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

[Tensor]

First off, my apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I've been on the road and internet connections have been intermittent.

Tensor,

Thanks for your questions...I guess. So convinced I am an idiot are you?

Not at all. I have no doubt you don’t fully understand mainstream theories, don’t really know the needed mathematical requirements, but you are definitely not an idiot.

to your questions:


Dishonesty to my mind, my friend, is claiming that you know for certain that virtual particles travel faster than c. I have not seen any proof of your claim, however if you can point me to the research I will gladly review it. Until then, please do not accuse me of dishonesty over such an odd thing. This is the second time you have done so, not certain why you would take it to such a level to discredit me, a complete stranger to you.

Then I suggest you study Feynman's path integral (or sum over histories)method of QFT calculations. It requires faster than light travel for virtual particles within Quantum Field Theory (QFT). If these faster than light paths are not taken into account, then QFT does not achieve it 11 digit accuracy. Feel free to point out exactly in those equations, in that link, where they are incorrect. Otherwise, I will take it that you agree with Feynman and faster than light paths.

You started this thread by talking about gravitons being unique among boson's in having to travel faster than c. This is simply not the case in QFT. Not knowing if you knew this, I pointed this out, you came back claiming to know quite a bit about virtual particles. So, either you actually did know about virtual particles and misrepresented the graviton, or you didn't know and misrepresented you knowledge of virtual particles. Which one is it?

I may disagree with you on the speed of virtuals, but that does not however make me dishonest at all. Seems your entire philosophy on space-time and gravitation itself is built on this flimsy at best notion of superluminal gravitons. Anyone who disagrees with you is branded a liar it seems, and to your mind should be stoned to death.

Disagreement with the speed has nothing to do with it. If you go back to post #21 you will see that I branded gravitons as a hypothesis or speculation. The misrepresentation comes from where you claimed that gravitons were unique, when according to your later claim, you knew a lot about virtual particles, which meant you should have known they weren't unique. If this is wrong and you didn’t know that virtual gravitons weren’t unique in traveling faster than c in QFT, then my apologies. However, then we have your misrepresentation on you knowing a lot about virtual particles. So which is it?

Without this convenient unproven crutch, you seem to be completely lost for rebuttal on my original post about the big bang problems.

If you would spare me one question...
Simply put Tensor, in a universe with superluminal attractive gravitation, how could the initial inflation expansion ever have occurred during the early instances of the big bang? We know for sure that photons and leptons and all real entities will be limited in maximum speed to a value of c. However there are some virtual particles, gluons, quarks, mesons, w bosons, z bos, and by your definition the graviton, which you propose would be part of a special elite class of force carriers capable of superluminal influence. However leptogenesis occurred before baryogeneisis, so this is odd. Why then did the superluminal attractive gravitation influence introduced by leptogenesis fail to keep pace with the superluminal rate of inflation such that the universal expansion rate would be decreasing currently instead of increasing?

That's quite simple. The Big Bang doesn't deal with anything prior to 10^-43 seconds. Spend some time with Ned Wright’s or Sean Carroll’s Cosmology Primers. You will find they don’t spend any time explaining anything that happens before 10^-43 seconds.

If attractive gravitation can influence the vast areas of entire universes in one instant of time as you propose, then no other force, not even inflation itself would be able to overcome its grasp at any scale large or small. Unfortunately, the notion of superluminal gravitons actually flies directly into the face of accepted big bang theory, which is very mainstream indeed. Have you never really thought this whole "virtual speed" thing through to the end?

Lets get one thing straight. I’ve never proposed gravitons do what I posted in post 21. I was explaining some of the mainstream thinking on how the graviton would fit into QFT. I am not the one proposing these ideas.

Maybe if you SHOW ME THE MATH that proves superluminal virtual particles I will be convinced.

Well, I’ve given you a link to Feynman’s math. Like I said, please provide the exact equation in that link where you think Feynman is wrong. Remember, virtual particles are required to provide the amount of correlation between theory and observation. The best correlation we have in any of our theories.

Your words alone mean less than nothing.

And we should take your words and visual aids on your say so, without any kind of math showing how your idea can fits into the Einstein Field Equation? Or maybe you can show how your idea works with the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian? Think you can do that?

Well, at least I can provide equations, when asked (see the reference to the link on Feynman’s equations above). This does bring up and interesting point and solves my conundrum on what exactly was misrepresented. If I need to show you the math on virtual particles, it shows you know so little about mainstream QFT that there is no way you could have known about virtual particles. And so, you could not have known that virtual photons are required to move faster than c in the path integral formalization. However, it does show that you misrepresented your knowledge on virtual particles.

I would love nothing more than to bury the discussion in equations where you feel the safest, however, equations alone don't do much either. String theory is beautiful math but it is very difficult to apply it to anything specifically and it does not fit in squarely with GR or QM either, yet it is not without profound merit.

