You are welcome, but based on your response, I don't quite think you got the point.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Great.

So here, from the post itself, are several examples of the incompatibility between your idea and GR (and/or QM):

"The space-time accelerated into the surrounding environment" - there is no "surrounding environment", and cannot be, in GR. Ergo, your idea must incorporate physics which extends, or replaces, GR.

"I described space as a continuum of energy in an earlier post." - in GR, the shape of space (to summarise crudely) is determined by the mass-energy of space. In QM, space teems with virtual particles (and more), by virtue of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. There may be a way to show consistency between your idea and GR and QM, but so far none has been presented*

"EEPs, the elementary building block of matter as we know it" - these EEPs have mass-energy, and as "the elementary building block of matter" will be a component of the universe; yet "the EEP [...] travels at the speed of light at all times". There is no EEP term in any GR-based cosmological model I know of, nor any EEP signature in the CMB. There may be a way to show consistency between your 'matter is comprised of building blocks that have zero (rest) mass' idea and QM, but so far none has been presented*

"The cosmic microwave background is thermal radiation for the low temperature protons (mostly) in the far reaching space beyond the lit up material universe" - same GR problem as "surrounding environment"; there's also the contradiction between having a Bang which gave rise to the galaxies etc that we see today (including us), with the primordial abundances the same as the concordance cosmology model, and a CMB that is due to something completely different.
Perhaps a new question: in the Bogie idea, how did the light elements get created, in the last Bang, without there being a surface of last scattering?

(there are many more contradictions and inconsistencies; that'll do for now).A context might help here (my bold).

Bogie: Do you have any thoughts form my perspective?
Nereid: Yep - FWIW, my thoughts are that this is word salad speculation unconstrained by anything quantitative, anything testable, and (as I have pointed out several times) riddled with inconsistencies at many levels.

You asked for my thoughts, and I gave them to you.You didn't rub me any way ... you asked for my thoughts (and, earlier, you asked for my opinions); I gave them to you.Here is what it says in the BAUT Rules:The ATM section of BAUT is not, repeat, not a place for "constructive assistance", nor a place to "ask[] for help from people who are good enough brainstormers to know that there are no bad ideas".

Finally, clearly identifying and highlighting inconsistencies is, IMHO, the most constructive way to critique a new idea - perhaps the inconsistencies can be fixed, perhaps not; but no matter how much effort is put into developing the idea, it won't have legs unless the inconsistencies are addressed.If you are unhappy with any actions that I, or any other moderator, has taken, then please PM me (or another moderator, or an administrator).

May I repeat, again, there is no 'moderator agitation' intended or stated (if you perceive there to be any, then please point it out, and I will address it directly, and apologise should that be appropriate). However, you did ask - more than once - for my thoughts and opinions (which I don't normally give), and I gave them.

*If it has, then please point to the post which demonstrates consistency. For avoidance of doubt, I expect such a post will contain equations, maths, and stuff.

If this is an obvious departure from GR like you say, then I have no argument. To ask for the physics that extends GR to include a greater universe that has always existed is asking a lot.

Tell me the physics that supports the singularity of the BB. Where did the infinitely dense, zero volume “universe” come from and I will tell you the physics of the Bogie Idea that claims that the big bang came from a big crunch.

In fact the physics for a big crunch is part and parcel of the standard cosmology if one of the outcomes of the GR universe is a big crunch when the matter density is high enough to cause the universe to collapse. Such a collapse will result in a big crunch, and a big crunch will result in a Big Bang in the Bogie Idea.

That big bang is caused by the EEPs that I predict. EEPs are the energy quanta of the universe that harness the E=mc^2 relationship between energy and matter. They are indestructible and have always existed. When EEPs come under the heat and compression of the big crunch that I predict is common in the greater universe, they become so compressed that they can no longer pulse. The repressed pulse builds potential energy until the potential energy exceeds the force of compression, and a big bang occurs.

The same physics that causes the BB in GR (if in fact you insist the BB event is part of GR) is the physics that caused the big crunch to become a big bang.

The difference is with the Bogie Idea, the standard cosmology is spared the stigma of having the entire universe as we know it come for nothing, nada, nowhere.

I mentioned one possible shape in my previous answer, i.e. a closed universe that will collapse. The Bogie Idea predicts a "flat" universe on a grand scale and maintains that the universe has to be flat on a very large scale if it is infinite in energy content (as it is in the Bogie Idea). Localized areas can crunch and bang, but on a large scale, the crunch/bangs that occur here and there, now and then serve to defeat entropy, and to maintain the energy density balance of the greater universe.

The Bogie Idea describes the energy field (yikes, the infinite regression in a previous post was the best way to describe it, but bogie is not proud of having to resort to infinite regression, read it and you will get the idea of the energy continuum made up of EEPs). Can you describe energy field math in QM or GR that couldn’t work with the Bogie Idea? Is there workable math that explains how virtual particles come from the energy field?

There is obviously math related the characteristics of particles discussed in quantum mechanics and to the relative movements and physical relationships of mass in GR. All of that math should work with the Bogie Idea if it works with observable particles in QM because they come from the same energy field, and if it works with the movement of mass in GR.

There may be a congruency between the theory of virtual particles and the observational aspects of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Virtual particles pop right out of the energy field and presumably become noticeable and have an impact on the material world. I see no reason that the energy field that they pop out of couldn’t be the energy field that I predict is composed of a continuum of EEPs. The big difference is during the Era after inflation when particles and antiparticles were formed and for some unknown reason some don't annihilate each other. In the Bogie Idea, the particles get an assist from the surrounding greater universe in the form of a pervasive particle horizon that has cooled and assists in the Era two particle formation. All of the matter antimatter pairs annihilate each other relieving the standard model from having to say why all the matter antimatter didn’t annihilate itself. The exact physics of this is unknown in GR and in the Bogie Idea.

