Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjoern That's o.k. with me. I'll list the questions which are most important to me:

The response that you feel had nothing to do with the question was, “…the expansion of energy in space, and … the “force” you say does not exist is actually the pressure of the energy density of space.”

If we say that the separation over time of mass in space (notably galaxies) is due to the expansion of space then we can say that energy in space is inflating proportionately across the entire expanse, and matter is going with the expansion. Except that the mere presence of matter adds gravity. Gravity only works on the matter in the expanding energy filled space. Expansion of matter in space due to the pressure of the energy in space is resisted by gravity that works on matter but has no effect on the expansion of energy in space.

Then I said, “Gravity on a large scale diminishes by 75% each time the distance between objects doubles. So if the expansion radius doubles, gravity declines by 75%. Therefore for every increase in the size of the expanding energy density, there will be a greater proportional decline in the strength of the gravitational field.”

The 75% reduction in the strength of the gravitation field between objects when the distance between them doubles is derived from the old equation that says gravity is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the masses.

In order to explain the observed movement of objects in space, both the gravity component and the expansion component of that movement must be considered.

The effect of the expansion component is greater than the effect of the gravity component. It doesn’t matter what the rate of expansion is, if expansion exists it separates objects proportionally. If the expansion component doubles the distance between objects, the force of gravity is diminished by 75%, i.e. the inverse of the square of the distance. If distance between two objects of equal mass was 10 units before expansion, and 20 units after expansion, the force of gravity between them before expansion is 1/(10^2) or 1/100. After expansion the force of gravity between them is 1/(20^2) or 1/400. 1/400 is a 75% reduction from 1/100.

So when the radius of expansion doubles, the force of gravity is reduced by 75%.

With that restated, can you tell me why it has nothing to do with your question?

One of the biggest problem with your idea is that it contains lots of entirely unfounded assertions (contradicting on the whole essentially every field of physics which exists) - but I haven't seen you presenting even the tiniest shred of evidence for any of them so far...


I've never seen the concept of "energy density of space" in QM. Do you perhaps mean the "vacuum energy" / "zero-point energy" of Quantum Field Theory? What you wrote below seems to affirm that. If yes, please try to use these terms instead - that causes less misunderstandings. If no, please clarify.

Is undetectable, but able to form matter? If these (and the claim that it does not gravitate) are the only things you can say to describe it, then that sounds like a magical gimmick to me, not like physics. Essentially, you are claiming that "something" exists there which has the property to create mass, and then you call that something "energy" - without ever explaining what this "something" has to do with the usual concept of energy, and hence without having a reason for calling it an energy. Add to that the fact that your "energy" behaves apparently differently from all types of energy known, and you really are in big trouble.

If you now reply that the dark energy of standard physics is also such a "magical gimmick", you ignore that this dark energy is described quantitatively by physics (and its properties are the same as "usual" energy), and hence one is able to test this idea. In other words, dark energy of standard physics is detectable - although only by indirect methods.

Then you ignore that all energy has mass (E=mc^2, remember?), and hence gravitates. If you want to claim that this equation does not apply to your T1 energy, that's simply special pleading - you have no basis at all for assuming that.

The circumstances under which that happens have been studied in particle accelerators for decades now. The results look not at all like what you propose. For starters, every production of matter from energy observed so far conserved electrical charge.

I prefer circumstantial evidence to no evidence at all - so please present it.

In general, they aren't.

That's the equation of state for your T1 energy? Or do you want to claim that this equation is valid for every type of energy?

Thanks, I'll look at that.

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

A pressure is not a force. Please learn some basic physics.


Proportional to what?


The decline in the strength is not proportional to the increase of the size. Are you sure you know what "proportional" means?


What do you mean with these two components, specifically? Velocities? Accelerations? Forces? Or what are you talking about?


Well, that's again exactly the claim which I asked you to explain. And neither in your old posts nor in this new one, you have explained why that should be the case.


Again: proportional to what? What does it mean to say that "expansion separates objects proportionally"?


All correct. But how does a calculation showing how gravity decreases show that the expansion is somehow "stronger" than gravity? In order to say that, you first have to explain what force is associated with the expansion (and again: a pressure is not the same as a force!), and then you have to quantify how this force changes when distance changes (doubles). And only then can you compare gravity with expansion and say that one is "greater" than the other. So far, what you are doing is comparing apples to oranges!

For starters, you could define what you meant with "components" above.

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjoern One of the biggest problem with your idea is that it contains lots of entirely unfounded assertions (contradicting on the whole essentially every field of physics which exists) - but I haven't seen you presenting even the tiniest shred of evidence for any of them so far...

Yes, you are getting up to speed with where I am at in developing my case. The EEP and the ISU are Ideas that need to be reviewed by you and anything left standing is yet to be determined.
I can’t help using words that have particular meanings in some other body of work. I acknowledge that the way I use those words may differ. It seems unreasonable for you to require me to adopt and defend words and their usages in quantum physics when I don’t understand how the usage differs and don’t understand quantum physics. But I will do my best to use their terms when I am referring specifically to their work.

A very knowledgeable person, as I perceive you to be, would be better able to work with me using the words in a general sense and not in a specifically applied discipline that I don’t claim to be basing anything on.

I don’t think you are trying to show how uninformed I am, and then by showing that go on to conclude or imply that my ideas are wrong. But if that is where you are coming from I can’t believe you would waste so much time making a point that I concede from the start .
I am in trouble, but if I may, I will come up with a different word for this “so called” magical energy. Bogie-energy? Phantom energy? Wait, what about calling it proto-energy or p-energy for short? That could mean primordial energy too.

When I ask what you mean with a term, that surely is not intended for showing that you are uninformed what that term means in standard physics - it simply means that I don't understand what you mean with that term. And I really would appreciate it if you either didn't use terms from standard physics with new meanings at all, or if you clarified right from the start that you use a different meaning, and clearly defined that meaning.

Apparently you missed my main point here: why do you call this "stuff" an "energy" at all? It does not seem to behave like any known energy type in many ways (it does not gravitate, it is not detectable, ...).

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

If I know that I am using a term in a way that differs from the standard physics I will either define it in the way that I am using it or I will make up a new word . The problem is that I don't know when I am doing that. I am calling on you to understand the non-scientific usage, meaning if it is clearly improper usage you might to try to figure out what I mean and put it in scientific terms. I assume there really are the correct words and if I don't know them, and you know my usage is wrong, tell me the right words. If it is truly a concept that has no current words to explain it I will suggest a word and see if we can agree.

