If the Universe is expanding, there must be a quantum description for that expansion.

[Capricorn Star]

I am new around here, just want to say hello before I begin.

I want to thank any readers of this post for your time and attention.

I came here to present some of the work I have so far invested into an idea. My ideas do not contradict mainstream ideas, merely build upon them. In some cases, I do separate myself from current physics, but that is expected of any new theory.

My theory in a nutshell, is that space is not at all empty. In fact, the very expansion of space indicates to me that there is evidence to argue that space is actually made up of "stuff." If space is indeed empty, then how can it expand? If space is made of nothing, then how can nothing cause time dilation and red shifting? Space and even time itself are indeed made of "something" in this theory. I have named this theory: Distinction Theory

Distiniction Theory is based upon the simple idea that no aspect of reality, not even the eternal emptiness of outer space itself can be taken for granted at its face value only. Space and even the passage of time can be described and explained in a quantun language of some sort. All things, be them physical entities or conceptual ones have multiple facets, more than one side, a dual and distnct nature. Nothing happens by accident. Or better said, all actions no matter how trivial have real and grand consequences over time. Time is not a complete illusion, but the key to understanding distinction. If space expands there must be a distinct reason. If this expansion is accelerating, there must be a distinct reason for that too.

Gravity and time dilation are the primary puzzles to solve. Einstien has offered much insight into these phenomena, but it is obvious to all that his description is yet incomplete. Quantum theory has proven highly accurate at describing sub atmoic phenomenon down to but not including the planck length, but it cannot answer the question of gravity. Why?

To me there are some very basic problems with the current big bang theory, and they tend to revolve around the idea of gravity. I do not however think the big bang is completely wrong, but merely underestimated in its true significance. More on that in a second. Here are the major problems I have with current accepted big bang theories.



Problem 1:
How could the big bang have occurred in a Universe where gravity is present?

Specific questions: If all of energy and time and matter were condensed into one super small area perhaps as a black hole singularity, then wouldn't the incredible concentration of energy/gravity at such a point cause the universe to remain collapsed onto itself as a singularity? Better stated, what kind of force is powerful enough to blow up a black hole into separate pieces? There is no known force capable of destroying a black hole in our current universe except the passage of time itself as hawking radiation, so how did it happen the first time?

Naturally, we have no way of determining the physics of such high energy interactions, but we can assume that down to the planck scale is relatively well understood by quantum theory of today. There is no known quantum force that can compete with gravity enough to destroy an established blakc hole. To understand the pre-big bang universe, we need theories to explain sub planck level interactions.

Distinction Theory has led me to believe that at the sub planck level instant of the big bang there was no force of gravity at all, nor that of any other force we would recognize today. Gravity would have prevented the big bang from ever occurring if it had existed in the attractive form we know of it today.

There are many big bang theorists who explain around this irony by stating that the universe was made up of pure energy at a very high temperature, there were not yet any particles as such and therefore no bosons to carry forces such as gravity between particles. Only when the big bang fully occured and began cooling did the force carriers such as gravitons and photons condense into existence.

So already, there are many reasons to assume that gravity (and even electormagnetism to some level but I will not go into that today) has not always existed in the manner we think of it today. For a least a fraction of a second, attractive gravity could not have existed at all.

Many theorists talk about how the universe underwent superluminal expansion from the size of nothing to the size roughly of a grapefruit. This inflation outran the effects of gravity giving rise to an ever expanding universe. This expansion arranged the universe so that it was homogenous, with no overall density bias in any particular direction. From then on expansion has continued but not at the same rate. After thousands of years the universe cooled enough for light to escape and illuminate the Universe.

I mention these things just to point out that I am not the only one who has determined through logical analysis that gravity could not have existed in its current attractive form at the instant of the big bang. More on that later.

Even if you reject quantun descriptions of gravity and conceive of gravitiation as a continuous fabric of space time, it is still difficult to conceive of how the big bang could have occurred if space had been so fully curved in upon itself.



Problem 2: How can the Universe expand at an increasing rate in a Universe where gravity is present?

Specific Questions: If gravity did indeed exist at the pre big bang scale, then an infinitly powerful force would have been required to accomplish this black hole destruction. The force applied would have been quantum or discreet, not infinite at all. Over time gravity should rob this initial explosion energy of momentum, resulting in a Universe that expands more slowly over time. If gravity did not exist until a few quintillionths of a second after the big bang, then at the time gravity occured the expansion would have begun to slow from that time forward. No matter how you slice it, the Universe should not be expanding at an accelerating rate in a gravitationally bound Universe.


Problem 3:
Rotation of the Universe. Why do we not know where the center of the universe is located?

Specific Questions: Gravitation principles dictate that massive objects will orbit their common center of gravity. Two black holes will orbit each other around a common center until they eventually merge. If gravity as we know of it is indeed present throughout the Universe, then the Universe has a gravitational center. It would stand to reason that the universe is spinning around that center point. Surely, there are already many galaxies that are receeding from ours at a rate greater than the speed of light. These galaxies will remain forever hidden from our view. Does this also mean that they have no gravitatinal effect upon us due to their distance and speed of recession? Is it possible that as such distances the spin of the Universe if it spins at all might be observable?



Problem 4:
Just how fast is the graviton or higgs boson able to travel?