Using Strings (which isn’t even a theory yet, more like a hypothesis) is a very bad example. On the other hand, the equations of QFT can produce a correlation with observations that is accurate to within 11 decimal places. GR can achieve a prediction accuracy to this (scroll down to figure seven)

When you quantize space and consider accelerating expansion you realize something crazy, there are more bits of space today than there were yesterday and there will be even more tomorrow. If space is a sea of troubles, there are more troubles now than ever and mounting.

Not necessarily. Have you considered the possibility that there is the same amount of space, it’s just stretched out more? In other words, space itself is less dense?

I am just cutting to the chase. Just like the air molecules around us provide enough "pressure" to hold our bodies together preventing us from flying apart in a vacuum,

Ahhhh, the atmosphere does no such thing. The electromagnetic forces making up your body would hold it together. See here . From this statement of yours, I would suggest you study some basic physics, before trying to overturn current theories.

so the expansion of space all around us to eternity presses us down onto the surface of the Earth preventing us from flying away from it. Pressure is key, along with balance variations. Space moves matter, matter merely follows the flow and currents of moving space around it like floating leaves.
Elementary particles such as leptons occludes the flow of "time" or virtual space from its adjacent sides, creating the interaction of mass.
Do not be confused. At the Planck scale, atoms are completely transparent, heck, so are protons for that matter. The fact that electrons are quantized prevents the atom from collapsing under normal pressures, giving the atom structure. This structure ensures that matter will only gain certain levels of density at certain scales. This is key to the prevention of runaway gravitiaon and expansion the reason quantum gravity is not obvious.

You’ll have to do a whole lot more explaining (along with redefining several terms they way they are currently used) for the above to make any sense.

When viewed in full 4 dimensions, my theory regarding expansion and gravitation looks like a form of outward pressure. Most of the relevant math you will need has already been written as far as observation is concerned in regards to pressure systems. Some modifications will be needed, I know.

How it all ties into GR and QFT is the entire point of this thread. I have already explained how this theory ties into gravitation and time dilation, which is GR itself

More gibberish snipped.

and instantly into another pre bang particle. Starting the cycle again. This is due to the other forces. More on that.

While you may think you have explained how it ties in, your explanation makes no sense and you haven’t shown how your idea ties into GR or QFT mathematically.

Tensor wrote:

"In reference to the following equation:

x ≥ y, (x – y) / m = a You claim x and y are units of space. This would indicate (in a full three dimensional example) that units would be m3 (cubic meters for volume). These are divided by m (which represents mass) and has units of kg. Your equation would have units of m3/kg. You claim " 'a' can also be treated as a total sum of quantized inertial kinetic energy units" The problem here is that your equation produces an a with units of m3/kg and if a is energy it has to have units of m3*kg/s2. Your units don't match. So, from the first, your idea doesn't even contain the correct unit dimensions, and as a result, it is flat out wrong. You have the same problem with your other equations (left as an exercise for the poster) So, there's really nothing much left to talk about. "

My equation is still valid. The matter references are not "really" moving, they are merely being displaced in relation to one another in terms of a passing pulse of light. Better stated, the influences of the expanding space are confined to the virtual realm until they push two matter references or "observers" to collide making the virtual movements momentarily real.

You seem to miss an important point here. "a" is only required to be treated as left over kinetic inertial energy at the point when/where collisions occur. Virtual energy is conserved as virtual energy in this interaction, I never proposed any transformation into real photons, you are confused. There are virtual energies which are continuous and there are finite energies which relate to the things we call real such as photons and electrons.

Sorry, you are missing an even more important point. Energy, no matter what you call it (virtual, real, kinetic, inertial, whatever, conserved, non-conserved), has to have the dimensions of m³*kg/sec² Your equation for a does not have that dimension. So, unless you are defining energy differently than the rest of the world, your equation is useless. Now, if you are defining it differently, you have to show how your terms (currently m³/kg)would be converted to the terms the rest of us use (m³*kg/sec²)for energy. Of course to do this, you will have to add a conversion term. However, since this conversion term doesn’t appear anywhere else in your equations, you other equations will now have to, somehow, incorporate that conversion term. I, or anyone else can’t figure out the conversion term for you. It’s your definition, you have to show us how to get the terms to balance.

[Tensor]

Tensor:

Please explain how this is constructive in any way.

It lets him know that he is wrong on that particular point. This is the ATM forum. Ideas here treated much like a PhD orals, but it's actually more lenient here. It's not our job to help develop his ideas. If you read the rules for posting, especially rule 13, which covers the ATM forum, you may understand better. If he has questions, BAUT has a question and answer forum.