Let's not spend too much time determining that we can't communicate.

Forgetting the fact that the concept is not mainstream and is against BBT and GR, do you or do you not have any idea what I mean by primordial energy in space that is expanding from a very tiny origination ~13.7 billion years ago?

Forgetting that the concept in BBT says that this tiny originating entity was infinitely dense matter with no volume, or a singularity, can you in you mind envision that I am proposing that this entity was a precursor to matter, and that matter formed from it instead of being in it at the start.

I know you are aware that I am talking about an alternative to BBT and I don't think GR applies to a cosmology in which space pre-exited. I am proposing that this originating entity, before it started to expand, actually originated in the core of a big crunch. Let me know if you understand that is where I am coming from and if you want to continue helping me knowing that.

So, Bogie, in the interests of clear communication, why not use an entirely new word (instead of energy) for a key term in your ATM idea ('aslkduhf', say)?

And while we're at it, why not substitute "mass-energy" for 'matter' in your desciption? If you did that, your idea would at least have the benefit - at the word salad level - of not being immediately inconsistent with GR in regimes where it has, in fact, been tested.

Otherwise, if you continue to
a) present no quantification,
b) no 'consistency case' (with either GR or QM),
c) no clarifications on how your key terms differ from standard usage,
d) ...

it is either incredibly easy to show your idea has no legs (e.g. it can't possibly be consistent with GR or QM, in regimes where both have been extensively tested, and passed all such tests), or impossible, even in principle, to show that your idea has any relationship with any experimental or observational results!

Nereid, let me ask you the same question I asked Bjoern.

Forgetting the fact that the concept is not mainstream and is against BBT and GR, do you or do you not have any idea what I mean by primordial energy in space that is expanding from a very tiny origination ~13.7 billion years ago?

Forgetting that the concept in BBT says that this tiny originating entity was infinitely dense matter with no volume, or a singularity, can you in you mind envision that I am proposing that this entity was a precursor to matter, and that matter formed from it instead of being in it at the start.

I know you are aware that I am talking about an alternative to BBT and I don't think GR applies to a cosmology in which space pre-exited. I am proposing that this originating entity, before it started to expand, actually originated in the core of a big crunch. Let me know if you understand that is where I am coming from and if you want to continue helping me knowing that.

Not a clue ... to me it's a confusing set of words that has no meaningful relationship to anything that is within the scope of this forum.A) It's rather difficult to 'forget' something as gross a distortion of modern cosmology as that!

B) And no, what you propose seems (to me) to be just a jumble of terms that seem almost deliberately designed to confuse rather than clarify.And this is one of those self-defeating parts (so it seems to me) ... without clarity on the continuity (space both pre-exists and 'is' what the mass-energy of the universe determines it to be, without any apparent attempt to resolve the fatal inconsistency; or, putting it more technically, GR is background-dependent, your idea is background-independent - i.e. the same deep inconsistency as between GR and QM, without the benefit of either).So, why call it 'matter'? 'energy'? why talk about a 'ball'? about 'density', 'expand' 'originate' (as in 'time'?), 'core'? (and so on), when, apparently, you don't mean any of these things at all!

Put it another way: if all these key terms have meanings similar to terms which are spelled the same way, in physics, then your idea is inconsistent with (most parts of) modern physics.

If these key terms have quite different, but undefined, meanings, then even you cannot demonstrate even internal consistency (how could you, the key terms are undefined).

But beyond all that, there is nothing in this idea, that I've seen so far, that could, even in principle, be tested ... unless and until you constrain the definitions of the key terms.

Neried. Don't you think you are being a little insincere?

You can stand firm on your view and you can be supported by a vast net of peers, but can you say you are sincere in denying that you understand, "Forgetting the fact that the concept is not mainstream and is against BBT and GR, do you or do you not have any idea what I mean by primordial energy in space that is expanding from a very tiny origination ~13.7 billion years ago?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid So, Bogie, in the interests of clear communication, why not use an entirely new word (instead of energy) for a key term in your ATM idea ('aslkduhf', say)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid Not a clue ... to me it's a confusing set of words that has no meaningful relationship to anything that is within the scope of this forum.A) It's rather difficult to 'forget' something as gross a distortion of modern cosmology as that!

Such clear rhetoric is rare among intelligent people who have the high ground. I wouldn’t normally imagine someone denying the obvious would have been so literate in disregard for the obvious.

The obvious is that matter is composed of energy.


It is a self inflicted argumentum ad hominem, or ad hominem, for me to say that the use of the words “matter”, “composed”, and “energy” can’t be used in a meaningful sentence by an avowed dunce like me.

For others to say it is to attack the person and not the use of words. I think some blue shirts at BAUT have made a New Years resolution to upgrade the ATM section by increasing the level of avowed astonishment at the stupidity of the uninformed like me.

The ISU and the EEP are “alternative” ideas and that makes them against the mainstream. That is what this forum is about.

I know it is difficult for anyone to discuss ideas with me in an environment where I am so liberally derided by the important people on the board. Who would want to step forward and appear to be a class with me after such clear rejection by those with influence? I don’t expect anyone to step forward. I will simply get my ideas into words and go on developing my bottom up approach.

My disclaimer is here ----à http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=891014&postcount=246

In my post about The Energy Background of the ISU I pointed out that the ISU is all about energy.

I have been roundly criticized by BAUT posters and moderators because I am not using the term “energy” properly. Here is an example of the critique:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid So, Bogie, in the interests of clear communication, why not use an entirely new word (instead of energy) for a key term in your ATM idea ('aslkduhf', say)?

You can see what I am dealing with here at BAUT.

But instead of folding up my tent and going home, which anyone but a dunce like me would do under such a frontal attack from the power elite, I will try to comply with the suggestion.

The implication is that GR and QM are the best science can offer, “in fact been tested”, and my idea violates them both and so therefore has been proved wrong before the paint dries.

That sounds like a fallacy.

In my ideas I use the term “energy” within the definition of science if that definition includes the high school phrase, “The ability to cause change”. In my post about the Quantum I wrote: “In the ISU, there is a tiny amount of energy that can be described as the smallest increment of energy that can have any meaningful impact on the universe. A meaningful impact is described as anything that can cause a change in matter, no matter how small the change. That amount of energy is called the elementary energy particle (EEP) and is the quanta of energy (E).”