I didn’t say it has zero rest mass, I said it may have zero rest mass because of the debate about the mass of a photon. There is some thought that if a photon has rest mass it would be on the order of 7x10-17 eV. If that is the case, then it is possible that the rest mass of an EEP would be positive but I’m not putting a value on it. This might be at the heart of how Era two particles form but I would only be guessing if I tried to describe it. If interactions of EEPs cause them to merge together in a common “environment” they may move slower than the speed of light decoupling the mass from the light as described at the “surface of last scattering” (same link), but don’t quote me on that because no one knows for sure.

Maybe E=mc^2 becomes E’=(m-d)((c-d)^2) where d is the decoupled mass. A decoupled mass = d= E’=m’c^2 (just guessing). First tell me the physics and math of quarks forming from the electron-nuclei plasma that is described in the period following inflation and I can work on the math of the EEPs forming invariant mass.

You say there is no EEP term in any GR-based cosmological model you know of, but I described the EEPs as the energy field, and there is an energy field in those cosmologies that you have heard of isn’t there? In GE, energy fluctuations were supposed to have occurred in the energy field in first instant after the big bang. These energy fluctuations were the seeds of the formation of the Era two and Era three stages of quark and nuclei formation (same link), followed by the light elements that are so instrumental in the neucleosynthesis of the heavier elements.


This is not true. There is no conflict that I can see if you consider the exponential inflation to be caused by vacuum energy or negative pressure as Guth describes it. "Cosmic inflation is the idea, first proposed by Alan Guth in 1981, that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion (the inflationary epoch) that was driven by a negative pressure vacuum energy density", (the cause of the inflationary epoch).

Either Guth’s view solves the mystery of inflation or the mystery has to still exist in your thinking (which is it?). To me the mystery is solved by vacuum energy combined with the big bang itself. Vacuum energy existed at the instant of the big bang. The Bogie Idea predicts that the vacuum energy is extremely low density space (low in EEP content and therefore high in vacuum energy content) relative to the extremely high density space (high in EEP content and therefore high in matter-energy content) of the nearly infinite, nearly zero dense universe in the instant after the BB. Based on that prediction, the universe should expand exponentially in the first instant after the big bang as the hot dense known universe bursts out of the infinitely dense nothing and is pulled exponentially into the arena of vacuum energy left behind by the big crunch.




The “surface of last scattering” is the third Era (linked above) in a theory of the possible way that the light elements formed. Era one, which is inflation, took place in the first instant and consisted of an exponential expansion of space-time where the size of the universe went from near infinite density and near zero volume to a size about ~10^30 larger within the first second after the BB. My idea accommodates this inflationary epoch caused by the big bang and only the extent of inflation my differ from the ~10^30 since there is no need for such expansion if you start from a big crunch in a greater universe. Era Two is the period when matter becomes stable and allows the formation of Quarks to Nuclei, and Era three the surface of last scattering is when the separation of light from matter occurred, freeing the photons. I don’t know why you think that the Bogie Idea does not have a surface of last scattering.

I don’t object to the sequence of events that lead to the surface of last scattering except for the imbalance between matter antimatter which isn’t necessary in the Bogie Idea.

I think you have confused my discussion of an existing greater universe from which the Big Bang was spawned by a big crunch. In the Bogie Idea, it was this big crunch that became the big bang. The existence of a greater universe (that has always existed) relieves the standard cosmology from the stigma of something coming from nothing.

That may be so ... but it is what you have claimed, is it not?I'm sure you've heard the term 'strawman' - this is one.

If all you have is QM and GR, then you cannot say anything about the Planck regime, other than that the mutual inconsistency between QM and GR becomes intolerable.

Ergo, all the stuff you read, in popsci accounts, about infinitely dense, zero volume, singularities, etc, etc, etc is an exaggeration (or misrepresentation).

If you claim that the Bogie idea can provide a consistent description of the Planck regime, then that idea must go beyond QM and/or GR ... and it is reasonable to ask for the (mathematical) details of how the Bogie idea reduces to QM and GR in the appropriate limits.Only in popsci accounts, or cosmologies which incorporate physics beyond QM+GR (such as string theory)*You've said this, several times.

However, all the key terms you use - "energy", "quanta", "matter", "heat", "compression", "potential energy", "the E=mc^2 relationship" - are (apparently) the same as used in "QM+GR" physics. Further, none of these key terms are defined (in the Bogie idea) in a way that clearly distinguishes them from their definitions in "QM+GR" physics. Yet the deep incompatibility between QM and GR manifests itself in all these terms unless they have a different definition (than found in standard texts on QM or GR).

Which leads to a new question: please define each of these key terms, preferably with math, and show how, in the Bogie idea, they differ from each of the "QM" and "GR" definitions. In particular, please show, using the appropriate math, that the deep inconsistencies between QM and GR are resolved, with the "Bogie" definitions of energy, matter, etc.OK, that's your claim - please show, in GR, that a big crunch can become a big bang.It seems, from this answer, that you are using a popularised version of GR, to describe shape - are you?

Please show, using GR, that "on a large scale, crunch/bangs [can] occur here and there".Except that, as has been known for decades, in the Planck regime, the two theories are incompatible.Back to a "surrounding greater universe" which couples with "the energy field" via an interaction that, on the one hand, obeys the usual QM (or, if you prefer, is describable in quantum field theory), but, on the other hand is oblivious to GR ... You might like to read up on baryosynthesis, and on CP symmetry breaking ... there are, I think you'll find, very good models which describe how the observable universe came to be dominated by matter. You will also see, reading this literature, that it is "unknown in GR" for a good reason.

