The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle; definitely Against the Mainstream - Page 2

north · #31 (**permalink**) 14-August-2006, 11:55 PM

[quote=RussT;804773]Well, Bogie, please don't chuckle 'sadly', just chuckle, cause I'm going to let you in on a little known secret.

Everything that has been done in the last 100 years (pertaining to the universe as a whole) has been 'imaginative speculation' (I'm going to be admonished for this one!), which is the reason they can't figure out...

DE/DM (96% of the universe), How SMBH's are made, what comes first the SMBH or the galaxy, how galaxies are even formed (they don't merge to form), how very massive and fully developed galaxies (and at least 10 billion years old) formed in the very early Big Bang scenario, how "NEW" galaxies have formed in the very recent (within a billion years and less) past, etc.

Quote:RussT
Now, since baryonic matter does not influence/interact with that 'background' field, what is the only thing that can influence it???

Tell me and explain.

The making of a NEW massive black hole 'warps' the background gravitational field into the shape of a galaxy, and the baryonic matter (the Hydrogen and Helium and Lithium) that is created when the radiation cools enough to do so,

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

MUST FOLLOW the paths that were set into their motions when that space was 'warped'.

NO it does not follow. how is spaced warped? describe or explain the properties of space that allows it to be warped.

Bogie · #32 (**permalink**) 15-August-2006, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Also, Bogie, are you aware of the Fine Structure Constant a= ~1/137, and have you done any comparisons of your EEP to it? IE, size differnces, energy differences etc.?

No. I haven't figured out the size or energy quantities except that they are infinitesimal, and I haven't studied how fine structure research applies directly at that level yet.

Bogie · #33 (**permalink**) 15-August-2006, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by north

I'm not clear here yet. are you saying that the EEP's essence of perpetual motion is caused by either gravity, curved/closed space or warped space?

I knew when I wrote that sentence that it could be confusing. Drop the word "either" and think of "gravity, curved/closed space, and warped space as three ways of describing the same effect.

Quote:

is this not a contradiction;

on one hand you have a zero volume( which has, it seems a physical aspect to its self and yet at the same time could not exist. for in my mind to exist means it has volume) and on the other you have infinte density.

The pulsing particle never quit reaches the state of zero volume and infinite density. It is like squeezing a tiny sponge until it can't get any smaller, at which point the resistance to the squeeze over comes the force of the squeeze, and the contraction reverses to expansion.

Quote:

why [does it contract again]?

It contracts again and again and again over and over forever because of its extreme density that re-asserts itself after each bounce mentioned above.

Quote:

hmmm...

You have mentioned a concern about the concept of warped space. Would you be more specific. Are you for or against general relativity, or are you proposing some other explanation for the effect we call gravity?

Quote:

how does the particle "bounce off" a zero volume?

The thought I have is that any finite mass cannot ever be squeezed so much that it becomes infinitely dense. The formulas of an infinitely dense mass yield zero volume and I am taking the position that nothing with mass can have zero volume. So by contraction under its own immense density, a limit is reached where no more contraction can occur. This limit occurs before the mass becomes infinitely dense and before it reaches zero volume. The result of reaching this limit, just before the infinity, is a bounce, IMHO.

RussT · #34 (**permalink**) 15-August-2006, 11:34 AM

[quote=north;804807]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Well, Bogie, please don't chuckle 'sadly', just chuckle, cause I'm going to let you in on a little known secret.

Everything that has been done in the last 100 years (pertaining to the universe as a whole) has been 'imaginative speculation' (I'm going to be admonished for this one!), which is the reason they can't figure out...

DE/DM (96% of the universe), How SMBH's are made, what comes first the SMBH or the galaxy, how galaxies are even formed (they don't merge to form), how very massive and fully developed galaxies (and at least 10 billion years old) formed in the very early Big Bang scenario, how "NEW" galaxies have formed in the very recent (within a billion years and less) past, etc.

Quote:RussT
Now, since baryonic matter does not influence/interact with that 'background' field, what is the only thing that can influence it???

Tell me and explain.

The making of a NEW massive black hole 'warps' the background gravitational field into the shape of a galaxy, and the baryonic matter (the Hydrogen and Helium and Lithium) that is created when the radiation cools enough to do so,

NO it does not follow. how is spaced warped? describe or explain the properties of space that allows it to be warped.

Yes, it does follow, but it is going to be one of the hardest things to show that there has ever been in GR!!!

We normally think of GR 'warpage of space' as a baryonic star/planet causing a 'warp' that other baryonic matter (planets around the sun) are falling into.
The baryonic matter causes a gravity well that less massive objects must follow the path of.