The only way to bring gravity into the fold of quantum theory is to present gravity as a boson interaction, force carrying particles such as gravitons, higgs bosons, you know. To describe a black hole in quantum terms demands that gravitons be unique to all other bosons and indeed travel fast enough to overcome the event horizon of a black hole. Just as light photons cannot escape the horizon, neither should the graviton, and just as a black hole radiates no visible light from its center, it should mediate no graviation from its center. Clearly, gravitation must be capable of superluminal travel. If this is indeed the case, then the big bang inflation that homogenized the early Universe is very difficult to explain, superluminal gravity would have kept pace with the inflation canceling it out.

Again I will state that even if you reject quantun descriptions of gravity and conceive of gravitiation as a continuous fabric of space time, it is still difficult to conceive of how the big bang could have occurred if space had been so fully curved in upon itself.




Okay, that is all for now. I want to see if anyone offers me any feedback. My proposal is that gravity did not exist at the moment of the big bang and actually does not exist today. The phenomena we consider gravitational attraction is not at all what it appears. More on that later.

Thanks all for your time.

[PetersCreek]

Welcome to the BAUT Forums, Capricorn Star. If you haven't already done so, please take some time to read the Rules For Posting To This Board. In addition to the rules that apply to the board in general, the Against The Mainstream forum has special requirements, specified in rule #13.

Also please note that because you're a new member here, your posts are held in moderation queue for approval. It's a spam control measure but once you get a few more posts under your belt, your posts will appear immediately.

[Capricorn Star]

Thanks Peter. I have indeed read up on the process here. I look forward to discussion with new individuals.

[sirjon]

Okay, that is all for now. I want to see if anyone offers me any feedback. My proposal is that gravity did not exist at the moment of the big bang and actually does not exist today. The phenomena we consider gravitational attraction is not at all what it appears. More on that later.

Einstein originally suggested that gravity is not a force (or an attracting force). But scientists at that time overwhelmingly supported the Newtonian idea of gravity. The (original) basic postulate of GR is that uniform gravitation and the uniform acceleration are one and the same. But Einstein thought that at that time the universe is 'static'. So he concluded that space is 'curved' or warped by the presence of energies and bodies (large bulk of matters) on it (or 'in' it?). But consider this: the universe is expanding in inflationary rate as confirmd by recent reports keeping galaxies to move away from each other (where is the influence of gravity then?). Space could be flat but in a logarithmic pattern, the farther the thing you observed, the more space appears stretched. But this universe is dynamic, each seconds, the spacetime constantly expanding. The reason why the farther the galaxies, the faster they recess (moving away) from us. (Mere hypothesis)

[Nobel_Bryce_Winner]

welcome fellow newbie...

i love the whole segment on the rotation of the universe as a whole
ive been thinkin that for awhile.. i just dont feel compleately sold on our current explnation of the big bang..

one love people

[keithdarley]

The phenomena we consider gravitational attraction is not at all what it appears. More on that later.

Wonder if you've the same idea as me on that one .... ?
Your mention that space shouldnt be empty . From quantum mechanics , space is full of a maelstrom of partciles being created and destroyed , so you're correct [ if current thinking is correct] .
I also believe that Big BAng whilst it occurred isnt quite as described normally . Too many things have to happen in a HUGE way , some of which you describe above . So I'm with you in your thoughts on that ...

[abcdefg]

I am new around here, just want to say



Problem 1:
How could the big bang have occurred in a Universe where gravity is present?


Problem 4:
Just how fast is the graviton or higgs boson able to travel?

1) I have never thought about number 1 and want to thank you for alerting me to this obvious flaw.

4) I have been unable to resolve gravitation mass = inertial mass through the use of these particles.

[aastrotech]

I think you're right that gravity did not exist in the early BB model. Since according to QM all forces are carried by particles, the graviton in the case of gravity, and no particles existed prior to (the hypothetical) baryogenesis and leptogenesis then there could have been no gravitons and therefore no gravity. But I think the mainstream view is that the graviton and gravity did not exist in the early BB model. That's how the BB model overcomes the gravity argument.

So I think your understanding on early gravity is not ATM. Congratulations on understanding it though.

[forrest noble]

Capricorn Star,

Problem 1:
How could the big bang have occurred in a Universe where gravity is present?
Problem 2:
How can the Universe expand at an increasing rate in a Universe where gravity is present?

If you believe in a big bang the majority opinion of the standard model is that time, space, and gravity, did not exist before the big bang. The Inflation hypothesis allows for energy to travel at many times the speed of light since gravity was just being created and did not exist before the big bang.

Problem 3:
Rotation of the Universe. Why do we not know where the center of the universe is located?

You would think that if space was flat then if there was a big bang then the size of the universe would be close to spherical and that the center of the Big Bang sphere would be considered the center of the universe. The prevailing model, however, is that space has a physical forth dimension to it and that it curves in on itself so that everywhere can be considered the center of the big bang.

The idea is that if you traveled in a straight line eventually you would end up where you started.

Problem 4:
Just how fast is the graviton or higgs boson able to travel?

According to the standard model, after the big bang subsided and the speed of Inflation subsided the speed of all matter was limited to the speed of light. The theoretical Higg's particle is theorized to be massive so it/they must travel at a speed less than the speed of light. Theoretical gravitons have been theorized to be massive, and by others not to be massive. Their theoretical speed limit would then be the speed of light or less, accordingly.

Of course all of these answers are not the only mainstream answers that may be found since there are different versions of it.

[Amber Robot]

Can you produce a quantitative prediction from your model for the observed redshift-distance correlation? A plot with your theory's prediction over it would be great, but a simple analytic formula would also be acceptable.