I would like to know if the critique by BAUT Moderation of my use of the word energy is well founded, or am I on safe scientific ground to use it as I have in my ATM idea about an elementary energy particle?

I haven't seen anyone saying that your idea is proved wrong thereby. The important point is that if an idea contradicts these well-established theories, it has to have a lot of supporting evidence in order to be accepted. Hence as long as you don't present any evidence, there is simply no reason to take your ideas seriously.

Was it really defined in that way in your high school, or do you misremember? If this really happened, then your high school has apparently fairly low standards. "the ability to cause change" is not an appropriate definition for energy - even at the high school level!

An appropriate definition is "the ability to do work" - where "work" is again a term which has a well-defined meaning in physics (roughly, force times distance).

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

So, within this Bogie idea, which part of the observable universe 'obeys' GR? Or, if you prefer, 'when', after the 'beginning' (in the Bogie idea) did GR start to be an accurate description of the relationship between mass-energy and space?I think you have it backwards ... your idea is inconsistent with GR (and maybe with QM), yet you have not provided anything in the way of an explanation of how your idea is consistent with the observational and experimental results that have been used to test GR (and QM). Further, as your idea is, I think, purely qualitative (please correct me if I'm wrong, by pointing to the relevant posts), I'm not sure you have any basis for showing consistency with any experimental or observational results ... except, possibly, the deep incompatibility between QM (and your idea) and GR - the former is background independent, the latter background dependent - which you haven't even acknowledged, much less attempted to address.Your answer to the two questions at the start of this post will provide a clue ... if this 'energy', in your idea, exists in a universe where 'GR rules' (e.g. one with black holes, one in which the Nobel awarded to Hulse and Taylor is sound), then you are (likely) on (very) unsafe scientific ground.

If this "primordial energy" had the usual properties of an energy (which I already described - like gravitating etc.), I'd understand what you mean. But since it apparently does not have these properties, sorry, I do not understand what this strange, apparently magical stuff "primordial energy" actually is.

The BBT does not (necessarily) say that the universe originally had no volume.

I can accept that a "precursor to matter" existed - if you give both clear definitions of this "precursor" and of "matter". So far, you haven't done either.

Additionally, I can not accept that matter formed out of this "precursor" by violating conservation of charge. If your idea violates conservation of charge, it contradicts classical electrodynamics - a theory which is at least as well established as QM and GR. And again, that means if you want your ideas to be accepted, you have to provide a lot of supporting evidence (so far, you haven't provided any).

Surely you understand that physicists tend to go along with the theories which are well supported by evidence, and tend to ignore the ones with only little or no evidence for them at all? Please notice that physicists do not say that these other ideas are therefore wrong automatically. But they are simply not worth of serious consideration. It's the old saying: put up or shut up. Plain and simple.

Well, if you use extensions of GR (string theory), something like that is possible.

I understood that you propose a big crunch and balls expanding in a larger universe. But again: your ideas contradict well-established theories. That does not prove them wrong automatically - but it makes them very suspect. The only way to reach acceptance of your ideas is to come up with supporting evidence for them.

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

I have a disclaimer and you keep making points that I cover in my disclaimer. Read the part about Ideas near the end of if. I am posting an ATM idea. I consider the nit picking about word usage to be a sign that you are more interested in sweeping ideas under the carpet if they don't support blue shirt views.I won't even ask why you wasted time belittling my high school over a difference that is trivial. Show me "work" that doesn't involve change. This looks like more "sweeping ideas under the carpet" than an attempt to discuss my ideas in the context that I have presented them (see the disclaimer).

I have a suggestion. Take my bottom up approach into consideration. By doing that you are able to propose fresh ideas that are not possible to propose in the community that is trained and loyal to standard theory.

If you could stand back and really take a fresh look and make a fresh start, would you be talking about how I can't seem to grasp the meaning and proper usage of the terms "energy" and "work" and "matter"?

If we were on the same page we would be supportive of each other and of things that are simply true and right, and we would question things by offering helpful corrections.

If we are not on the same page then I don't see how we can help each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid So, within this Bogie idea, which part of the observable universe 'obeys' GR?

If the universe has always existed, is infinite, contains a potentially infinite amount of energy, and that energy has a pulsing and seething nature and is able to form matter under certain conditions, and matter can exist for a time and then be converted back into energy in a big crunch, and then emerge as energy from the crunch, form matter again, and go through this cycle in an infinite number of locations across the infinite “spongy” universe, are there any parts of GR that could still apply? To answer your question, I don’t know.
I am not aware of how GR can be considered applicable to my ideas at all. GR is a pretty broad term and must contain a great deal of accurate and useful theory, and like you say, “tested and proven”. Those parts that are accurate and useful and “tested and proven” are an accurate description of how they work in the ISU. I am not disputing facts and proofs. They are facts and proof in the ISU too.

Quote:

I think you have it backwards ... your idea is inconsistent with GR (and maybe with QM), yet you have not provided anything in the way of an explanation of how your idea is consistent with the observational and experimental results that have been used to test GR (and QM).

Since we are nit picking, what do I have backwards?

Nereid, you know the rules better than I do. I know you have read my disclaimer and if posting my ATM ideas violates the rules then I am just not posting in the right place.

Now if I must show how they are consistent with something simple, that I can understand, I am happy to do that. But every time I do, you point out that the words I use are not being used properly. See my last post and you will see how I interpret your nit picking word usage. It is not helping me develop my ATM ideas.

Do you know what my idea is? The EEP? Over the past year I have tried to develop it beyond the OP and improve the idea based on input and questions and helpful points from other posters.

Often when I reply to a post, there is no attempt to acknowledge what I have said or to add to the development of the idea in the OP. I have been pretty much on my own but that should not mean that I have to stand still. I keep offering more and more to try to get some inkling of interest from someone who is not bent in showing that the standard theory is all that can be discussed because obviously alternate ideas often don’t have the quantitative support and often don’t have the development necessary to quantify them yet.

I am confident that my ideas will be proved wrong but I am just a confident of the chain of logic that is taking place as they are developed. There is a flaw in my logic and that is how my ATM idea should be falsified; not by comparing it to bodies of knowledge that already exist and asking why it doesn’t prove the existing knowledge is wrong.
I answered your questions.

I know I am offering my ATM ideas without quantitative data. I don’t expect them to be loved and cherished.

Actually, to quantify the EEP is not the same thing as discovering it and measuring it.