(to be continued)

*describing a Big Crunch can be done, using QM+GR, until the Planck regime (again).

Were EEPs involved in the formation of light nuclides (in the Bogie idea)?

At the time of formation of the present, observable, universe, were matter and radiation (photons) in equilibrium (in the Bogie idea)?

From the time the light elements were formed, in the history of the universe, in the Bogie idea, could the universe be described by GR (in terms of the evolution of the density of mass-energy, and respective roles of radiation and matter (as these terms are defined in GR))?

Yes, I know what a ‘straw man’ is. That is not one. You took a sarcastic line from a multi-line answer and jumped on the straw man band wagon. The sarcastic line was part of an answer to a question where you asked about the physics of how the Bogie Idea extended GR. Here is your question: “Originally Posted by Nereid, "The space-time accelerated into the surrounding environment" - there is no "surrounding environment", and cannot be, in GR. Ergo, your idea must incorporate physics which extends, or replaces, GR.”

The sarcastic comment that you refer to as a straw man was appropriate to the answer.

I started out my answer thus: “If this is an obvious departure from GR like you say, then I have no argument. To ask for the physics that extends GR to include a greater universe that has always existed is asking a lot.”

“Tell me the physics that supports the singularity of the BB. Where did the infinitely dense, zero volume “universe” come from and I will tell you the physics of the Bogie Idea that claims that the big bang came from a big crunch.”

The obvious point is that the physics that caused the big bang has never been explained by GR. To extend that physics would require there to be physics to extend; hence my request for the physics that supports the singularity of the BB.

So we do not have a straw man.

In addition, the leap to claim a straw man was in place of providing the physics of an event that isn’t even part of GR, and for which there is no know physics. In my view this tactic of crying “straw man” is inappropriate in this case, and that claim tells me that you are not thinking, you are attacking without thinking.

In addition to the sarcasm of the request for the physics of the big bang event, I went on to point out that a closed universe and the resulting big crunch, the outcome of the BB universe if the matter density is too great, is one of the possible “shapes” of space. You seem to be saying that the closed universe collapsing to a big crunch is “pop science”.

Wouldn’t a closed universe collapse to a big crunch according to the theory of a cosmological constant? If it does, why are you calling it “popsci’?
This really says it all. You have resorted to the dreaded “terminology” accusation.

No need to play that game. It seems like a tactic of last resort. Why don’t you just drop the ax, find me unresponsive, and close the thread? “Bogie doesn’t properly understand the words "energy", "quanta", "matter", "heat", "compression", "potential energy", "the E=mc^2 relationship” so lets send him and his idea to the dead thread heap."
Say what you will as you resolve this thread due to my failure to answer your request for the definitions of terms like heat, energy, compression, etc.

Maybe not, but if there are no more questions, then let me write up the important aspects of the Bogie Idea.

The Bogie Idea is that big bangs come from big crunches within a greater universe that has always existed; an infinite spongy universe (ISU). Therefore the universe expands in localized areas after big bangs occur, and likewise the universe contracts in localized areas leading up to big bangs. Big crunches are limited as to the amount of matter they can contain before they burst into big bangs, and therefore crunches and bangs occur here and there, now and then throughout the ISU.

In order for the Bogie Idea (the ISU) to succeed, it must explain the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) as well as it is explained by Big Bang Theory (BBT).

It is important to the ISU to explain how the CMBR can be so isotropic with the fine detail variations observed by WMAP. Given the process of big crunches and big bangs characteristic of the ISU, scientists have said that they would expect there to be larger temperature variations than have been observed in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

It can be shown that all variations in the CMBR that exist as the echoes and waves of an infinite history of big bangs are ironed out as part of the rebalancing process between energy and matter at the site of each big bang event, so the expected CMBR will be perfectly compatible with WMAP findings.

Characteristics of the ISU that come into play to account for the WMAP CMBR are based on the ISU view of energy, matter, and the balance between the two.

A central theme in the ISU is that all that exists is energy. There is no empty space because space is an energy continuum. Matter and energy are one in the same, differing only in the density of the energy involved.

Though energy exists in any quantity, there is a tiny amount of energy that can be defined as the smallest amount of energy necessary to have any meaning in the universe as we know it. This minimum amount of energy is called the elementary energy wave/particle (EEP) in the ISU.

Smaller amounts of energy are all throughout the energy field, but the EEP is the smallest unit of energy necessary to account for everything that is possible to happen. The EEP itself can be broken down into an infinite number of smaller volumes, but the existence of such small volumes of energy is not instrumental to any processes that the EEP quantity of energy cannot accomplish. For convenience when I refer to the way that energy and matter are bound together I refer to the EEPs as the quanta of energy.

Energy is indestructible but matter can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to matter. The interchange between matter and energy goes on at all times throughout the ISU. As energy becomes matter it does so in quantities of whole numbers of EEPs. When matter is converted to energy it does so in whole numbers of EEPs.

In the ISU, E=mc^2 is the same as EEP = mc^2.

Another central theme is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale at all times and there was no beginning. This means the matter and energy have always maintained a balanced relationship within a variable range on a large scale. At any point in time and in all places, matter and energy exchange is going on and the process of rebalancing matter and energy is taking place at the same time.

On a large scale, big crunches and big bangs are representations of the energy exchange and rebalancing process. We are in the expansion phase of one of those big bangs.

Matter and energy can be thought of as densities of EEPs. Right now I am not concerned about explaining how matter comes from energy, but I will say that process takes place abundantly during the expansion phase of the big bang. I’m also not concerned about explaining how energy comes from matter, but I will say that process takes place abundantly during the crunch phase of a big bang.

