Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken G OK, I see, you want to use stars to provide the temperature, instead of using the expanding initial energy bath of the Big Bang. That part can certainly work, but it's just another way to create the exact same conditions, so must be judged in terms of a comparison of plausibility. You therefore would need to fill in the rest of the model before such a plausibility comparison could be made-- how did the stars get there?

I do have a view of how the environment that I describe in the OP question came about. It is not the same as yours, and it is not supported by even one professional that I have any contact with or that I even know of, though I’m sure there are some. It is a bottom up approach that leads me to that environment. I have noticed a lot of discussion about concepts that I use in my path to that environment, but I can’t be included in those discussions for good reason, I don’t communicate at their level of knowledge. My only real credential is that I have a good imagination .

This thread is being started as a response to a question that I posed in the G&A forum and I don’t think I am allowed, nor do I want to introduce an ATM idea there, but I feel that we can share our view points using my OP question as the guide.

The OP described an environment and asked if it could produce that CMBR that we observe. Your answer is yes, but you point out that I need to fill in the rest of the model to be sure the environment can occur from prior circumstances (that we may never agree on).

Here it is in the form of a sequence of events as an ATM idea but also intended to give you an understanding of circumstances that lead me to describe the environment in the OP on the Q&A thread:

A big crunch formed, one of an infinite number of such crunches in the infinite universe. These big crunches contain all of the matter and energy from a large finite area of space called an arena; an arena is established by the center of gravity of the big crunch and by the capacity that the big crunch has to extract matter and energy from space before the big burst that inevitably follows.

There is physics involved that has never been observed and can’t be proved or tested so it is purely qualitative, but the big crunch consumes itself from within in a process that requires the crunch to reach a certain size before the process is initiated.

Once initiated it is irreversible and the crunch converts its contents from matter, into what I call Type 1 energy, which may be like dark energy but who knows.

The process of this conversion that I call negation starts at the core of the big crunch (I’m envisioning an ultimate black hole – a coined phrase). The negation converts the energy that makes up the matter in the crunch back into energy that is not matter dependent (a coined phrase to distinguish it from other energy that we are all familiar with). It does that through extreme heat and (dare I use the word) pressure. The heat/pressure breaks matter into its smallest common denominator, i.e. the energy that it is composed of (to use a few words).

The negation increases the internal pressure because a small amount of matter contains a huge amount of energy (I’m using the e=mc^2 relationship to lead me to that conclusion).

Eventually the big crunch has consumed what it can from the arena, even radiation (I know that this is way radical because it doesn’t sit well with learned professionals who deal in math and proofs). The pressure from negation builds and eventually exceeds the force of gravity exerted by the crunch, and the big crunch becomes a big burst. As it bursts it does a final negation of the entire matter that had made up the crunch.

What emerges is this type 1 energy. The energy emerges into the arena that has been left behind by the crunch. The arena has energy also, but there is a difference in the density between the emerging energy and the extremely low energy density of the otherwise empty arena. The time frame for the formation and destruction of the big crunch might be 10 trillion years.

This type 1 energy that emerges has the ability to occupy more space than it is occupying when it emerges, a lot more space. It begins to expand driven by the difference in pressure between the emerging ball of Type 1 energy and the very low pressure of the essentially empty arena.

This expanding Type 1 energy is capable of forming matter again after it expands sufficiently and after the pressure is reduced sufficiently to allow it to form elementary energy particles. These particles expand and contract but can’t fully expand and contract until the pressure is low enough (to use a few words).

These particles form and represent the quanta of energy from which matter forms.

They merge into combinations and accumulate until the pulsing becomes a stable vibration of the pulses of the quantum particles that have combined; the first stable particle is the proton.

The proton attracts a swarm of the quantum particles to it but they can’t join with the stable proton and are held around the proton to form an electron “cloud” (to borrow or coin a phrase). The result is an atom of hydrogen.

The process of hydrogen formation occurs rapidly and hydrogen forms abundantly across the entire Type 1 energy ball that has been expanding since the big burst.

Hydrogen atoms are isotropic across the entire Type 1 energy environment.

The density of the hydrogen atoms is sufficient to allow gravity to work and “clumping” (to borrow a term) begins which eventually leads to the formation of hydrogen stars. Because of the isotropy these stars are spread in a spatially consistent pattern (to imply that the resulting stars are homogeneous and without anisotropy [yet]).