If I thought that I would be able to make some quantitative estimates to simply use as examples, I might be able to “predict” the eV of an EEP. But Planck length and Planck time would not fit with my estimate I don’t think.

If you want to be helpful you could open your mind and actually help develop the ideas that I have that are not yet proved wrong, tell me when I am getting into trouble with my ideas in a way that communication can take place instead of in a way that can really be construed as ad hom.

Look at you. I give you some meat about my idea, using the term you were saying that I was using improperly, and you ignore the content of my idea and address word usage again.

“In the ISU, there is a tiny amount of energy that can be described as the smallest increment of energy that can have any meaningful impact on the universe. A meaningful impact is described as anything that can cause a change in matter, no matter how small the change. That amount of energy is called the elementary energy particle (EEP) and is the quanta of energy (E).”

No it hasn't been discovered in the real world and no I haven't quantified it. But the idea is so simple that when you refuse to acknowledge that I have even presented an idea, and are troubled by my use of the word energy, I wonder what you agenda is?

I gave a perfectly valid definition and example of how I used the word in my idea. Why not address the idea as an IDEA and discuss it. What are the implications of it if it is true? Has it been considered and thought about and rejected? Is it ignored because it hasn't been discovered? Is anyone you know looking for it? Where do they stand in the search?

This is how you should address my ideas to support or refute or suggest or bring in ideas, not pretend there is some high ground that I have not attained and therefore only the word usage is worthy of comment.

I think you are misunderstanding nereid's efforts here. As *I* read it, nereid is trying to help you express your idea clearly in the context of the meanings of words as we use them in this forum. nereid is *not* rejecting your idea as worthless, but rather offering terms that might be closer to what you mean to express from the point of view of your readers. I know from elsewhere that nereid admires your efforts to try and put this together.

That being said, it is still not entirely clear *to me* what you are trying to say. Paraphrasing, short questions, and suggestions for different terms are about as gentle a path toward getting to your intentions as I know of.

So hang in there, keep plugging away, but please allow us to help you find terminology that makes it clear to mainstream readers.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

What have you read so far about the BBT?

Here is a page which I wrote myself:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
Perhaps that helps a bit.

First, if the universe is infinitely large, there never was a single point. Second, at very high densities, quantum gravity effects should become important, which makes it likely that there never was a single point even if the universe is spatially finite.

I think that there was a very hot and dense state 13.7 billion years ago, but we can't say what was previously (i. e. I say we can use the BBT to extrapolate back to a time of, say, 10^-30 s) . Maybe there was a beginning, maybe there was something previously. Personally, I like Steinhardt's "cyclic universe" idea - which is unfortunately not testable so far (but could be in some years).

So, what am I? A red or a blue shirt? Maybe purple?

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

And I point out that there is no reason to take an ATM idea seriously which presents no supporting evidence and disagrees with lots of known physics. If you don't like that remark, then don't post. Its a perfectly valid argument, so you shouldn't act as if that there something like a personal attack.

Then you consider entirely wrong. In science, it is very important to use words properly - for the simple reason that if you don't do that, nobody will understand what you mean! (as you see in this thread...)

Additionally, I don't consider myself to be a "blue shirt", as you define it - and neither a "red shirt". See another post - I am somewhere in between...


The difference between "ability to make a change" and "ability to do work", where "work" is a clearly defined physical concept is anything but trivial!!! As long as you don't understand that, a discussion about physics with you is quite pointless.


That's not the point. The point is that there are changes which do not involve work!


The problem is that I simply don't understand your basic concepts! What exactly is your "primordial energy"? As I pointed out, it is surely not an "energy" as one usually understands the word.

If I don't understand these basic concepts (because you don't clearly define them), how could I take your approach into consideration?

Pointing out that your basic concepts are not understandable (partly because you mis-use familiar terms) is a helpful correction. Why don't you see that?

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

For about the 5th time: The reason that I address word usage is that I simply don't understand what exactly you mean, and one of the main reasons why I don't understand what you mean is because you mis-use familiar terms of physics! Why can't you understand the simple argument that misusing words leads to problems with understanding what you actually mean?


I think I understand what you mean - but I'm not sure, because very probably I take a lot of the words above to mean something differently than you intended them to mean. BTW, I don't that you ever wrote the above in a post directed to me, and that I rejected it.


I didn't ever refuse to acknowledge that you have even presented an idea!
In fact, in several places I've already said that I could accept what you propose! (provisionally, of course)

And I wasn't troubled of your usage of the term "energy" in the quote above - I was troubled in an entirely different context of usage! (e. g. when you claimed that this energy does not gravitate)

Again, I don't remember you presenting this particular idea to me ever before - and therefore obviously also not me ever rejecting it (or do you talk about me rejecting your claim that energy is quantized in general?). We can discuss it, no problem. For the discussion, I assume that you meant that energy is quantized in general. If you meant something different, please clarify.

First, I don't see many immediate implications of this being true - it's worded quite vaguely, hence it's difficult to make any physical conclusions from it. One thing which comes to mind is that this idea seems to introduce a new constant of nature (the quantum of energy) - and physicists in general try to use as few constants of nature (free parameters) as possible. Additionally,
since energy is connected to many other quantities (kinetic energy: E = 0.5 m v^2; temperature: E = k T; photon energy: E = h f), this seems to imply that a lot of other quantities which were thought to be continuous previously also have to be quantized (m and/or v, T, f, ...).

If we include your further idea that from this energy, "quantum particles" are produced which build up matter, there are lots of implications. If you wish, we could discuss that further.

Second, I don't know if this has been considered and thought about previously. Quantization of energy has been known for over 100 years now - but only in special contexts. I don't know if anyone has ever proposed that energy is quantized in general.

Third, I think it is ignored because (1) there are neither observational nor theoretical reasons pointing to this, and (2) as noted above, this would require using a new constant of nature - for no good reason.

Fourth, I don't know of anyone looking for this explicitly. On the other hand, people are indeed looking for constituent particles of the known particles (and hence testing essentially the further parts of your idea, mentioned in my first point already). Again, we can continue to discuss that, if you like.



I didn't mean to speak from a high ground. I merely pointed out that your misuse of words is very confusing. Sorry if my wording was somehow abusing to you.

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

I do. But I believe that the frequency of my misusing words is lower than the frequency one would expect given the frequency that such misuse is pointed out.

If that is true, that makes some claims of misuse invalid.