Bold mine: Is there such a thing as a theory of Quantum Gravity? I know it has been referred to as some kind of a Holy grail for physicists/cosmologists, but to my knowledge no such thing has yet been quantified.

Yes, there is. Calculations have been done that match Newtonian gravity. The problem comes in when you want to use that particular theory at higher energies or smaller distances. There, along with GR, it simply doesn't work.

This is not my understanding.

Then you need to do some research. Your might want to make your first stop at either Wright's or Carroll's sites. Other than that, try to use actual scientific papers, not popular science articles. It's a big signpost for regulars here when someone comes in and want to take the Big Bang back to the actual Time=0. It simply doesn't work that way and signals a lack of knowledge of Big Bang Theory.

While you are certainly correct in stating that there are many theories which help to explain things such as galactic and star formation, particle abundances and their various states, and universal evolution, I think it is incorrect to state that
While it may very well help to tie these many and varied theories together in a workable model, the BBT in and of itself was/is an original concept of how the universe began (as opposed to creation theory or some other explanation).

The BBT doesn't claim to describe the moment of creation for the simple reason that our current physics cannot handle anything prior to 10^-43 seconds. You may be thinking of when it was first proposed, when it wasn't fully understood about how our current physics interrelated. You won't find anything within the last 40 years or so going back to the actual beginning. If you can actually show a scientific paper that does show this, by all means, present it. This is a common misunderstanding of many who come here and get most of their information from popular science outlets. It is the theory that ties all the astrophysical and particle physics together to describe how the universe evolved. Again, check the sites of Wright and Carroll.

[Capricorn Star]

Tensor,

Thanks for taking a more constructuve tone this time, I respect that greatly.

I had not been made aware of the Feynman link above, I shall review that indeed, I have great respect for Feynman.
It still however has a basic problem, and that is that massive particles are said to travel no faster than c by GR, so I am very curious how a very massive w boson can travel faster than c. I feel that math can suggest such things, but how would one ever test such an idea? I feel this is not the mainstream view, even though Feynman proposed it, it does not seem to have universal acceptance. Thanks for the link Tensor! My own theory treats space as being made of units that do not move at all as such but can have superluminal influence regardless. Either way is fine by me, I need to explain WHY these forces can have superluminal influence. If superluminal, does that mean instantaneous travel throughout the universe? Or does it mean some limited factors of light speed such as warp 5 or warp 10? What does superliminal really mean to you, Tensor?

When it comes to the metric, you have to understand what you are measuring. The energy type does matter. If I told you there was 1000lbs of virtual pressure on you, how would you know of it, how would you feel it? Virtual energies must be measured differently than real energies. I will be explaining how the theory works in 3d in which case the metric is as you proposed it should be, very natural, you will see what I mean. And on the issue of pressure, you are wrong. The atmosphere of Earth applies pressure to our bodies, this pressure is countered by the pressure from within our bodies, all of these pressure internal and external are driven by temperature. If you were to take a person at room tmperature and expose them to the vacuum of space, the person's body would be torn apart because the pressures from within would be greater than the atmospheric pressure surrounding the individual. Yes, the atmosphere does indeed hold us together here on Earth's surface. Electromagnetism is natrually at work, giving us form so we are not flattened by local gravity, but my point was that without air pressure we humans would be in big trouble.

Lastly, Tensor, you are in a key position around here as a veteran and so I want to share some thoughts with you from the other side so they say. I just want to point something out to you as a newcomer.

You Tensor, need to understand that all the required reading you like to throw at people is somewhat ridiculous at times, and the tone you take is one of annoyance, so aggressive. Very often you make statements that others are just too ignorant basically to conduct a conversation with you. It is as if you feel certain individuals are just not qualified to make statements because they do not conform to your views, and are best to just keep their thoughts and stupid questions to themselves. You are in error here, grave error. I want to give you an example to help you understand how best you can aid people like me or Mungoid.

One the one hand you have a classically trained concert painist sitting in a room, on the other hand you have a Michael Jackson. The concert pianist, we will call her Diana, started playing piano at age three. She has been reading music since before she was able to read words. She is very gifted and she is a hard worker. Then you have Michael Jackson. He was raised to sing. He never learned to read music, but is still a very hard worker. In fact, he never ever studied any form of music formally.

One day Michael Jackson hears a tune pop into his head. This tune is catchy, this tune has great melodic potential. But Michael, being untrained formally, simply does not have the technical music theory understanding needed to express this melody in terms of written music notation. So he takes this tune to his friend Diana to hear what she thinks. Diana, is a composer, so without any hesitation she can translate a sung melody into official written notation. Jackson smiles, Diana smiles. They have a hit on their hands! Diana knows that even though she is a legit classically trained genius, such a catchy melody would simply have never occurred to her. Michael, though he is not formally trained, still had the good sense to know a good melody when he heard one. To discredit someone simply because they do not carry your accepted level of background education to express it can cause you to miss out on that magic melody, if or when it comes along. Just because Michael did not know how to write it down did not make it a bad melody. They are two separate things. You must remain open mineded Tensor. Less critical and more constructive, since you are the resident person with high levels of training around here. You should have more patience, and be less elitest about it all. Just my opinion.