[Capricorn Star]

I feel you Amber Robot, all in due "time."

As you all can observe, I've got problems! Thanks all for your feedback so far. Since we got through the first round of problems without any drama or disagreements, I feel I should continue with the next step. I should say that the red shifting of distant galaxies is at the very heart of this argument of the Distinction Theory of Temporal Displacement as proof that space is actually be "occupied" by units of "time" or discreet quantum "degrees of freedom" between points in space and time if nothing else, and therefore space is certainly not "empty" at all. According to this Distinction Theory of Temporal Displacement, quantum uncertainty, time dilation and relativity functions including red shifting, are all predictable outcomes and indeed aspects of same ultimate phenomenon, and they result from the accumulation of increasing “numbers” of discreet degrees of freedom between two receding points as time passes and the universe expands. Accumulated Degrees of freedom over “time” changes the rules of space travel right under the feet of traveling photons and matter, blurring otherwise crisp perceptions by us observers as the effect described as time dilation. This is the connection that brings QM and SR/GR into agreement. But this is much later in the discussion; I need to lay foundations first.

I realize that I did not go ATM in my first post, because my theories are more inclusive than exclusive generally. I merely hope to explain why these obvious mainstream accepted events such as big bangs and resulting nuclear forces could be occurring in our perceived reality, the complete explanation is far from mainstream. But before I can do that I must make certain you all generally find my overall "understandings" of the current research generally consistent with your own, at least generally. The good stuff is yet to come. To get from the mainstream ideas to the ATM ideas is a step by step, literally "quantumesque" process. I do appreciate your patience.

The point with these first posts is to explore some possible reasons why the current theories are working well but not fully revealing the situation of nature satisfactorily for most people and why the Distinction theory of Temporal Displacement could be a necessary tool to complete QM and bridge the gap between quantum theory and SR/ GR.

1. There are physical limits to direct observation at any scale, as Heisenberg specified at the quantum scale and SR/GR predicted at our own scale. Perception will always be limited by a horizon of misunderstanding. Philosophically this tells me right off sadly but predictably that predictions themselves will probably never be of perfect accuracy. There has to be a very good reason for such a thing as "dilation" and uncertainty to perpetually shroud reality from accurate view at all scales, this cannot be a mere accident. "Uncertainty" and SR/GR should be a set of predictable outcomes of any theory that would attempt to explain the origins of our current Universe. Is that fair to assume? Is there any current theory that predicts uncertainty and quantization of energy itself and wave particle duality? No, not that I know of. Right now there is no known theory that predicts the advent of QM itself, until now.
2. “Time” seems to be the language of space itself. “Time’, though some try to deny its existence is as real as any other dimension or aspect of space. We will never fully understand the concepts of time nor space until we present a conceivable picture that can describe them both.

Philosophy based models built on the proven wisdom of testable QM and SR/GR models might be our only way to "peer" into these likely directly unobservable realms or pieces of space-time smaller than the Planck length. We already assume that at these scales all forces converge anyhow so let’s take that convergence notion a little further and start from there constructing a full and relevant unified universe.

The primary philosophy derived from Distinction Theory is the age old relationship of polarity, opposites and the very issue of definition of concepts by their "opposites." The exception actually proves the rule. Reality is by very necessity in a sense real and unreal, a consistent contradiction, a truthful lie, thus the universe is a perfect poem. Opposites attract for a good reason. All “observations” are in a sense ironic and distinct from the background noise of perception around them. I will explain.

Duality Requirement and Perception / Concepetion/ Consciousness:
“Right” loses all meaning without “wrong.” Failure loses all sting without the rush of success to compare it with. Once you’ve seen one side of a concept, you have already met its dual opposite to some degree. In order to continue being that which we are today we must in turn continue not being those things which we are not tomorrow. By “doing” one thing you are literally “not doing” an infinity of other things. This sounds obvious but I need to make it clear that everything about this theory is obvious but it all adds up to somehting that is quite well hidden.

I love photons because they were the first known physical entities that challenged the basic assumed physical prejudice that reality was made up of only matter and only energy as separate states, never dual entities that could behave as any combination of the two. Following this logic from physics to conceptual physical philosophy, I think today that the entire universe, including every elementary particle and every virtual concept we carry within our conscious minds is made "meaningful" by being compared to its conceptual opposite. Understanding of the electron is only made fully complete by the understanding of the positron. All concepts gain meaning and “weight” by the benefit of having at least a dual nature or perfect nemesis, so photons are really nothing special having this duality. You cannot claim to understand light if you do not understand and accept that it has both a wave and a particle nature. All things not just light but you and me are multiples, nothing is singular everything is plural. Better stated, there is no single correct answer nor any fully wrong answer to any given question. In a Universe of infinite probabilities, it is numerically impossible to be fully right nor fully wrong with any given answer, ever!!! Even the best answers will never be more than good estimates. This is a sad yet exciting truth. In a sense, in an infinite universe, all shots fired, no matter how misguided, eventually hit the mark in some version of space-time reality. It is merely the virtual shot which takes the shortest route that we observe first as ‘real.” This is how multiple layers of multiple realities converge to appear as one seamless reality to us Internal observers. I’m getting a little deep end here. I will chill out a bit. Duality, infinite probability, the resulting redundancy are all primary key principles of the Distinction theory. As you can begin to see, I am trying to connect practical state of basic philosophy with what we are observing in nature at the largest and the smallest scales. Philosophy is the mathematics of words, it can be defined as a form of logic and all lines of logic like all mathematical formulas eventually lead to predictions. By default, I am admitting that my very own theory is already to some degree incorrect, which is just fine!