But when a star is formed, it does not affect the space around it other than cauing the gravitational well.

Now, since 'space' is made up of the infitesimal EEP's (or whatever is finally determined to be), the smallest units, all of space is pure gravity, its own seperate gravitational field that does not interact with the baryonic matter, so when the massive black hole is being formed (in addition to causing and concentrating the 2 to 3 million sol masses of gravity into a very small area *ah, we now can see where all that mass/gravity is coming from), it is not only causing a 3 million sol mass worth of gravity well, it is also 'Torqueing', or 'spinning' that 'background' gravity field into the shape of a galaxy.

That is why you can see the HI in the Ghost Galaxy linked above already in the spiral shape that it is in. There are obsolutely no mergers going on to form this galaxy and low and behold the galactic core appears to be the first thing that has star formation happening and yet there is all that HI already sitting in its spiral shape for that galaxy to evolve into a LSB and then a HSB galaxy.

Now, why is it going to be so hard to show how this all works in GR?

Because we have absolutely no idea (YET), how that background gravitational field moves, how much strength the tensor calcs should have, how the 'Gravity of Space' is even causing the massive black hole to manefest itself, how much 'Torque' to actually apply, and a few more major problems that I probably haven't considered.

If someone were to actually figure this out on their first attempt, they should defintely get 2 Nobels. I believe it will take many GR experts, many years to figure this out fully!

BUT, just because we don't have the answers for this yet, DOES NOT mean that it is not happening!

Nereid · #35 (**permalink**) 16-August-2006, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bogie

[snip]

Conclusion: There is an as yet undiscovered Elemental Energy Wave/Particle (EEP) that solves problems of particle physics,

What would you say are the three top "problems of particle physics" that your idea solves?

Quote:

explains the sub-quantum environment,

Other than because it exists in your own (speculative) idea, what is it about the universe that requires a "sub-quantum environment"?

Quote:

offers an explanation of gravity,

I think I missed this part - how does your idea produce something that looks like Newtonian gravity (inverse square law force, G, infinite speed, etc) or GR (bending of light, frame dragging, gravitational radiation, propogates at c, etc), in the appropriate limits?

Quote:

[snip] explains the nature of the early moments of the big bang,

How early?

Quote:

[snip] and orchestrates the formation and destruction of quantum and atomic particles.

[snip]

What is a "quantum particle"?

What are some examples of "the formation and destruction of [...] atomic particles"?

Bogie · #36 (**permalink**) 16-August-2006, 06:41 PM

Nereid, thank you for your questions. I recognize that as a moderator you have some responsibility to offer some perspective as a bridge between the mainstream and “against the mainstream”. I have identified my posts as speculation, and have offered them here in order to start and participate in a message board discussion about ideas that are thought to be so far out that credentialed scientists would not have any interest in participating, accept maybe to point out the uselessness and futility of such discussions.

To elaborate on my ideas is one thing. To tie them back to real science is not possible. That is the point of calling them “against the mainstream” speculations, am I right?

I’ll answer your questions from the perspective of discussing speculative, un-provable, non-science. Don’t expect my answers to make sense in the world of reality. If you have a preconceived position that they need to be refuted and dispelled, don’t bother; no one with any sense will be deceived or mislead by my imaginative speculation, I’m sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

What would you say are the three top "problems of particle physics" that your idea solves?

In all due respect, the OP spelled out my view as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bogie

This is a work-in-progress and I could use some constructive input form those of you who have been particle curious for long enough to have proposed characteristics of a basic particle and a unifying force.

Background: Particle physicists are at work back engineering the structure of matter. From their work they theorize the existence of certain particles and reactions, and as they push back the veil, they either confirm or deny the predictions.

Observation: Back engineering of particles and theoretical physics is likely to lead to the eventual discovery of a unifying force and an elemental particle from which everything else is constructed. I will refer to this future discovery as the Elemental Energy Wave/Particle (EEw/P or EEP for short).

Part of the reason that there is disagreement about the nature of black holes (or are they gravastars) is because we don’t yet fully understand particles and forces. My theory of how ultimate black holes solve the problem of increasing entropy in the greater universe predicts an elemental energy wave/particle (EEP).

Such a wave/particle will have to be simple and have characteristics that allow it to build the quantum particles and to carry out physics as we know it today. Here is a proposal for such a particle.

I know that doesn’t exactly address the top three specific problems of particle physics, but I explains where I was coming from on my thread.