What I’m concerned about right now is describing how the CMBR of a big bang in the ISU is like the WMAP CMBR.

Big bang nucleosynthesis is a fertile ground for science and theory, and I want to show that the ISU big bang environment and the BBT big bang environment do not differ in any way that would make the resulting universe different from the way it is today. But it will change the story of big bang nucleosynthesis in subtle ways.

It may not seem subtle to maintain that the part of BBT nucleosynthesis that predicts an imbalance in matter/antimatter to explain the existence of matter in the universe is not necessary in the ISU. Just remember that in the ISU a balance between matter and energy has always existed so there is no problem saying where matter came from in the first place; it has always exited. It is the balancing process that sets the ISU apart from BBT. In the BBT the balance is like standing a pencil on end, while in the ISU, the balance is part of the natural make up of the infinite energy of the universe.

In the big bang process (BBT and ISU), huge amounts of matter are converted to energy (in the ISU that occurs in whole numbers of EEPs), and the difference between nucleosynthesis in BBT and ISU really comes down to the balancing process between matter and energy that takes place in the ISU but is not possible in BBT. The important point is that the end result of big bang nucleosynthesis is the same for both models, i.e. both models result in the universe we live in.

It is obvious that there will be differences in the structure of the universe between BBT and ISU from the very beginning of the BBT, aside from the glaring difference as to whether or not there was in fact a beginning at all.

To focus on the many differences is interesting but the differences that would be of concern in how the WMAP CMBR results from a big bang in the ISU are the most important differences right now.

In the ISU, space (an energy continuum containing rebalancing energy and matter) exists before the big bang. In BBT, space-time is a result of the Big Bang.

How important is this difference? If the ISU is correct, BBT is wrong. If BBT is correct, the ISU is wrong. It is the deciding factor.

So putting that difference on the table, in the ISU, the big crunch exists before the big bang and when the big crunch reaches a particular “capacity” of matter-density, a big bang occurs. How the big bang occurs in the ISU is certainly of interest just like it would be of interest to know how the Big Bang occurs in BBT, but that is another discussion.

Matter-energy density in the big crunch is at the highest possible level at the core of the crunch and at the instant of the big bang. In the ISU, the balance between matter and energy is characterized by a difference in the density of space vs. the density of matter.

The very fact that matter exists gives rise to the fact that there are places where matter does not exist and in the ISU that “place” is referred to as space. Space however has energy and the energy density of space is variable.

When matter and energy are in perfect balance, the energy density of space is referred to as critical density and that value is referred to as vacuum energy density. When vacuum energy density is in balance with matter energy density, equilibrium exists. Equilibrium is the mean between vacuum energy density and matter energy density, but the constant exchange of matter and energy keeps the relationship between the two in constant change.

Vacuum energy density can be below critical density in which case negative pressure exists in space. The negative pressure of space is referred to as vacuum energy. Localized areas of space can have greater negative pressure than the average density of space because of massive objects in space that are high in matter energy density (positive pressure).

This is the case in the vicinity of a big crunch. Very high matter energy density and very high negative pressure from vacuum energy. As a preview, if all of the matter energy in a big crunch could be instantly converted to a whole number of free EEPs, there would be a big whoosh as the EEPs converted from the matter in the crunch became energy that readily rebalances through out space. Figuratively, the “whoosh” is the sound of EEPs being pulled away from the hot ball of EEPs that came from the big crunch during that rebalancing.

If the EEPs from the crunch are starting from a stand still, figuratively, they have no information except that they are a ball of hot free EEPs being pulled into space by negative pressure (vacuum energy). Add to that the force of a big crunch bursting from within and you get exponential expansion in the first instant after the big bang in the ISU.

Scientists think that a similar perfect ball of energy emerged from the BBT big bang.

But the CMBR we see today is so isotropic that in BBT, in order for it to be causally related to the Big Bang, there had to be a period of exponential inflation like that which was caused by the combination of the bang and the vacuum energy in the ISU.

Unfortunately for BBT, that boost from vacuum energy, referred to by Alan Guth when he postulated the inflation theory, has to somehow come from within the hot energy ball during the first second and push. In the ISU, that vacuum energy already existed in space surrounding the big bang and it pulls.

The differences are that in the ISU, that hot ball of energy emerges into an already existing environment consisting of be the matter in the crunch, and the matter related to the crunch process, and the negative pressure of the vacuum energy of space within which the crunch took place.

The crunch material itself and any inflowing matter in an accretive disk, or any hot plasma in the vicinity of the crunch is pretty much negated by the billions of degrees of the hot ball of energy that emerges from it. The whole crunch will be almost completely converted to hot free EEPs that join the hot ball of energy emerging from the core of the crunch, but will retain some infinitesimal remnant of matter in the form of sub atomic particles. Any such particles would be composed of very few EEPs in the form of matter energy density relative the hot ball of energy.

The only effect that those relatively few sub atomic particles evenly disbursed in the hot energy ball have is that they cause a very small and consistent variation throughout the CMBR, like what is observed by WMAP.

Unfortunately for BBT, the slight variations in the CMBR are caused by energy fluctuations caused during inflation, perhaps by the creation of vacuum energy from inside the hot energy ball, somehow.

The remaining question and the central point for BBT being thought superior to any quasi-steady state theory is the expected wider variance in the consistency of the CMBR caused by a history of waves of particle horizons from an infinite history or big bangs throughout the universe.

The only remaining difference between the environment of the big bang in the ISU and BBT is the nature of the space surrounding the big crunch at the time of the big bang. Why wouldn’t it be rippled by that long history of particle horizons?