For most mental concepts there is an accompanying physical embodiment of that ideal. For example some might say that the assumption that "persons with no ambition tend to remain so and vice versa," coincide nicely with "a body in motion tends to remain in motion" and so forth. There might not be very much difference between our conceptual and our physical worlds after all. Relativity rules generally extend into all corners of physics and mental perception, at least for me. Any specific numeric quanta that can be stated as a positive value in one context can be stated accurately as a comparatively negative value in a different higher quanta context. You can approach or you can depart, in the end you still end up the same place as all roads lead to the same end.

I explain this opposition relationship in detail because I have to make certain that people do not accuse me of contradicting myself as I continue to explain the Distinction Theory basis and practical predictions. We will assume that any idea posited is to be considered in both forward and in reverse. All particles are waves and vice versa. What is "hot" in one context will be described accurately as cold in yet another higher energy frame of reference. Try not to get lost in those petty definitions.

Like photons, I imagine through this theory that space itself can at times behave like a medium of continuous wave and other times as a medium comprised of discreet particles. No wonder some say space is continuous and others say it is discreet. Maybe it is both! A lot of cool ideas open up when you allow space to have a dual nature both wave and discreet particle nature. More on that later too.

[Capricorn Star]

Take Nothing for granted, I say. There are a few more specific questions related to the big bang and the current accelerated expansion and how they relate to gravity and to the dispersal of energy throughout the universe that trouble me. More questions:

Problem 6: What is the cause of the everyday experience of “Uncertainty” and "time dilation" and what are their consequences upon our current reality? or inversely stated, What would a universe without uncertainty and "time dilation" look like?

Specific questions: Do quantum uncertainty and time dilation actually serve a purpose in our reality? Are uncertainty and time dilation though annoying, in some way good for our universe, perhaps even fully necessary and required?

It is all about trying to understand what has changed about the universe since the advent of the big bang. If energy is overall conserved, then in some ways the universe has not changed since before the big bang if observed from outside of the system by an outside observer. So if the total energy has not changed if viewed from outside the system, what then if anything has changed from within the system? The answer is that the energy distribution within the open space of the universe itself appears to have changed, the arrangement of energy and sequence of events is altered, the universe is no longer perfectly organized as it was pre bang. Until we can quantify what "space" and disorganization (entropy) are, we can never predict or post predict events with accuracy since all events occur within our inflated and entropic expanding space-time.

I wonder what the universe would be like without uncertainty at the quantum level? Without uncertainly at that quantum scale, would there be any uncertainty at our current expanded scale of experience as time dialtion? They say the atomic world is very different than our own, and it is, but not in the ways that are most important. At all scales, we “feel” energy. I find a great deal of relationship and irony and comfort between "uncertainty principles" at the quantum scales and "time dilation" at our everyday experience level. They seem like two sides of the same coin. Makes me feel qualifed to imagine the sub atomic traffic jams and other frustrations endured by these poor invisible moving particles. This gave me an idea about distinct boundaries and horizons of "particles" that I will be sharing with you over the next couple of posts.

I assume that our realistic Universe has at least 3 spacial "dimensions" and at least one temporal dimension. You cannot describe accurately anything without knowing its distinct location in 3d space and its distinct location in 1d time. Time is 1dimensional because it appears to move in only one direction. There are no degrees of freedom with time, you can only move forward. More on that later. To me, a 4 dimensional reality is merely a 1 dimenional reality that has been "inflated" by some process to include higher dimensions. How do you inflate a 1 dimensional reality into a 4d one? Simple, by adding degrees of freedom between points in space, it "inflates" and expands otherwise flat irrelevant 1d optionless space to include higher spacial dimensions where many more options are possible. This reminds me alot of the big bang, where nothingness expanded instantly into somethingness. Many mainstream theorists call this big bang process "inflation."

Lets consider this. The more "space" between two points, the more possible probability pathways exist for a pulse of traveling energy to occupy during its journey. Think about this for a second. Before the big bang there was no "space" between points, no degrees of freedom, thus no time dilation and no confusion for observers, everyone had a clear view of everyone else in real time. The Universe was literally deflated, 1 dimensional, essentially irrelevant both from within and without. Time had no significant meaning. However, once the big bang occurred something strange happened, this thing called "space" suddenly arose between the discreet quanta of energy in our universe. By adding space between points of energy, you have added degrees of freedom that did not exist before. This creates the effect of "time", as now a pulse of traveling energy must investigate this new found degree of freedom, thus delaying its arrival at its destination, leading to effects such as time dilation and red shift itself. A degree of freedom is a powerful concept, it means that instead of you and I being so indistinct and connected that we lose the ability to distinguish one another from the background and ourselves. The inflationary effect of "time" literally allows me to occupy one point in space-time and you another, enabling us to be distinct perceivable individuals thus allowing us to carry on this very conversation. We actually need degrees of freedom between points of energies to allow a distinct "existence" for each of us. We actually benefit greatly from the space that time dilation creates between us.

[Capricorn Star]

Problem 5:
What does the "edge" of the Universe "look" like?