Quote:

Other than because it exists in your own (speculative) idea, what is it about the universe that requires a "sub-quantum environment"?

I have perceived from my reading of various websites and forum threads that quantum mechanics and general relativity are not unified. There is a search for a unifying particle, and I have tried to imagine what such a particle would be like.

One obvious and understandable posture in science is that those who are best informed about research are not interested in lay ideas because if there was a good idea, some educated and credentialed scientist would think of it, and it would be a waste of time to weed through all the hair-brained ideas from fringe characters.

Quote:

I think I missed this part - how does your idea produce something that looks like Newtonian gravity (inverse square law force, G, infinite speed, etc) or GR (bending of light, frame dragging, gravitational radiation, propogates at c, etc), in the appropriate limits?

If you understand the EEP as I have described it, you know that I speculate that it has infinitesimal mass and is extremely dense. I describe it as a particle, but it really pulses as it moves at the speed of light, a wave/particle. The pulsing is a characterization of its perpetual energy that is indestructible. It has always existed, has always been in motion, and can interact with like “particles” but never loses its individual identity. Combinations of EEPs resulting from these interactions are the basis of the “particle like” structures that are the building blocks of nucleosynthesis. Gravity (relativistic warping of space) exists below the framework of Newtonian physics, and is expressed by the EEPs that are the building blocks that make up Newtonian level particles. Protons for example produce gravity as a result of the particular combinations of EEP structure within them.

Quote:

How early?

REAL early. In fact, I speculate that the big bang was preceded by a big crunch. The big bang resulted from a big crunch. The characteristic of “ultimate” black holes that become big bangs is dependant on the nature of EEPs. Inside the ultimate black hole, pressure becomes near infinite, and locks the EEPs so tightly at the very core of the UBH that they can’t pulse. There is great energy being repressed by the locking. There is a unique environment within the black whole where highly excited EEPs "negate" the matter that is accumulated and EEPs are released from the matter that is captured by the black hole. As EEPs are released from the accumulated matter, the active EEPs at the edge of the core come under increasing pressure and eventually join the locked core. This process goes on and on until the locked core has expanded in size to a point that the compression of the black hole's own gravity can no longer contain the repressed energy of the locked EEPs, and a big bang occurs.

Quote:

What is a "quantum particle"?

I concede that the definition you are asking me to give is an example of the disconnect between mainstream and “against the mainstream” threads. If it is a serious question, google it.

Quote:

What are some examples of "the formation and destruction of [...] atomic particles"?

My speculation, as mentioned above, is that atomic particles are composed of EEPs (wave/particles that are released from ultimate black holes by big bangs) in various combinations that serve as building blocks of atomic particles. Atomic particles are drawn into ultimate black holes where they are destroyed right down to the EEPs that they are composed of.

This is a never ending process in a greater universe that has always existed, is infinite, is filled infinitely with matter and energy, and where big crunches and big bangs occur here and there, now and then, fueled by the very nature of the unifying elemental energy wave/particles that premeate space.

I call it the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU).

Nereid · #37 (**permalink**) 16-August-2006, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bogie

Nereid, thank you for your questions. I recognize that as a moderator you have some responsibility to offer some perspective as a bridge between the mainstream and “against the mainstream”. I have identified my posts as speculation, and have offered them here in order to start and participate in a message board discussion about ideas that are thought to be so far out that credentialed scientists would not have any interest in participating, accept maybe to point out the uselessness and futility of such discussions.

To elaborate on my ideas is one thing. To tie them back to real science is not possible. That is the point of calling them “against the mainstream” speculations, am I right?

I’ll answer your questions from the perspective of discussing speculative, un-provable, non-science. Don’t expect my answers to make sense in the world of reality. If you have a preconceived position that they need to be refuted and dispelled, don’t bother; no one with any sense will be deceived or mislead by my imaginative speculation, I’m sure.

In all due respect, the OP spelled out my view as follows:

I know that doesn’t exactly address the top three specific problems of particle physics, but I explains where I was coming from on my thread.

I have perceived from my reading of various websites and forum threads that quantum mechanics and general relativity are not unified. There is a search for a unifying particle, and I have tried to imagine what such a particle would be like.

One obvious and understandable posture in science is that those who are best informed about research are not interested in lay ideas because if there was a good idea, some educated and credentialed scientist would think of it, and it would be a waste of time to weed through all the hair-brained ideas from fringe characters.