In the ISU, that history is ironed out and becomes consistent with the slight variations that are observed in the CMBR by WMAP.

Here is how they are ironed out in the ISU.

God does it.

No, just kidding.

There is a process of balancing that takes place with all big bangs where the hot energy from the bang expands into space. The vacuum energy of this space provides the negative pressure to cause exponential expansion of the hot energy ball. The density of this surrounding space is very low and the number of EEPs in that low density space is on the order of 1 part per trillion parts of the EEP density of the hot energy ball from the big bang. The information transferred from this surrounding low density space is almost entirely lost in the hot churning turmoil of the energy ball from the big bang. Any information that is transferred results in such small variances that they would be consistent with WMAP findings.

Beyond that, the energy density of the expanding big bang remains far above average energy density for a trillion years as the expanding big bang expands out into the low density space from which the big crunch was accumulated over a period of ~ ten trillion years. We are thought to be in the first fifteen billion years since the big bang, or less than two tenths of one percent of the way back. The energy density of our expanding universe remains so much higher than the energy density of the space in the arena that any history ripples from the past that we might be encountering as we expand will continue to be lost until the density equalizes out in about a trillion years.

And one last point, in the ISU the temperature of the surrounding low density space is far below the ~2.7 degrees Kelvin of the observed CMBR.

Thanks; this thread has been quite educational, for me at least.

I am interested in how to most effectively address ATM ideas, within the BAUT rules (here is one thread on the general topic, here is another). It seems that, pace Bogie, clarification of the key terms used in the presentation of an ATM idea should be one of the earliest things to seek, especially if there is no math, numbers, equations, etc. Why? Because, it seems, very often, the proponent of an ATM idea and those challenging the idea, as presented, are 'talking past each other' ... in part because the key terms each is using do not mean the same thing.The last post may have covered them, but I'm not sure the questions here have been answered yet - would you please confirm?(my bold)

Has this been shown, quantitatively?

How perfect is the compatibility?Is the CMB the only observationally-based test that could distinguish between the Bogie ISU/EEP idea and modern consensus cosmology? If not, what other such tests might there be (in principle)?

Are there experimentally-based tests (that could, in principle, distinguish between the Bogie ISU/EEP idea and modern consensus cosmology)? For example, will the LHC turn up something predicted by the Bogie ISU/EEP idea, but not by the MSSM (or other extension of the Standard Model)?

<<Were EEPs involved in the formation of light nuclides (in the Bogie idea)?>>

“The production of light and intermediate-mass nuclides formed in the reaction 1H+238U at 1 GeV was measured at the Fragment Separator (FRS) at GSI, Darmstadt. The experiment was performed in inverse kinematics, shooting a 1 A GeV 238U beam on a thin liquid-hydrogen target. 254 isotopes of all elements in the range from Z=7 to Z=37 were unambiguously identified, and the velocity distributions of the produced nuclides were determined with high precision. The results show that the nuclides are produced in a very asymmetric binary decay of heavy nuclei originating from the spallation of uranium. All the features of the produced nuclides merge with the characteristics of the fission products as their mass increases.”

I don’t even have a basement, let alone a Fragment Separator. Let me say though that obviously at 1 GeV, there is a great deal of energy brought to play in the production of those nuclides. I might be able to tell you in joules how much energy is in an EEP (with some wild estimations and assumptions), and I can tell you that EEPs are involved every time energy is transferred. Is that good enough?

Since you brought it up though, do you know that the amount of energy in a given space can be converted mathmatically to a given mass. All you need is the density of energy in the given space, and the density of the mass it is to be converted into, to determine the the kilograms of mass represented by the energy in that given space? Yes or no?


<<At the time of formation of the present, observable, universe, were matter and radiation (photons) in equilibrium (in the Bogie idea)?>>

Are you implying that energy takes the form of photons? Or do photons carry the energy? Either way, when the matter energy density is high in a given space relative to the vacuum energy density, energy and matter are not in equilibrium. At the time the present observable universe was formed, whether you use the ISU scenario or the BBT scenario, matter and energy were not in balance. A trillion years latter, given a continued accelerated expansion into the space-time created in the BBT or into the arena left by the formation of the big crunch in the ISU scenario, then you have a better chance of energy and matter being close to equilibrium. But if it did happen it would be a fleeting condition in the ISU. Essentially the balance is theoretically possible but probably almost never a reality.

In BBT, in a trillion years, if the vacuum energy density is equal to critical density, the universe will be done expanding and will not collapse. If the vacuum energy density is below critical density, the universe will reverse direction and will collapse. If the vacuum energy density is greater that critical energy density the universe will expand forever.


<<From the time the light elements were formed, in the history of the universe, in the Bogie idea, could the universe be described by GR (in terms of the evolution of the density of mass-energy, and respective roles of radiation and matter (as these terms are defined in GR))?>>

I understand your focus on the difference between QM and GR in BBT and how nice it would be if differences between the ISU and BBT could be expressed in terms of QM and GR. When I say this is a work in progress you tell me that is not appropriate in ATM, but if it was appropriate I would be asking for input on that subject. I hope you can understand that in my estimation, there is no difference between the ISU and BBT at the point that the light elements are available for star formation.No, but if you see anything in my description that would prevent showing it quantitatively, please point it out. Do you know how much data was crunched by Cray computers to arrive at the quantitative results of WMAP? They are still downloading it I bet, lol. Like I said, I don’t even have a basement.I’m can’t help being factious, … so should I define perfect? If you see a flaw in my explanation of how I think it is a perfect fit will you point it out?
Do you have time to wait and see? The rate of acceleration of the expansion using the vacuum energy density idea that I have proposed could very well be quantified and tested over time. A given volume of space at a given energy density will balance a certain amount of matter energy density. If it is assumed that the size of the space involved in the arena from which a big crunch was formed would be at average energy density in a ~trillion years, and we are 0.15% into that trillion years, and if we could put a value on the negative pressure of the vacuum energy in an arena of that size from which the quantity of matter in the crunch was accumulated, and if … well it gets beyond the capacity of my hand held calculator but if some serious scientists were to tackle the idea I bet something testable could be predicted (probably after the fact).