The secondary problem is that we never get past the subject of misused words and into the meat (until now, I hope).

We don't get into the meat because additional accusation's of misuse always seems to follow any content that I offer.
See what I mean?
I presented it in a reply to Nereid and you quoted from that reply. My statement to Nereid was,

"In my ideas I use the term “energy” within the definition of science if that definition includes the high school phrase, “The ability to cause change”. In my post about the Quantum I wrote: “In the ISU, there is a tiny amount of energy that can be described as the smallest increment of energy that can have any meaningful impact on the universe. A meaningful impact is described as anything that can cause a change in matter, no matter how small the change. That amount of energy is called the elementary energy particle (EEP) and is the quanta of energy (E).”
Can you define "quantized in general". Better yet let me demonstrate how to handle questions about word usage by rephrasing that.

Do you define "quantized in general" to mean that this non-matter dependent energy that I am talking about can vacate the space that it occupies by becoming a quantum particle of matter which occupies a much tinier volume of space?
This one has immediate implications. Empty space contains this non-matter dependent energy and gives that space a characteristic called pressure.
First, all of the matter dependent forms of energy (including kinetic energy, light energy, gravitational energy, sound energy, elastic energy, chemical energy, electrical energy, nuclear energy and I’m sure there are others of which I would like to be reminded if you think of them) only exist if matter exists, while the non-matter energy occupies space even if there is no matter present.
Not in BBT maybe, but if you are a red shirt like me, BBT is the problem not the answer.
In my idea (not a theory yet) called the ISU idea, space occupied by energy with pressure expands into lower pressure space. As it does, if you had two pumpkins floating in it that were far enough apart as to make the gravitational attraction less that the coefficient of expansion, those pumpkins would move away from each other as the energy in space expanded. Forgive the use of the words energy, pressure, expands, lower pressure, space, pumpkins, floating, apart, gravitational attraction, coefficient of expansion, etc. .
After spending some time on the page that you wrote and linked me to, I will forgive you for sounding like you were taking the high ground perspective.

In case you have any doubt, you are a blue shirt with an open mind.

I'll skip the discussion about "word misuse" and cut to the "meat". And I'll try to keep pointing out such misuse to a minimum in the future, o.k.?


No. What I meant here with "energy is quantized in general" is simply "not every energy is possible in nature, but only energies which are an integer multiple of one basic energy". This basic energy would be your EEP.

As a formula: E = n * EEP, with n being an integer number, has to hold for every energy E which occurs in nature.

Do you want to say that this has to hold? Or does this have to hold only for your "primordial energy", but not for energy in general? Or what do you mean? You seem to imply that this holds only for the "primordial energy" lower down, but I'm not sure I understood you correctly - please clarify.

That goes away from the argument I talked about: that energy is quantized in general. I was not yet addressing your claim that there exists a special form of "non-matter dependent" energy. Could we please concentrate on one question first before we move one?


Only partly right: light, gravitational and electrical energy can exist without matter (or do you include photons and gravitons when you say "matter"???).

But even if this were totally right: What was your point here? What has that to do with the question if all energy is quantized?

Whether observational evidence for the quantization of energy exists or not does not depend on accepting the validity of the BBT.


On what does the pressure act? On matter (gas clouds etc.)? On space itself? Or what?


I'll take that as a compliment.

Well, since I'm unsure about the question if the universe had a beginning or not, doesn't that make me a purple shirt, as I suggested?

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

Bjoern, I am going to try something with you. Delete this answer and ask the whole question again if this doesn’t make any sense to you:

Space is the place where things happen.

Space in and of itself is just an empty place.

Energy:

Energy has many forms.

Type 1 energy:

All but one form of energy is matter dependent (new note per Bjoern: all matter is n * EEP, and EEP is a quantum of energy, and the energy in any matter, divided by the quantum, is an integer).

That one form is the elementary energy packet (notice it is not a particle yet).

Elementary energy packets reside freely in space.

Energy residing freely in space is Type 1 energy (T1).

In Space (Description of T1 energy in space):

These packets are not particles.

Energy in space is Type 1 energy.

Space that contains only T1 energy is called T1 space.

The maximum energy in a packet is a quantum.

Packets can contain less than a quantum.

Quantum packets have natural power to expand and contract.

These packets jostle filling all space as they expand and contract.

These packets have no particular shape and fill all space leaving no voids.

There are no boundaries separating quantum packets.

As these packets pulse and jostle in empty space they overlap.

An overlap can contain less than a quantum of energy.

Each overlap is a tinier energy environment of its own.

Energy environments have a pressure of their own.

The pressure of an energy environment changes is it expands and contracts.

There are degrees of energy environments ("degrees" is not a temperature in this case).

Tiny individual overlaps are third degree energy environments (these are too small to become particles because they don't include a quantum).

A quantum of energy consisting of more than one overlap is a second degree environment (This is a combination of third degree environments and is not a discrete quantum but must be at least a quantum).

A quantum packet with no overlaps is a first degree energy environment.

First degree quantum energy environments can become particles.

To become a particle the pressure must be low enough to allow the packet to fully expand and contract without interference from other packets that are also expanding and contracting.

These particles contain a quantum of energy that pulses and so they expand and contract (this is where the energy actually resides, i.e. in the action of the pulse which is a tiny change in pressure of the particle as the volume changes throughout the pulse).

These energy particles can combine to form matter.

Matter is Type 2 energy (T2).

Space that contains both T1 energy and T2 energy (matter) is T2 space.
Yes, we can wait on the pressure, but not on the quantum part. The quantum comes from T1 space and is composed of a quantum of T1 energy. The particles of matter form from T1 energy. The quantum energy particles in T2 space make up the content of matter. Matter divided by EEP is an integer value.
First photons: yes.

Do you mind if we wait on the gravitons. You are not ready for my “cause of gravity” yet.
This has to do with the fact that quantized energy in the form of particles of matter exist in space that contains energy that is not quantized. I have been using the T1, T2 to designate the difference.
Actually I find that comforting.

I thought that spacetime had to start at zero coordinate, if that makes any sense. Spacetime is the heart of GR if I understand correctly. I thought that BBT was primarily GR and the Cosmological Principle. If those three statements are correct then BBT can’t apply to … oh never mind . We can get into that if time permits.
It acts on the difference in pressure between two environments. You might consider it like atmospheric pressure. High pressure means clear weather and as the barometer drops, pressure drops, and there is a change in the weather. Equate it to massive movements of air pressure where the high pressure environment emerges from a big burst, and it expands into the low pressure environment surrounding the burst.
You should. Your work is impressive. Have you recently retired ?
There is already a color for that, i.e. you are a yellow shirt if you are unsure. But you can be any color of shirt you want because I appreciate your help.