If you understand the EEP as I have described it, you know that I speculate that it has infinitesimal mass and is extremely dense. I describe it as a particle, but it really pulses as it moves at the speed of light, a wave/particle. The pulsing is a characterization of its perpetual energy that is indestructible. It has always existed, has always been in motion, and can interact with like “particles” but never loses its individual identity. Combinations of EEPs resulting from these interactions are the basis of the “particle like” structures that are the building blocks of nucleosynthesis. Gravity (relativistic warping of space) exists below the framework of Newtonian physics, and is expressed by the EEPs that are the building blocks that make up Newtonian level particles. Protons for example produce gravity as a result of the particular combinations of EEP structure within them.

REAL early. In fact, I speculate that the big bang was preceded by a big crunch. The big bang resulted from a big crunch. The characteristic of “ultimate” black holes that become big bangs is dependant on the nature of EEPs. Inside the ultimate black hole, pressure becomes near infinite, and locks the EEPs so tightly at the very core of the UBH that they can’t pulse. There is great energy being repressed by the locking. There is a unique environment within the black whole where highly excited EEPs "negate" the matter that is accumulated and EEPs are released from the matter that is captured by the black hole. As EEPs are released from the accumulated matter, the active EEPs at the edge of the core come under increasing pressure and eventually join the locked core. This process goes on and on until the locked core has expanded in size to a point that the compression of the black hole's own gravity can no longer contain the repressed energy of the locked EEPs, and a big bang occurs.

I concede that the definition you are asking me to give is an example of the disconnect between mainstream and “against the mainstream” threads. If it is a serious question, google it.

My speculation, as mentioned above, is that atomic particles are composed of EEPs (wave/particles that are released from ultimate black holes by big bangs) in various combinations that serve as building blocks of atomic particles. Atomic particles are drawn into ultimate black holes where they are destroyed right down to the EEPs that they are composed of.

This is a never ending process in a greater universe that has always existed, is infinite, is filled infinitely with matter and energy, and where big crunches and big bangs occur here and there, now and then, fueled by the very nature of the unifying elemental energy wave/particles that premeate space.

I call it the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU).

In post #2, in this thread, you wrote:

Quote:

I know this is speculation about things that can’t be tested or proven yet. I’m just wondering if there are any comments or if there is anything about known physics that says no such wave particle is possible below the quantum particle level. Don’t hold back; rip it apart with good science. No personal attacks please

Yet it seems that:

a) (most? all??) the terms in your speculation are not defined (or, being generous, ill-defined)

b) there is little, if anything, to link any part of your speculation to any part of modern physics (including astrophysics and cosmology)

c) specifically, there is no quantification; there are no units, no math, no equations, no estimates, ... not even any handle which anyone might be able to use to even begin with any such

d) and so on.

If my summary is reasonably accurate, then in what way could any BAUT member "rip it [your idea] apart with good science"?

Oh, and regarding:

Quote:

I have identified my posts as speculation, and have offered them here in order to start and participate in a message board discussion about ideas that are thought to be so far out that credentialed scientists would not have any interest in participating, accept [I think you meant to write "except"] maybe to point out the uselessness and futility of such discussions.

perhaps the BAUT Rules For Posting To This Board are insufficiently clear, especially that relating to this section:

Quote:

13. Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

Or perhaps you'd rather this ATM section's rules were modified, to explicitly state that speculations such as you have stated yours to be should attract "some constructive input"? If so, then please contribute to this thread.

Bogie · #38 (**permalink**) 16-August-2006, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

In post #2, in this thread, you wrote:Yet it seems that:

a) (most? all??) the terms in your speculation are not defined (or, being generous, ill-defined)

b) there is little, if anything, to link any part of your speculation to any part of modern physics (including astrophysics and cosmology)

c) specifically, there is no quantification; there are no units, no math, no equations, no estimates, ... not even any handle which anyone might be able to use to even begin with any such

d) and so on.

If my summary is reasonably accurate, then in what way could any BAUT member "rip it [your idea] apart with good science"?

Oh, and regarding

erhaps the BAUT Rules For Posting To This Board are insufficiently clear, especially that relating to this section:Or perhaps you'd rather this ATM section's rules were modified, to explicitly state that speculations such as you have stated yours to be should attract "some constructive input"? If so, then please contribute to this thread.

Ok, I am sorry for any inappropriate affect my posts have caused.

RussT · #39 (**permalink**) 17-August-2006, 12:28 AM

Bogie, keep going because you have some very intuitive and 'possibly' valid and useful ideas!

Graviton's, Higgs boson/field, Strings, and all the rest I noted above, are 'all' speculative, and when this all shakes out, the one that describes the 'base unit' the best will win.