The ISU provides what to me is a logical explanation of vacuum energy (negative pressure) which solves the problem of what caused exponential inflation and the acceleration of the expansion that we now observe.

Maybe I’m just dense but I don’t understand the BBT explanation for the slight variances in the WMAP CMBR. To me, the ISU as I described it better explains the slight and consistent fluctuations in the WMAP CMBR. If one part in a trillion is even within several orders of magnitude of correct, the pre-existing matter from the greater universe at the instant of the BBT at the first instant would be a good explanation of the observed CMBR variation that exists today after exponential expansion magnified their presence. I don’t deny the possibility of energy density fluctuations but there is no way that I can think of to determine the size of those fluctuations and therefore there is no way to predict their impact on the CMBR.

The ISU doesn’t need an imbalance between matter and antimatter to account for the matter in the universe. That is not observational evidence but the logic of the matter in the universe coming for the imbalance seems weak to me. Assuming that energy fluctuations created virtual electrons and positrons, or some form of matter antimatter, I don’t think that the theory of how the imbalance resulted has become science yet.

I don’t think so. I can’t think of any prediction that I could make based on the differences between the ISU and BBT that an accelerator could confirm. Maybe if it were possible to confirm the theory of am imbalance in the matter antimatter pairs could add support to BBT and thus weaken my resolve about the ISU.

Hi Bogie
I agree with you
The Big Crunch before a Big Bang is a simple , clear idea.
It does not need a mysterious singularity, inflation period, dark energy.
The observations of the Black Hole will solve any doubts here.
It is difficult to see what is inside a BH but if there is a matter structure - there isn't a point singularity. Such a Black Hole like object expands like our Universe then.
CMBR picture depends naturally of what is absorbed .

Hi Bogie
I agree with you
The Big Crunch before a Big Bang is a simple , clear idea.
It does not need a mysterious singularity, inflation period, dark energy.
The observations of the Black Hole will solve any doubts here.
It is difficult to see what is inside a BH but if there is a matter structure - there isn't a point singularity. Such a Black Hole like object expands like our Universe then.
CMBR picture depends naturally of what is absorbed .

Thank you Czeslaw, you are very smart and brave.

Without the mystery of the singularity to divert our efforts away from understanding the much more practical big crunch, we can focus on energy as a complete cycle instead of having a beginning.

We find that energy and matter, one in the same, can be better understood as an indestructible commodity. It is like water and ice except that it follows a cycle of its own using its own very unique rules.

The big crunch is a source of energy. What ever the structure inside a big crunch, energy comes out with a bang. High density energy yields matter as it expands and cools until equilibrium between energy and matter is achieved. Matter self-attracts and when there is enough matter accumulated into a big crunch it bangs; a never ending cycle that takes place here and there, now and then throughout the greater universe.

Taking this perspective over the BBT will not change much in science. It will remove some tiny road blocks to progress like the dead end science of how energy comes from nothing, but that is a small cost for the advantage of having a cosmology that Crezlaw and Bogie can actually believe, .

Here is a recent review paper on matter-antimatter asymmetry. I guess we'll have to wait a few years to see which, if any, of the mainstream theories on the observed asymmetry pan out.

(more later)

So what is the basis for your assertion ("It can be shown that all variations in the CMBR that exist as the echoes and waves of an infinite history of big bangs are ironed out as part of the rebalancing process between energy and matter at the site of each big bang event, so the expected CMBR will be perfectly compatible with WMAP findings.")?The past is an open book - what could you observe (in principle) in distant (past) galaxies (or gas, or ...) that might serve to test the Bogie idea?So how do we, objectively, test this?

Does it come down to "Bogie doesn't understand modern cosmology, but understands the Bogie idea, so the former is much to be preferred"?Except that, as has been pointed out several times, the Bogie idea seems to use concepts in a domain that has been known, for several decades, to be incompatible with the two theories which do the best job, to date, of accounting for all observations and experiments (GR and QM).

Is "I, Bogie, think this is a cool idea" sufficient to overcome these deep inconsistencies?Back to the world of science - how to tell, via any (in principle) observation or experiment, whether the Bogie idea has legs or not?

Post #98 covered that. It is about the “information” that gets imprinted on the CMBR. Read through post #98 and you will find that information in the CMBR in the ISU version came from the hot energy ball of the big crunch that banged, and from the surrounding vicinity of the big crunch including an accretion disk and hot plasma jets and highly accelerated particles, X-rays, gamma rays, etc. I estimate that the entire big crunch and the surrounding vicinity are reduced to the EEPs that make them up (EEPs means they are like the hot dense energy from the bang), except for maybe one part in a trillion that survive as sub atomic particles. There is no information difference in the hot dense energy ball from the ISU and the hot dense energy ball from BBT, so the information transmitted to the CMBR by the bang in the ISU differs by one part per trillion at the time that the hot energy ball burst out of the crunch. In the ISU the information that might be carried by that one part is evenly distributed at the time that the exponential expansion kicked in would be amplified as very slight variances in the 2.7 degree Kelvin throughout the CMBR like what has been confirmed by WMAP.