You didn't comment on my funny pumpkin example in my previous post, but that is OK because I think it will come up again if time permits.

Hello again! Finally, I have time to answer this...

This seems to imply that only the "Type 1 energy" is quantized (in the sense I explained), but other forms of energy in general aren't. Do I understand you right here? Below, you seem to say the opposite...

Further: what do you mean when you say that energy is (or is not) "matter-dependent"?

BTW: I did not say that all matter is n * EEP. I did say that all energy has a value of n *EEP. Please don't misquote me.


What about e. g. the energy in electromagnetic fields? That also "resides freely in space".


Hence "quantum" and "EEP" is not the same???

BTW: why do you use the word "quantum" here? What does this word mean to you?


Is "quantum packet" and "EEP" the same?


What does "energy enviroment of its own" mean?


What's the difference between "discrete quantum" and "quantum"?


Why is "interference" a problem for a "quantum packet" when it wants to become a particle?


You still have not told me, despite repeated questions, what "matter" actually means to you. Please define that term.


Do you mean "the energy contained in matter divided by EEP is an integer value"? Otherwise your statement makes no sense (to me).


You include photons when you say "matter"??? That really sounds like a strange definition of "matter" to me! I'd never have thought that anyone would call a photon "matter" - and I'd never heard that before. Again: could you please define what "matter" actually means to you?



Here you seem to say that T1 energy is not quantized, but T2 energy is. Now I am really confused...


Do you mean "at zero extension", or what?


Yes to both.


The pressure acts on the difference in pressure??? Sorry, I don't understand at all...



In the case of weather, the pressure acts on air. What's the equivalent of air in your analogy?


Not retired - I'm quite young yet! Only switched jobs. See my profile.

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

Clearly it didn’t make any sense to you. My ideas are just too far out for your orderly mind. No need to continue trying to understand; we are too far apart to ever form a common bond.
No, you don’t. We are on two different wavelengths I think. Sorry, it is my fault.

Quote:

Further: what do you mean when you say that energy is (or is not) "matter-dependent"?

This just shows how far apart we are in communication. Thanks for trying though. All energy is matter dependent except Type 1 energy.It is simple to me but then I’m not burdened with the real world, lol. Matter is made of energy. Energy that makes up matter is quantum. Each EEP of matter is a quantum. Any matter is divisible by the EEP and the number of EEPs in any amount of matter is a whole number, n * EEP is correct. I’m not sure why you can’t understand me so I can only conclude that I am not doing a good job of explaining. I’m ready to let you off the hook and won’t be surprised if you give up trying.It is matter dependent. It isn’t free; it is in a field that is dependent on matter that generates it?
An EEP is a quantum particle of matter.
Obviously you have little faith in my use of the word quantum. That simply means that you consider each of us to be talking about two different things. I can’t think of more than one meaning of quantum. We aren’t communicating. So you don’t grasp T1 space as being a seething and jostling continuum of energy that consists of packets of energy that expand and contract. The expansion and contraction is based on there being a quantum amount of energy that causes a packet to contract. When it expands after contracting it forms overlaps. Too complicated to explain I guess.
I've told you this, I've linked you to this, here it is again.

The Quantum:

In the ISU, there is a tiny amount of energy that can be described as the smallest increment of energy that can have any meaningful impact on the universe. A meaningful impact is described as anything that can cause a change in matter, no matter how small the change. That amount of energy is called the elementary energy particle (EEP) and is the quanta of energy (E).

Though the EEP has “particle” in its name it cannot be detected individually in space where it is a quantum packet of energy. But the reference to “particle” is valid because energy composes matter, and the tiniest increment of energy that can contribute to the composition of matter is the EEP.

A quantum packet can become an EEP if the pressure of the energy background is right .
I think I told you this already but maybe it was just in a link I gave you to my previous posts.

Energy environments

When ever and where ever energy exists it exists in an energy environment, and every energy environment has its own pressure.
A big bang is an energy environment that according to blue shirts started as a singularity; a point of infinite density and zero volume. That was an energy environment.
The big bang is expanding according to blue shirts and as it expands it is an energy environment, i.e. an ever changing energy environment.
Red shirts may see it differently. For example I am a big crunch/big burst type, i.e. a red shirt. The big burst when it emerges from a big crunch is an energy environment.
As the burst expands it is an energy environment at all points along the way.
My own idea envisions that these larger energy environments are composed of tiny quanta of energy, i.e. elementary energy packets or particles (EEPs). Each individual EEP is an energy environment of its own.
The EEP pulses and as it pulses it contracts in volume and increases in density, and then it expands in volume and decreases in density, and all throughout this contraction and expansion it is its own tiny variable energy environment.
My idea of how matter forms from the energy density of space requires a more detailed description of the EEP and what are called EEP overlap environments.
A quantum is a discrete packet of energy, but you know that, why ask?
I linked you to this I think, but maybe you didn't read it, though you said you were going start there.

The Overlap:

My view of the energy background is a seething and jostling energy environment, made up of tiny individual energy packets that are contracting, expanding and overlapping as they expand.

These individual EEPs in the energy density of space contract only once, and then they expand only once, but the larger environment is always full of contracting and expanding EEPs.


The expansion results in disbursal of that particular quantum of energy out into overlaps with adjoining EEPs that have expanded around it. Each overlap becomes a new energy environment.

During the packet expansion, each time an overlapping environment reaches the quantum EEP capacity it contracts.

An overlap starts as a tiny point where two or more expanding EEPs converge and since they have no boundaries they mix and merge. The merged volume of space is made up of portions of other expanding EEPs, and each overlap becomes an energy environment in and of itself. Each new overlap environment will grow in volume and in energy as the overlap proceeds.

Any given overlap may or may not reach a quantum of energy. The process of reaching quantum capacity can be interrupted if the surrounding overlaps reach quantum capacity too soon, i.e. if the energy density (pressure) is too high.