Hint; There are no 'ultimate' black holes or big crunches. Just deal with what we do know...that massive black holes reside in the center of galaxies.

Bogie · #40 (**permalink**) 17-August-2006, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Bogie, keep going because you have some very intuitive and 'possibly' valid and useful ideas!

Graviton's, Higgs boson/field, Strings, and all the rest I noted above, are 'all' speculative, and when this all shakes out, the one that describes the 'base unit' the best will win.

Hint; There are no 'ultimate' black holes or big crunches. Just deal with what we do know...that massive black holes reside in the center of galaxies.

Thanks, RussT. One man's genius is another man's dope, lol.
I posted here for fun and relaxation, and to get some discussion of ideas.

I'll take your advice and tone down my speculation in the future. Forget all that imaginative speculation about the EEP that doesn't comply with the rules that I have had pointed out to me by the BAUT people. I know that they must mean well, and are trying to protect the integrity of the boards from threats like me.

czeslaw · #41 (**permalink**) 17-August-2006, 02:56 PM

The wave/particles EEPs are very interesting.
Our space is like a perfect membrane. RussT many times called it.
The energy deform its surface so the distance in stright line become shorter. If the wave is in resonance frequency to the structure of this membrane (space-time) it may stay as a standing wave (seiche) a rest mass particle. The deformations above a medium are attracted by the deformations under a medium. That way everything is attracted because all waves consists of the above and under medium deformations.

It is possible if space-time is something substantives (EEPs) and an energy deform it (wave/particle).

The energy has its potential (gravitational deflection) component and its kinetic (movement) component. The gravitational deflection is attractive and kinetic is repulsive. It is not possible to keep a small Black Hole because much stronger kinetic repulsive energy.

north · #42 (**permalink**) 18-August-2006, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by north

Originally Posted by north
I'm not clear here yet. are you saying that the EEP's essence of perpetual motion is caused by either gravity, curved/closed space or warped space?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bogie

I knew when I wrote that sentence that it could be confusing. Drop the word "either" and think of "gravity, curved/closed space, and warped space as three ways of describing the same effect.

then I disagree.

I think that "space and its so called Warpage" is just too gosh darn convenient. because no one and I do mean no one has described the physical properties of which Allows space to be warped.

therefore can do what we want with space.

which I object to.

north · #43 (**permalink**) 18-August-2006, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by north

is this not a contradiction;

on one hand you have a zero volume( which has, it seems a physical aspect to its self and yet at the same time could not exist. for in my mind to exist means it has volume) and on the other you have infinte density.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bogie

The pulsing particle never quit reaches the state of zero volume and infinite density. It is like squeezing a tiny sponge until it can't get any smaller, at which point the resistance to the squeeze over comes the force of the squeeze, and the contraction reverses to expansion. It contracts again and again and again over and over forever because of its extreme density that re-asserts itself after each bounce mentioned above.

see thats my problem here.

you have a particle with infnite density BUT with NO infinite space.

let me explain.

each and every particle has a minimum of space which Allows such and such particle to exist. so that as the density of the particle increases so does the space.

north · #44 (**permalink**) 18-August-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bogie

You have mentioned a concern about the concept of warped space. Would you be more specific. Are you for or against general relativity, or are you proposing some other explanation for the effect we call gravity?

against at the moment.

centripital force is what I call gravity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by north

how does the particle "bounce off" a zero volume?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bogie

The thought I have is that any finite mass cannot ever be squeezed so much that it becomes infinitely dense. The formulas of an infinitely dense mass yield zero volume and I am taking the position that nothing with mass can have zero volume.

agreed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bogie

So by contraction under its own immense density, a limit is reached where no more contraction can occur. This limit occurs before the mass becomes infinitely dense and before it reaches zero volume.
The result of reaching this limit, just before the infinity, is a bounce, IMHO.

I would say long before the mass becomes infinitely dense.

actually as the density increases so does the space increase and the mass within this space expands at the sametime.

Bogie · #45 (**permalink**) 18-August-2006, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by north

then I disagree.

I think that "space and its so called Warpage" is just too gosh darn convenient. because no one and I do mean no one has described the physical properties of which Allows space to be warped.

therefore can do what we want with space.

which I object to.

If I understand correctly you are talking about gravity and the fact that science can't explain exactly what causes it? You therefore take exception to characterizing it as warped space associated with the mass of objects?

You may agree that if science were able to get to the bottom of how gravity works then we could apply that knowledge to the unfolding of other science