Is it finite or infinite? If infinite always, what the heck does "infinite" really mean anyhow or how would you describe such a state numerically? How can we describe specifically what "infinite" really signifies in terms that are actually conceivable? If by chance the edge is finite now and always been so, then what type of medium is the finite Universe contained within? Does the Universe's boundary horizon appear any different today than it did before the big bang? Was the universe once finite before the big bang and later became infinite after the expansion? What if I was to have fallen off the actual "edge" of the pre big bang universe? What if I was to fall off the edge of the post bang Universe of today?

Specific questions: If the universe was once contained as a single entity, perhaps a singularity, then at this distinct point in "time" the universe could be said philosophically to have had a defined edge or "horizon" as a sub Planck sized highly exotic consolidated quantum particle, clearly unstable but still a particle. Since the pre big bang universe was a concentration not only of matter but also of "time," it is likely to assume that there was no sea of space or "time dilation" surrounding the early universe, all of "time dilation" was contained within it, all wrapped up. By all of "time dilation" I mean that all possible observers were converged at the same vantage point. There was no "distinction" between one point in space and another. Since all of time was in a sense compressed into one instance of space and so were all observers, time dilation as such would not have a reason to occur in the realms outside the horizon of the tiny universe. Literally, there would have been no possible outside observers to warp and distort the path of a signal traveling along the outer edge or border of this horizon bubble, thus if you fell off the edge of the horizon you would be effortlessly delivered onto the opposite side instantly with no idea you have been flung across the very edges of reality. The pre big bang universe would likey have been "contained" "floating" in a sea of relative timelessness due to a lack of gravitation distortion effects. This is a very convenient and highly predictable outcome in a medium where there are no gravitons or any particles or matter to cause warping of space "around" the universe. Thus there was in a sense no "resistance" of any kind to a travelin signal outside the horizon. I imagine that each point along the "horizon" of the singularity was fundamentally "entangled" with all other points along its horizon, such that no "time" is needed to send a signal from one end of the Universe to the other. It was as if every quanta of energy had a perfect and undistorted view of all other possible quanta. Indeed, true rest. Turns out this state of perfect rest is not stable afterall, not without gravity.

If you were to fall off of one end of the pre big bang universe, you would instantly land again on the other side of the universe, because energy is conserved, and there was no "time" located outside of the boundaries of the universe to delay your arrival on the other end. Has this condition changed since the big bang occurred? If so, how would we ever know. Perhaps all of time is still confined to a finite "space" of sorts. You would never even observe that you had crossed a boundary, stepping effortlessly from one extreme end to the other extreme end of the very universe itself in 0 time. Its like you would zip around the radius of reality itself instantly. A lot like a loop or a string. This allows the universe to maintain a status of both finite and infinite at the same time. A soft edge to reality. blurry

To define infinity in regards to physical space merely means to accept that infinity represents a value that is yet beyond our current scope of description. Infinity is not anything more than a value greater than we can qualify at this point in history. Just because we lack the language to qualify something does not mean it does not have a distinct existence.

The problem is that we need a better philosophical definition of infinity itself. To say that the universe is simply infinite is highly, well, incomplete philosophically. Infinity as a concept oddly requires a finite context within which to be compared in hopes of appearing infinite. Philosophically, opposites are needed for any concept or observation to have any relevant distinct meaning in a thought process. Yin/yang. Rules are indeed proven by their exceptions. You don't really know you truly love your wife until you've met her bad sides and discover that you still find her very much worthwhile. Light only emerges in the presence of darkness. You cannot separate the infinite concepts from the finite confines, they define one another so they coexist in any conscious mind. Just like the photon behaves at times as a wave and other times as a particle, so the Universe is in some measures infinite yet by other rulers very finite indeed.

The universe is neither finite nor infinite, but both. Sounds convenient I know. Philosophically, it has to be this way, this is a philosophical minimum. The universe like a photon has a dual nature. Wow, not so hard to imagine.

You might want some clue where I am headed with this so here ya go.

[Tensor]

Problem 4:
Just how fast is the graviton or higgs boson able to travel?

This is quite simple. A real graviton, being massless, travels at c, as does the photon. Virtual gravitons, do not have a limit, just as virtual photons do not have a limit.

The only way to bring gravity into the fold of quantum theory is to present gravity as a boson interaction, force carrying particles such as gravitons, higgs bosons, you know. To describe a black hole in quantum terms demands that gravitons be unique to all other bosons and indeed travel fast enough to overcome the event horizon of a black hole.

Wrong.

Just as light photons cannot escape the horizon, neither should the graviton, and just as a black hole radiates no visible light from its center, it should mediate no graviation from its center.

It can, using virtual gravitons. In GR, the gravitation comes from the curvature surrounding the BH. This curvature is so great, the additional terms in the power series allow the hole to stay together.

Clearly, gravitation must be capable of superluminal travel.

Well, since magnetism and charge can travel superluminally, through virtual particles, why not gravity? After all, both bosons are massless.

My comment on your idea is this. You may have some grasp on popularizations of current gravitational theories as presented in popular science sources, but you appear to be very weak on what the actual theories claim or attempt to claim.

If you wonder why I would say this, it is simply that you didn't seem to know anything about virtual particles and even less on how General Relativity handles gravitation around black holes. For instance, exactly what constitutes space in GR? You don't seem to know that the Big Bang singularity and a black hole singularity are mathematically different. Or, how GR and a Quantum Gravity theory differ in how a black hole stays together. So your problem 1, while it may be a valid problem, is phrased horribly wrong. For someone who thinks they are showing a problem in current physics, you are more properly showing your ignorance in current theory.

It's not the Big Bang theorists who try to explain around the irony, as you claim. It is the particle physicists who explain how particles would behave, Quantum Mechanically, at those energy levels, to the Big Bang theorist.