This differs from the bang from the BBT singularity by one part per trillion in the information transferred to the CMBR, but at this point the hot energy ball from BBT is perfectly homogeneous and isotropic and should not leave any variance in the temperature of the CMBR. BBT explains the slight variances by predicting energy fluctuations during the exponential expansion but it is hard to tell what causes the energy fluctuations and why the imprint is what it is in the CMBR mapped.
The high energy density big bang gets pulled right out into the low energy density space and expands rapidly until a period of matter formation slows the expansion. After matter has formed to a level of equilibrium, the expansion speeds up again since the outlying space is still of lower energy density than the expanding big bang.

The formation of matter during the expansion as a result of the cooling of the expanding BB slows the expansion because matter requires substantially less space. Using E=mc^2 as the relationship, as matter forms it solidifies the energy from a vast space into a tiny particle of energy. This lowers the energy density in the immediately surrounding space. Since the wider space is self equalizing, the density of the wider space fills the space voided by the formation of matter and lowers the energy density of the wider space. Therefore matter formation from the energy density in space slows the expansion of the big bang by lowering the energy density throughout the expanding entity.

When the matter formation phase is well advanced, the big bang expansion into the lower energy density space surrounding it regains speed and demonstrates accelerated expansion, IMHO.
Where the ISU is not compatible with QM or GR, or BBT in any way, I am saying that they are wrong and the ISU is right.

The Bogie Idea is that big bangs come from big crunches within a greater universe that has always existed; an infinite spongy universe (ISU). Therefore the universe expands in localized areas after big bangs occur, and likewise the universe contracts in localized areas leading up to big bangs. Big crunches are limited as to the amount of matter they can contain before they burst into big bangs, and therefore crunches and bangs occur here and there, now and then throughout the ISU.

The big bang expansion will accelerate from here for billions of years, and as the energy density within the expansion gets closer to the vacuum energy density of the “arena” into which it is expanding, the acceleration will slow but the expansion will continue for a trillion years, at which time the energy density will be equalized with the energy density in the greater universe.

"A detection of stable baryonic Q-balls would be a definitive confirmation that an Affleck-Dine condensate formed on the early universe and fragmented into B-balls."
According to String Theory math - there have to be neutralinos and other products of the supersymmetry processes.
We do not observe it till now and other ideas are possible as well.
They accept space inflation period because they have not an initial space and they don't know where the initial energy came from.

In Bogie idea the Big Bang started after a Big Crunch not from a point singularity but from a certain volume of the space. A matter (vacuum energy) with a maximum entropy may locally decrease its entropy and collapse – Big Crunch. We do not need a space inflation with an almost infinite velocity of the expansion – the baryon matter is created of the energy field just in define volume.

We know that a Black Hole may contain the bosons and energy only. The energy warps the space as the rest mass does. Such a rotating energetic Black Hole creates momentum and magnetic field. In this environment may be baryon matter created and ejected.

There are naturally stars and galaxies created as we observe it close to Quasar . There could be naturally matter/antimatter separation according to spin polarization. This ejected matter creates a cluster of galaxies supplied by a matter from a primary energetic Black Hole till it become a huge Black Hole like object itself. The space is filled with the redshifted gamma rays because the creation/annihilation/separation process close to primary energetic Black Hole.
http://www.newscientistspace.com/art...-revealed.html
The polarization of the BMCR suggests a movement like a rotation of the early Universe like all Black Holes do. I do not think it is a superluminal movement.

After some billions years when galaxy clusters of our Observable Universe created a Black Hole like object with a flat geometry (critical density) the supplied from outside energy drives an acceleration of the expansion:
Radius (R) of the Black Hole is proportional to the Mass (M) but Mass (energy) is supplied from outside proportional to Radius^3. It have to accelerate naturally.

I don't understand what you're saying here, czeslaw; could you clarify please?

It seems that my question was insufficiently clear; let me try again.

Here is the Bogie assertion (my bold): "It can be shown that all variations in the CMBR that exist as the echoes and waves of an infinite history of big bangs are ironed out as part of the rebalancing process between energy and matter at the site of each big bang event, so the expected CMBR will be perfectly compatible with WMAP findings."

In response to an earlier challenge, particularly the parts in bold, Bogie replied (I'm summarising) that:
a) it has not been shown, and
b) perfection comes because Bogie believes the Bogie idea is correct.

Let me try rephrasing the question: Other than a belief in the correctness of the Bogie idea, what is it that leads you, Bogie, to conclude that "[i]t can be shown that all variations in the CMBR that exist as the echoes and waves of an infinite history of big bangs are ironed out as part of the rebalancing process between energy and matter at the site of each big bang event, so the expected CMBR will be perfectly compatible with WMAP findings"?It seems that my question was unclear; let me try again.

What quantitative tests - observations, experiments - could we do that would, in principle, test the Bogie idea?

What I am asking for is an answer that contains numbers, or math, or equations; crudely, something like 'point a {telescope with capabilities X} to {set of sky positions}, collect data, reduce data {insert description here}, and, in the Bogie idea, you will get {number(s)}'.Yet, if I have understood the Bogie idea correctly, many (most? all??) of the deep inconsistencies between GR and QM are apparently also deep in the ISU idea.

Further, so far, no equations, math, or numbers have been presented to even hint how these deep inconsistencies could be resolved in the ISU idea.

Can you show, using math, equations, numbers and stuff, that the ISU idea resolves these inconsistencies?And that's it?

The only way to test the Bogie idea, is to wait a few billion (trillion?) years?