[Capricorn Star]

The diagrams I included previously were very simplified, and so was the math presented. 3d is less simple but still pretty easy to understand.


Temporal Occllusion or "Shadows" if you will.

This theory proposes that time is expanding as space expands in all directions, and that material objects tend to block the "flow" of time and space expansion between objects, almost as if casting a "shadow." This "shadow" or blockage of expansion is what we call...gravitation. thus to understand gravity, we must understand how space and matter interact at the smallest and the grandest of scales. Here's how we can do it.

To bring this closer to home.

1. Black Hole Mass
If I understand correctly, when supermassive stars are dying they go through many phase changes and increase in temperature and density creating heavier and heavier elements as they go. At the very end the star expells its outer shell of gas and the remaining matter in the iron core collapses further. If the matter left over at this time is at least 300% the mass of the sun, the core will collpase into a black hole. My theory assumes that black holes are real, and that because light has a fixed speed, one can easily relate photon behavior in regard to any particular mass system to the relative behavior of photons near a black hole. For this reason I have assumed that the minimum mass for a naturally occurring black hole is no less than:

6.629733269036 x 10¹⁷ kg

I realize that black holes are less about mass and more about density. But for practical sake, there should be no naturally occuring black holes of any process other than stellar death, thus this seems like a safe minimum mass assumption. During the earliest instances of the big bang, perhaps less massive holes were developed due to such high early energy densities. Very likely.

I feel confident that black holes and various leptons and their neutrinos are the only truly "solid" objects in terms of gravitation produced today. Electron neutrinos are the least massive "objects" known asside from massless photons. And Black holes represent the assumed extreme of time dilation, light bending. Electrons and black holes are related because they represent possible extremes for a potentially elegant form of measurement. We can relate all masses known to the mass of the electron neutrino, or to the mass of a standard black hole. For the purposes of this theory, all matter is to be compared to the full mass of a standard black hole as a standard unit of measure of mass.

The sun for instance is 33% BHM (Black Hole Mass). The Earth by comparison is 1.109791% BHM. However the resulting gravitiaonal field is goverend not by the mass, but the density. More on that.


2. Black Hole Density
As we all know reality is not nearly so simple as my initial 2d diagrams. Though it seems so at our daily experience of scale, in the first place, there is no real meaning to the word "solid" or even "particle" at Quantum Mechanical scales, or is there? Most models of the atom propose that it is made mostly of empty space. Even a proton could be said to be occupied by virtual gluons that behave generally as empty space, except for 3 small points within it as quarks. Since atoms are made mostly of empty space so then are all things made from atoms. Neutrinos for example are very small, carry little mass, and no charge and therfore travel effortlessly through most matter even planets and stars without interacting with them directly, this is not true of a neutrino passing within the event horizon near a black hole, the neutrino does not escape. The same could be said for extremely low energy photons. The solar system is mostly empty space and so is the Milky Way galaxy. The only "solid" objects possible to my mind are the various elementary low mass electron neutrinos, and possibly the UP quark. Black holes are probably "solid" to some degree also. Since light cannot escape them, nothing can pass through them. Black holes are key. To my theory, black holes block all flow of time nearby them, thus objects tend to fall toward them. I will explain.

The various forces nuclear and electromagnetic interactions are responsible for this porous "empty" nature of ordinary matter because they "inflate" the atom by doing work against gravity. To a theory like mine that proposes that matter movements are goverend by the symmetries of expansion and contraction of the "empty" space around it, it becomes essential to relate empty space to equations at all scales. I will not go yet into the other forces and how they work to inflate the atom, I only mention them here because they relate to the graviational aspect of calculations a great deal.


I feel that as the space around us expands most of it like neutrinos expands right through us, we hardly feel it. For we are very low in density compared to a black hole and therefore are highly transparent to the flow of time as objects the size of the grains of space pass throuhg us will little interaction. The same is said for time dialtion. We experiecne a proprotional amount of time dialtion related to Earth's density compared to that of a black hole.The inflation of the atom by the nuclear and electromagnetic forces means that there are an almost inifite number of possible symmetries. Thus preventing the universe from remaining collapsed as a single black hole.

When a black hole collapse occurs, it is theorized that the hole becomes very small, roughly a Planck Length across in diameter. Assuming the planck length as the standard diameter of a black hole, and knowing the mass of a standard black hole, I can assume the value for black hole density to be 100%.

Now we are ready for the next stage which are the "Capricornio" Field Equations.