You also seem to think that the Big Bang Theory has something to do with the actual moment of the bang. It doesn't. The Big Bang Theory is nothing more than an umbrella that ties together an group of other theories (galactic formation and evolution, early star formation, particle abundance, etc) on how the universe has evolved since about 10^-43 seconds after the bang occurred.

A big red flag those here in the ATM forum is when a poster challenges a mainstream theory or theories, but makes claims about current (or in work) theories based on misunderstandings, mistakes, or just plain ignorance on what the actual theory says. Your post is almost a poster child for such a ATM posting.

[Interpret]

Problem 4:
Just how fast is the graviton or higgs boson able to travel?

To describe a black hole in quantum terms demands that gravitons be unique to all other bosons and indeed travel fast enough to overcome the event horizon of a black hole. Just as light photons cannot escape the horizon, neither should the graviton, and just as a black hole radiates no visible light from its center, it should mediate no graviation from its center.

If i understand you correctly; Im not sure its wise to presume that gravitons will cause an effect on themselves is it? though this may explain the gravitational dampening that seems to occur over distance, im not easily able to imagine a way in which a force carrying particle that moves between other particles will also have an effect on itself..

You raise an interesting point though because it does demand that there is further re examination and reinterpretation required no matter which angle you look at it

[Amber Robot]

I feel you Amber Robot, all in due "time."

Sounds about right.

[Tensor]

... im not easily able to imagine a way in which a force carrying particle that moves between other particles will also have an effect on itself..

I would suggest you study some of the effects that occur due to gluons having an effect on other gluons. This is due to the gluon, in addition to mediating the color charge, also has the property of color. This allows it to interact with other gluons. This is very different from the photon, which, while it carries the EM charge, doesn't have an EM charge itself.

[sirjon]

It can, using virtual gravitons.

But as far as I know (please inform me too if I am wrong), QM seems unsuccessful in confirming that gravitons do exist that particle physicists are turning their focus on the string theories to shed light in achieving it, so that the 'grand unified theory' will become truly 'grand' when finally, gravity unify itself with the other three forces. Another thing, how come the weakest of all the fundamental forces (that is, force of gravity) can become long range that can travel in empty outer space and make bodies attract one another? Isn't yours, also simply a logical speculation with no concrete proof as an accepted scientific fact? (Note: no personal offense)

[sirjon]

I feel you Amber Robot, all in due "time."

As you all can observe, I've got problems!...

... some might say that the assumption that "persons with no ambition tend to remain so and vice versa,"

At first, you impressed me. But now, it seems you're disappointing me . Is your ATM a philosophy of life or scientific? Any way, your first thread is impressive, so please make it related to science and avoid side comments that make your points out of topic.

[sirjon]

I think you're right that gravity did not exist in the early BB model. Since according to QM all forces are carried by particles, the graviton in the case of gravity, and no particles existed prior to (the hypothetical) baryogenesis and leptogenesis then there could have been no gravitons and therefore no gravity. But I think the mainstream view is that the graviton and gravity did not exist in the early BB model. That's how the BB model overcomes the gravity argument.

The question then is what is there at the very first 'instant' seconds of the big bang? Pure energy without any form of matter on it? Any way, according to Einstein, matter and energy are interchangeable, would you agree?

[Tensor]

But as far as I know (please inform me too if I am wrong), QM seems unsuccessful in confirming that gravitons do exist

QM has nothing to do with confirming gravitons. That would be the experimenters and, at present, our experiments can't reach the level of energy needed to create gravitons. As to how gravitons would fit into a QM framework, see below.

that particle physicists are turning their focus on the string theories to shed light in achieving it, so that the 'grand unified theory' will become truly 'grand' when finally, gravity unify itself with the other three forces.

It's not just string theorists. There are others working on other "Quantum Gravitational" theories. Loop Quantum Gravity is another one.

Another thing, how come the weakest of all the fundamental forces (that is, force of gravity) can become long range that can travel in empty outer space and make bodies attract one another?

The range of the force depends on the mass of the mediating particle. See below.

Isn't yours, also simply a logical speculation with no concrete proof as an accepted scientific fact? (Note: no personal offense)

It really more of a hypothesis. However, if the graviton (or something like it) doesn't exist, then there would be no Quantum Mechanical description of gravity. It existence is assumed for all QM gravitational theories. This would then mean that there are some areas where physical knowledge is not possible. The singularities of Black Holes, the moment of the Big Bang itself, and a few other areas where the equations of General Relativity simply don't work(this is due to division by zero, for whatever reason).

Now, as for speculation (and those see belows). Gravity, within a QM framework, would happen by the different masses exchanging virtual gravitons. Since it is a long range force, the mediating particle has to be massless (like the photon). It has to be a rank two Tensor field, because it is only attractive. In QM terms, this means it has to have a spin of 2. So, you can see we already know quite a bit about the graviton, just from what we have already observed.
As far as the Quantum Mechanical calculations, almost all require a step called renormalization. This is a technique that gets rid of the infinities that crop up within the calculations. With spin two particles, this technique becomes extremely tricky, because, unlike the other QM theories, the parameters in Quantum Gravity are almost infinite.
Now having said that, some calculations have been completed. These have made QM corrections to the Newtonian Gravitational equations. This was done by limiting the energy levels allowed, and thus limiting the parameters. This doesn't do us much good if we want to calculate what happens at those infinities that crop up in GR.