Where I think you are coming from is that my idea is not ATM material because it isn't scientific, it is only imagination and bogie logic. When I read articles and see books filled with formulas and scientific language I am quickly at a disadvantage. I'm too old to come current with the scientific papers. I'm just an old retired guy thinking about things and wondering why scientific types say what they say about how they think things really are.

I have offered for you to just close down my thread for violations of the rules.

I see my violation being that I want to toss out some speculation and get the feed back about why science thinks otherwise. Then maybe take the feed back and go do some specific study and come back for more.

I keep saying that if BAUT and specifically ATM is not the place for me to do that, take the action necessary.There may be other ways, and I wouldn't be surprised if other people have thought about the same things I do. If so, there may already be work under way that takes a similar idea to mine and proposes tests. One way for me to find out is to post my ideas and get feed back.

There are mainstream theories like supersymetry, space inflation and we do not observe it. It exists in a math only not in real physics. Scientists hope to detect it in a future observation.
Our ideas are just not worse.

(my bold).

Thanks for the clarification.

What, in your view, is "real physics"? Specifically, how can you tell "real physics" from any other kind of physics?

I mean , real is what we observe. (May be it is not good English).
We observe Energy and CPT conservation, 3-dimensions of the space + time.
There are not new particles discovered according supersymmetry.
Black Hole behaves like standart objects rather then something with a broken physics law object.
In math are there many possibilities buy reality eliminates most of them, I think.
If there would be in a hidden dimension we will never see it - there can be a strange implication only.
The inflation is needed in a certain math when we start with a zero point volume. It is a philisophical foundation only. There are other possibilities if we change foundation.

Thanks for the clarification.

In your view, are quarks 'real'?

Are neutron stars 'real'?

How do we "observe Energy"?

There are a few people on BAUT that are following a course of thought that opposes the singularity implied by Big Bang Theory. This small group of registered BAUT posters are thinking in a similar vain, and this thinking shares an interest about the nature of gravity.

The operative idea in the cause of gravity among this small group is the “density” of some field that “permeates” space. This density effect would be what replaces the warped/curved space of GR.

Simply put, the warping of space in GR is the same as the lower density of the field that permeates space; the space immediately surrounding mass/matter is lower in density than the average density of the permeating medium throughout space. Areas of lower density extend out from mass/matter and when two bogies exist in space, the density of the permeating medium is lower between the two objects than it is in all of the other possible directions, and so the objects show an attraction to each other.

This is the same as saying that the density surrounding objects in space is lower in the space immediately surrounding bogies in space and the lowest density exists directly between objects and causes the relatively higher density in all other directions to push the objects together.

In this environment you may be talking about gravity as either a push or a pull depending on your perspective.

If I can keep my thread going without being closed for rules violations, I’m going to explain my perspective and tell you why I refer to gravity as a pull.

I would like to know the answer to the question implied by the following sequence:

The permeating medium = Energy (E)

Matter = energy that has been converted to mass (m)

Conversion ratio = speed of light squared (c^2)

Space has volume, matter has mass, and both have energy.

The volume of space can be converted to mass.

Space at average energy density = E = ~ 10^-29g/cm^3

A tiny particle may have mass of ~ 7x10^-17 eV

What is the volume of space at energy density of 10^-29g/cm^3 that is required to provide the energy equivalent to a mass of 7x10^-17 eV?

I posed this question in the Q&A forum and if I get an answer there I will post it here.

It seems that this requires trashing GR, and developing a new theory instead - does it?

In this alternative idea, what is the status of Special Relativity?

In this alternative idea, how are the detailed observations of the double pulsar accounted for?

In this alternative idea, what will the results of the Gravity Probe B experiment be?

I'm not surprised you would think that, but the idea itself describes the change, and we have addressed the need to scrap GR in order for the big cruch haven't we?
I don't see a need to change SR. Do you? If so, why?That is amazing. I don't really think that there is anything wrong with the predictions of gravity in GR, so I'm not surprised that such a double pulsar fits. But if we have to scrap GR, then an alternative gravity needs to be as good.Interesting. So why do you think we have to change the GR gravity predictions just because my idea has a big crunch?

The mass equivalent of "7x10^-17 eV" is ~1.2 x 10-52 kg, or ~1.2 x 10-49 g. At "10^-29g/cm^3", you would need ~1 x 10-26 cc of space for this mass. This is according to Nereid's post on the G&A thread.

I assume it is correct.

Now let's say that a body in space emits thermal radiation in the form of photons with a frequency in the thermal range. How much mass would be lost through thermal radiation if each photon had a mass of 7x10^-17 eV?

If the mass lost through thermal radiation was replaced by free energy from space, what volume of space would be required for the equivalent mass to be replaced?

If that volume of space was used from the space surrounding the thermal emitting body, do you see how the surrounding space in the vicinity of the emitting body would be lower in energy density than the average density of space?

Thermal radiation is just one range in the full spectrum of radiation being given off from a body in space. The low energy density surrounding the body would be created by the volume of space needed to replace all of the radiation in the form of photons.

The zone of low energy density would extend out from the body as space equalizes its own density.

In addition to the replacement of mass lost through radiation, there is also an exchange of mass and energy at the surface of an object moving through the energy field of space. This exchange is in electrons and equivalent to static electricity and I'm hoping that I can get some input about the extent and impact of such an exchange in the light of electrons lost and the energy from space in the form of energy density that might be required to replace elections lost through static electricity.

There are some experiments suggesting an inner structure of the proton or neutron. We may call it quarks and gluons, I think.
Neutron star is well observed object and there is a good theory about it. We can even distinguish between neutron star and Black Hole like object.
There is a question - are the quark stars real ?

We observe an energy by its effect when energy particle is absorbed or collide in other particle causing change in a kinetic energy or pressure.