When an overlap reaches quantum capacity and begins to contract it is surrounded by other overlap segments that are also growing toward capacity. The frequency of the background determines when quantum packets will be able to fully express their contractions. If an overlap reaches quantum capacity and contracts, the extent of the contraction depends on the status of adjacent overlaps. If adjoining overlaps reach quantum capacity too soon that interferes with the energy density needed to allow full collapse.

To form matter, the overlap must have a quantum of energy and it must be allowed to collapse completely before its surrounding pressure disrupts the collapse.

I know how complicated this overlap concept is. If you really want to give the ISU a chance you need to re-read this overlap section until you can envision it. When you realize the pressure is the key to matter formation, and the pressure at which abundant matter formation occurs is a sort of a rhythm that occurs after there has been sufficient expansion of the burst environment, then you are seeing the possibilities of the energy density of space.
I answered it. I said all matter is composed of EEPs. So matter is anything composed of EEPs. Now listen carefully. Matter is the same thing to me as it is to you except that my matter is composed of EEPs. It is identical to your matter in every other respect.

You are wrong about asking repeatedly and me not answering btw.
You are not trying here. Your questions show a level of respect that can only mean we will never have a meeting of the minds. I explained this above.
This is just an exercise in futility. Matter is anything that is composed of EEPs, including photons. Photons may be different because you think of them a massless (maybe). And you don't think of them as matter like I do. They are emitted from electrons. Electrons are matter and so photons are emitted by matter, is that better?
And it such a simple concept. I gave you some info above (that came from posts that I linked you too previously).
If that makes sense. I wasn't trying act like I was able to understand GR. You shouldn't try to ask me questions about it. Look back to what my statement was responding.
This is a simple concept. Did you even try? See below.

Again you kid me, they are energy environments. See above.

I should just give up. You shouldn't waste your time. My frustration is hurting the moderators, confusing smart people, and is really just the simplest of bottom up thinking as far as I'm concerned. Energy emerges from the burst of a big crunch (instead of a big bang). It expands, matter forms, first as EEPs, and the EEPs form atoms. Photons are emitted from those atoms. That brings us together. The point of photon decoupling in BBT corresponds to the point that atoms form from EEPs and begin to emit photons. From there things are as BBT sees them, except that matter is composed of energy particles called EEPs instead of being condensed out of the premordial soup as it expands and cools.

You simply repeat the statement here instead of answering my question: What does "matter dependent" mean?

If I understand you correctly now, you say that the energy contained in matter is quantized (is equal to n * EEP). But apparently the type 1 energy isn't?


Oh, so there is an indirect dependence on matter, I see. (although I'd say that there could also be electromagnetic fields without matter generating them)


"little faith" is the wrong term. I'm simply not sure what you actually mean with the word "quantum".


Then please give that meaning.


Well, I think I got that concept. (with the exception of the question if the energies contained in these packets have to be multiples of the EEP or can have any values).


I do not get the concept how a "quantum amount of energy" can make such a packet contract.



Sorry if I forget some of the things you already told me. I am discussing with several ATM proponents, and keeping all theirs ideas in mind (additional to usual physics) can become a bit complicated. ;-)



That (and also none of the following) doesn't explain what "energy environment" actually means. In the following, you give some examples, but they don't make the concept clearer to me, sorry.


"singularity" and "point of infinite density and zero volume" is not the same.


Yes, I know that. And now please answer my question:
What's the difference between "discrete quantum" and "quantum"?

Sorry to bring this up again - but don't you think it is a bad idea to make up so many complicated concepts without having any evidence for them?

Thanks. But this is not very helpful... Please provide a least what of the known particles are composed of EEPs, and which aren't. Or are all?

That statement is wrong - "matter" means to me something different to you, since you include photons when you say "matter", whereas I don't.


Again: please provide a least which of the known particles are composed of EEPs and which aren't.


You may call me dumb, but even if this is a simple concept to you, I nevertheless don't understand what you mean! And what you wrote below didn't help, BTW.

Since I didn't understand what "energy enviroment" means, that isn't helpful...


It would help greatly if you defined your terms clearly...


These ideas are indeed not that far from the mainstream (e. g. Steinhardt's cyclic universe also has a Big Crunch, and matter forming from energy could also be said to be part of the mainstream model). But the terms you use to describe this all are quite confusing, sorry. So I have to ask here: what's the advantage of your ideas compared to the mainstream ideas?

And at least your idea of electrons forming when protons have absorbed enough energy is very clearly contradicted by everything we know about the basic behaviour of these particles (and others).

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

I went on to define it again for the third time later in the post. Are you still asking or did you just leave this question in your post even though I answered it later in the previous post?
Matter dependent energy is energy that can be used for work . I listed eight types of matter dependent energy as follow and I acknowledged that there are many more. I asked you if you would suggest some additional types and you didn’t answer. “… including kinetic energy, light energy, gravitational energy, sound energy, elastic energy, chemical energy, electrical energy, nuclear energy and I’m sure there are others of which I would like to be reminded if you think of them.
Yes. Quantum particles of matter come from T1 energy. The T1 energy is a seething and jostling energy environment. The quantum amounts of energy that come from T1 space are in quantum packets of energy in T1 space at the instant that they become EEPs. EEPs are the quantum particles that form from T1 space and before they form particles they are quantum packets in T1 space. T1 space contains packets that are smaller than a quantum and those packets are seething and jostling in T1 space right along with the packets are contain a quantum.
A quantum amount of energy in T1 space contracts as I mentioned above. Packets that are smaller than a quantum do not contract because it requires a quantum amount of energy to make them contract.
As I mention below in response to a question that you ask below, “This is speculation. I am basing it on the premise that there must be some source for the energy that is not dependent on matter. The contraction of a quantum packet of energy would be the source of that energy. I want there to be energy that is not matter dependent because it would be easy to envision all of the energy in “our” universe being nearly infinitely dense while I find it difficult to envision all of the matter in “our” universe to be infinitely dense.”

Maybe so, but it would mean my whole premise about energy that is not matter dependent would have be changed. I doubt if you can actually show that such a magnetic field exists independent of matter.



Maybe I am not using the terms discrete and quantum properly. What I want is a word in science that means the following in lay English: Each EEP that forms from T1 space contains exactly the same amount of energy.
Here is how I define it in my previous posts: “The Quantum:

In the ISU, there is a tiny amount of energy that can be described as the smallest increment of energy that can have any meaningful impact on the universe. A meaningful impact is described as anything that can cause a change in matter, no matter how small the change. That amount of energy is called the elementary energy particle (EEP) and is the quanta of energy (E).