[sirjon]

...Gravity, within a QM framework, would happen by the different masses exchanging virtual gravitons. Since it is a long range force, the mediating particle has to be massless (like the photon). It has to be a rank two Tensor field, because it is only attractive.

Why is it only attractive? We know other forces to be either attractive or repulsive, what is special about gravitons and the force of gravity that makes it only attractive?

[Tensor]

Why is it only attractive?

Why is EM attractive and repulsive? Why do color charges have three properties?

We know other forces to be either attractive or repulsive,

Well, color charges aren't technically attractive or repulsive. The can change the states of quarks and other gluons(which carry the color charges). Quarks are confined, buy the bag model, no attraction needed.

what is special about gravitons and the force of gravity that makes it only attractive?

Color charges have three properties (Given the names Red, Green, and Blue) What's so special about them?

To take it a bit further, why is the electron mass 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms. Why is the speed of light the value it is? Why not another KPS faster or slower. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. There are quite a few thing that, although we know the what, we still don't know the why.

[aastrotech]

The question then is what is there at the very first 'instant' seconds of the big bang? Pure energy without any form of matter on it?

My understanding that I think relates to your question is that the current mainstream view is that it was a high density pure Higgs field. And string theory is attempting to describe how a Higgs field can form.

Any way, according to Einstein, matter and energy are interchangeable, would you agree?

Agreed though expressed in a slightly old fashioned way. They are the same thing just (difficult to describe) radicaly different shapes of the same thing.

[Capricorn Star]

Friends,

I am currently developing the visual tools needed to conceptualize the theory.

Tensor, I actually do know a good deal about virtual particles, that is why I did not desribe them in the original post. I agree with you that virtual particles have a number of special talents. Gravitation is described as a tensor field, and so is I argue is the Hubble Constant. They are reverse operations of the same Unified field, and I believe this unification is accomplished in a virtual context by a highly specialized virtual particle. This particle is like the stem cell of spacetime, capable of multiple states of being. Capable of representing a degree of freedom in multiple dimensions. This particle is highly bizarre and decays into more copies of itself and by doing so creates new degrees of freedom in all relevant dimensions in very specific manner such that Chromo-dynamic Quarks which operate withn a complex (dirac)field, Magnetism which operates as a scaler field (for this excersie), and quanta of energy states which operate as a vector for are fully unified such that their relationships become clear to understand and to predict with accuracy what will happen next, as they say.

What we are looking for is a Unified Field theory, one that can describe how a vector field of energy concentrations, extends into the scalar field, which relates to one or several tensor fields of space (gravity), which when combined results in a complex Dirac tensor space for nuclear and magnetic forces, all at once within a single spacetime. We need something that bridges time with space with "observation" of time and space. The first step to doing this is by specifiying what the unified field looks like before the de-unification into sepatrate classes of fields and resulting forces and matter.

I am still developing the visuals, In a short while I should be able to return to you with some clear explanations and predictions. Thanks for your patience.

[Tensor]

Friends,

I am currently developing the visual tools needed to conceptualize the theory.

Tensor, I actually do know a good deal about virtual particles, that is why I did not desribe them in the original post.

Then why did you misrepresent them in your first post? To quote you in the OP:

"To describe a black hole in quantum terms demands that gravitons be unique to all other bosons and indeed travel fast enough to overcome the event horizon of a black hole"

If, as you claim, you know a good deal about virtual particles, why then do you claim that virtual gravitons would be unique in traveling greater than c, when virtual photons also travel greater than c?

I agree with you that virtual particles have a number of special talents. Gravitation is described as a tensor field, and so is I argue is the Hubble Constant.

Well, then I await your equations showing how the Hubble constant works as a tensor field.

What we are looking for is a Unified Field theory, one that can describe how a vector field of energy concentrations, extends into the scalar field, which relates to one or several tensor fields of space (gravity),

Why not make it easy and use a different rank tensor for each?

I am still developing the visuals, In a short while I should be able to return to you with some clear explanations and predictions. Thanks for your patience.

I, along with a lot of others here, would not be interested in visuals. More interested in equations.

[abcdefg]

Why is EM attractive and repulsive? Why do color charges have three properties?



Well, color charges aren't technically attractive or repulsive. The can change the states of quarks and other gluons(which carry the color charges). Quarks are confined, buy the bag model, no attraction needed.



Color charges have three properties (Given the names Red, Green, and Blue) What's so special about them?

To take it a bit further, why is the electron mass 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms. Why is the speed of light the value it is? Why not another KPS faster or slower. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. There are quite a few thing that, although we know the what, we still don't know the why.

I am curious.

Exactly where do you get the timing mechanism to implement the forces based on exchange particles?

Clearly, synchronicity is a necessary condition for the exchange and the implementation of the force.

Where is the timer?

[Capricorn Star]

I apologize for the delay.


This is a Unified Field Theory. The Distinction Theory of Temporal Displacement attempts to explain with clarity those concepts which are difficult to conceptualize normally. After reading this article, you will never think of space, time or matter in the same way.

This theory assumes QM and GR/SR are both accurate and already exist in some form in a unified manner. I am just jumping ahead to a state that is already predicted to exist, unification. Lets assume that the two fields "quantized" and "continuous" were once unifed and thus in a sense are still so today. The "forces" of nature we experience are derived from the effects of the deunification of the once unifed field. The deunification is an illusion, yet it is also a truth. This is the foundation of a relevant Universe.




