IF you have problems with a post then use the reporting triangle in the bottom left corner and report it to the Mods with your objection. Please as advised, read the rules for posting in the ATM Forum.
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple
Posting Permissions