Though the EEP has “particle” in its name it cannot be detected individually in space where it is a quantum packet of energy. But the reference to “particle” is valid because energy composes matter, and the tiniest increment of energy that can contribute to the composition of matter is the EEP.”
I call that “quantum” and hope you can tell me what word I should use instead of quantum.



I just did. I said, “Maybe I am not using the terms discrete and quantum properly. What I want is a word in science that means the following in lay English: Each EEP that forms from T1 space contains exactly the same amount of energy.”
Here is how I define it in my previous posts: “The Quantum:

In the ISU, there is a tiny amount of energy that can be described as the smallest increment of energy that can have any meaningful impact on the universe. A meaningful impact is described as anything that can cause a change in matter, no matter how small the change. That amount of energy is called the elementary energy particle (EEP) and is the quanta of energy (E).

Though the EEP has “particle” in its name it cannot be detected individually in space where it is a quantum packet of energy. But the reference to “particle” is valid because energy composes matter, and the tiniest increment of energy that can contribute to the composition of matter is the EEP.”
I call that “quantum” and hope you can tell me what word I should use instead of quantum.



In T1 space (where matter does not exist because it has not formed yet) energy is a seething and jostling energy environment. The quantum amounts of energy that come from T1 space are in quantum packets of energy in T1 space at the instant that they become EEPs. EEPs are the quantum particles that form from T1 space and before they form particles they are quantum packets in T1 space. T1 space contains packets that are smaller than a quantum and those packets are seething and jostling in T1 space right along with the packets containing a quantum.
A quantum amount of energy in T1 space contracts as I mentioned above. Packets that are smaller than a quantum do not contract because it requires a quantum amount of energy to make them contract.
As I mention below in response to a question that you ask below, “This is speculation. I am basing it on the premise that there must be some source for the energy that is not dependent on matter. The contraction of a quantum packet of energy would be the source of that energy. I want there to be energy that is not matter dependent because it would be easy to envision all of the energy in “our” universe being nearly infinitely dense while I find it difficult to envision all of the matter in “our” universe to be infinitely dense.”



This is speculation. I am basing it on the premise that there must be some source for the energy that is not dependent on matter. The contraction of a quantum packet of energy would be the source of that energy. I want there to be energy that is not matter dependent because it would be easy to envision energy being nearly infinitely dense while I find it difficult to envision matter to be infinitely dense.


I sympathize with you and can understand the predicament. You should see the new physics that I use to make a big crunch become a big burst .


An energy environment is characterized by energy and pressure. The boundary of the environment is marked by a change in pressure. Energy in contiguous space that has the same pressure across that contiguous space is an energy environment.
Are you saying that a point of infinite density and zero volume is not a singularity? Do you understand that things can be the same and still not represent all possible types of each thing? I know you will not understand the question so here is an example: Apples are not oranges but both are fruits. I also know that you will not get it, but I will attribute that your high level of learning vs. my level. No need to comment on this as it is off topic.


I don’t know. If there is a difference you could give me a clue and then maybe I would see the light. I can’t imagine that you would be making a big deal out of my usage if you didn’t have a good reason. You seem to want to imply something. Can you get yourself to come out and say it or are you satisfied to keep implying what ever it is over and over for some bazaar purpose?

Can you rephrase that? I did not know that ideas had to have evidence in order to be worked with. It would seem to defeat the purpose of an idea. Maybe in your learned world ideas are only supported by evidence? Do you want me to think you are in some perfectly defined universe where everything has been discovered, explained, proved and so no new ideas need ever be put forth?
Some things are complicated. If the ideas that lead to their discovery had been correct, the ideas would have had to have been complicated. What am I missing here?

OK. All particles that I am thinking of are protons, neutrons, electrons, high energy particles like cosmic rays, and the particles you get if you break any of those particles into smaller particles.
A photon is made of energy in discrete packets. The energy that makes up photons is composed of EEPs.

OK. All matter I am talking about is made of particles. The particles that I am thinking of are protons, neutrons, electrons, high energy particles like cosmic rays, and the particles you get if you break any of those particles into smaller particles.
A photon is made of energy in discrete packets. The energy that makes up photons is composed of EEPs.
Do think that photons are massless?
You asked for this above and I gave it to you. If you give me your list I will tell you which are composed of EEPs and which are not. But I will start with the following and if any other particles come to mind that you want to know if they are made of EEPs or not, just list those.
Here it is again. OK. All matter I am talking about is made of particles. The particles that I am thinking of are protons, neutrons, electrons, high energy particles like cosmic rays, and the particles you get if you break any of those particles into smaller particles.
A photon is made of energy in discrete packets. The energy that makes up photons is composed of EEPs.

I’m sorry. Pressure relates to the energy in an environment divided by the volume of the environment P = E / V. I explained “environment” for you again above.
Now there is an important characteristic of energy environments as follows. Two merging energy environments will equalize their pressure across the merged environment in such a way that for the merged environment the pressure (P) will be equal to the energy (E) in that merged environment, divided by the volume (V) of the merged environment.
Using this definition for pressure and the characteristic of merging environments, I am saying that they “act on” (to use your phrase) the difference in pressure.
Previously I said, “It acts on the difference in pressure between two environments. You might consider it like atmospheric pressure. High pressure means clear weather and as the barometer drops, pressure drops, and there is a change in the weather. Equate it to massive movements of air pressure where the high pressure environment emerges from a big burst, and it expands into the low pressure environment surrounding the burst.”

You replied, “In the case of weather, the pressure acts on air. What's the equivalent of air in your analogy?”.
The air in the weather example is energy in T1 space.
I thought the weather example I used would help but I see it confused the issue. Do you understand it now?

[quote=Bjoern;905443]
Is this helpful? An energy environment is characterized by energy and pressure. The boundary of the environment is marked by a change in pressure. Energy in contiguous space that has the same pressure across that contiguous space is an energy environment.


The existence of a greater universe that could provide the Pre-history necessary to allow a big crunch to form could more “clearly” account for the early moments of “our” universe and put the expansion in terms of merging energy environments.

I define the universe as “our” universe that exists within a greater universe. “Our” universe is what we call the “observable” universe, the “visible” universe, “our” universe, the “expanding” universe, i.e. the universe that we know to exist.

This may be true but that idea enables matter to form from T1 space as opposed to the concept of all matter that exists in “our” universe being initially cramped into an unimaginably small space.