Probability is one of the secrets to understanding this theory. Probabilities or possible positions or directions of physical movement exponentially increase as new degrees of spacial freedom are added to a given system of energy. The more degrees of freedom between point a and point b, the more complex the probable final direction of movement calculations becomes as time passes, thus creating the effect of time dilation, because a passing pulse must take time to investigate all newly introduced degrees of freedom that arise in its directional path. Understanding degrees of freedom and passage of time is essential.

In both a conceptual and physical sense, the universe is only one possible example of universes. For mathematic reasons, it is certain that there are an unlimited number of multiverses parallel and vitual within of our own, though there are none outside of our own. The multiverses are real!! Some of them interact with our own. More on that much later.



From the Beginning


Imagine if you will, that the pre bang Universe singularity was in a sense a highly exotic, highly unstable but yet distinct quantum mechanic/relativistic particle. This particle was highly unified, meaning that it could be described accurately ranging from 1 dimensions to at least 7 without having to discard any information. Its total energy could be of any infinite relative value in greatness or smallness. It was both everywhere and nowhere all at once.

This "superquark" would require no surrounding context for measurement, for it would carry all probable contexts or rulers or possible observers of actions within its boundaries. Due to its high unification, it would enjoy mathematically and spacially limitless degrees of freedom and would therefore be very unstable. It would be both eternal and short lived, depending on how you look at it. From "within" where we people reside this superquark would appear to be very short lived and to have quickly begun to decay in a Big Bang, while still appearing unchanged if viewed from outside.

Think of "unification" as an aspect of decription. The greater the unification of a particle, less "real" and more "virtual" the particle becomes when viewed by us. "Virtual" because with such highly unified particles it becomes very complex to apply limits to the possible range of states or places of being for these particles, because they enjoy so many degrees of freedom amoung several dimensional planes. Instead of just forward and back, they can also move sideways too, and then it adds another degree of freedom moving up and down, then going forward backward, and sideways in time itself. Now you see why so many dimensions and multiverses are necessary to describe our universe. These few dimensions are just the observed degrees of freedom or "options" for movement of our reality. A particle unified beyond 4 dimensions would never be able to sit "still" or slow down enough to be viewed in just 4 dimensions by us because this unified particle would have so many layers of spacial dimensions of freedom for which it could travel within. It does indeed move and configure itself into all possible routes of all planes, exploring all degrees of freedom at some point in "time," leading to a multiverse requirement. This "superquark" is as described logically highly unstable, thus it fractures and decays into all possible configurations of itself in an attempt to regain its previously configured state of perfect unification.

Distinction theory describes that both Relativity and QM systems of determinisitic action are both consequences of the fracture or deunification caused by the once unified field or A-Temporon particle (perfect) decaying into a B-temporon field (higgs). It is the decay of the Btemporon class particles that inlfate our universe beyond 2 dimensions creating the effect of the Higgs field and other resulting natural forces. Here's the simple idea:

The universe is derived from a set of conceptual minimums. The universe is not bound mathematically to any statistical or probable minimums, but is bound conceptually to certain set of mimumum characteristics.

The universe must be a contradiction in order to self observe and exist. It must be both its own creator and its own destroyer at the same "time."

To meet the conceptual requirement of multiplicity, the universe had to split into several dimensions. Reality had to deUnify into Real (quantum)and virtual (continuous) forms of energy. "Time," had to become the peace keeper between these two distinct forms of energy, the judge who keeps order protecting the boundary of what is real from what is virtual.

Here is a display of how the unifed field underwent its first deunification into time, space, and matter, leading to the Universe we observe today.

The Unified A-temporon de-unified into the virtual continuous B-temporon, the limited speed time keeping C-temporon, and the D class temporons ruled by quantized energy values at a particular point in space and time, or matter for lack of a better word.

[Capricorn Star]

This is a sample model of a possible entire Universe. This is a simple diagram to example the behaviour of the B temporon on traveling light pulses. The B-Temporon is unstable and decays into more copies of itself, causing light pulses to red shift. In a straight line or if viewed in only 2 dimensions as a graph this decay over time intervals looks like cells reproducing at a rate of n3. Decaying into more of oneself might sound odd, but if you are unstable yet you carry an energy value that is a prime number factor, and therfore cannot decay symmetrically into smaller pieces of yourself, you have no option but to decay into more isntances of yourself. This decay of Btemporons as new degrees of freedom in eachg direction creates and outward pressure that fuels the activity and movement of the universe. It leads to time dilations and red shifting and materal clumping. The B temporon is best described as a virtual degree of freedom or a unit of spacetime between points of nergy or observers. It is a point in space and time that becomes real only when it is necessary. The virtual world is always expanding as more possiblities mount int he virtual world, and this expansion becomes real to the real world as photons red shift by passing through this expanding virtual medium. See below how the signal takes longer to travel through virtual space as more time passes


n3=B

[Capricorn Star]

If you fall off one end of the universe you are delivered to the other end in zero time. So this represents a simple closed system.

This "pressure" of expanding space around you leads to situations where though all objects in the universe are being pushed apart by the space between them, sometimes the expansion pressure of n3 is greater on one side of the matter interval, than on the other, leading to a clumping and a dispersal of matter. This shows how expanding space around you can actually cause the appearance of gravitational attraction. It leads to certain objects being pushed apart while some other objects of closer proximity end up crashing into one another with left over virtual energy that is converted into real units of new space or degrees of freedom, literally causing the universe itself to grow and expand by a few units between time intervals.