These stars burn out. They have slightly different masses due to the clumping process and they burn out at a slight variable rate creating a pattern of slight anisotropy in the resulting environment that can produce “a Planck black body spectrum equivalent to the CMBR to be emitted from an early causally connected environment composed of only hydrogen, helium, heavier nuclei, stellar radiation, and remnants of burned out hydrogen stars, with slight anisotropy from the uneven burn out of the hydrogen stars, that had gone through a period of thermalization until it reached thermal equilibrium.” (Refer to the link to the OP above to get descriptions of some of the terms and phrases used in this sentence.)

This post contains ideas I have developed in an existing thread about the Elementary Energy Particle (EEP) but I want to start the new thread to address my ideas about the ISU, not just the EEP, and to allow further discussion about the question I posted in the Q&A forum.

This post examines the idea of a big crunch, multiple big bang universe ideas, cyclic ideas like the Steinhardt model, and suggest similarities and differences between them and the ISU.

I don’t know what it says about the ISU when posted as an ATM idea, radical as it seems to me that it is, it gets no responses.

One can imagine that all of the professionals as well as the hobbyists find it trivial and are being kind by not responding with statements to show where I have gone wrong.

One can imagine that there are some who are biting their tongues in order not to appear to be piling on a dunce like me by pointing out the poor or confusing use of words.

One can imagine all kinds of things when such a radical idea gets no responses on an ATM board like this one.

Take the term “big crunch”. Google returns over 2 million references. Many point to the supposed fate of our universe under the big bang model if there is enough matter in the universe to cause it to collapse.

Some refer to the possible shapes of the universe and the implications of a “dark matter” that could provide the necessary mass to halt expansion.

Some refer to the more recent ideas that have followed from the big bang model and the tie old theory and new theory together.

Once reference from the Google search that looked interesting was:

http://www.physorg.com/news68731082.html

“Over the past five years or so, scientists have finally converged on a model of the universe that explains (or at least permits) all of its characteristics. The new cosmological model has one very surprising feature, however, which is supported by several robust and unrelated observations. In addition to matter and radiation, it seems that the vacuum of space is filled with a mysterious ‘dark energy’ that pushes the universe apart.”

That statement made me take notice because “vacuum of space is filled with a mysterious ‘dark energy’ that pushes the universe apart” is an important part of the ISU idea.

Then the article said: “A universe with too little matter would expand forever, and its average density would eventually drop to zero.”

In the ISU there is a phase that seems to be this exact same type of expansion. Only in the ISU that phase ends as the expansion clears the arena, meaning that in the ISU the average density falls while expansion occurs in the arenas but gets a fresh start as new arenas form.

Then the article says: “A universe with too much matter, on the other hand, would one day collapse under its own gravity (the ‘Big Crunch’).”

You can see in the OP that in the ISU, a big crunch actually plays a role after matter clears from maybe 20 different arenas and converges, forming the next big crunch.

Then the article went on the discuss alternative cosmologies of the past but it seemed that the chances of our universe existing under those ideas was infinitesimal given the delicate balance necessary, and finally the article got to new cosmologies of the present: “In modern times, physicists such as Alexander Vilenkin (Tufts University) have begun to suggest that our universe is only one of many. They envision an eternally expanding field of fundamental energy, effervescent with an infinity of universes. Each one has a Big Bang of its own, popping into existence wherever quantum fluctuations cool the fundamental field sufficiently. If there are an infinite number of universes, then it is certainly much less surprising that some would be habitable. Our particular combination of cosmological parameters, however, remains a highly improbable event in its own right.”

The ISU has this expanding field of fundamental energy, but universes “popping into existence” from quantum fluctuations isn’t exactly the same as the “energy to matter to energy process” of the ISU. That process in the ISU doesn’t refer to the repeated formation of universes as quantum fluctuations, but it attributes them to continual recycling of matter and energy in finite arenas that form crunches that self destruct when they reach a limit.

Then the article mentions the latest: “Advances in string theory and our understanding of higher dimensional spaces have made possible an even more astonishing solution to the coincidence problem. Quantum mechanical models have been proposed that allow the cosmological constant to decay from any initial value to almost zero. Such models, however, have two problems: first, the process typically requires trillions of years; and second, while the cosmological constant is large the density of matter in the universe drops to zero very quickly.”

The ISU of the OP refers to a ten trillion year timeframe for a crunch to form, but once it forms and bursts, matter forms from the fundament energy the emerges when it has expanded, not too unlike the phrase used earlier by Alexander Vilenkin, “Each one has a Big Bang of its own, popping into existence wherever quantum fluctuations cool the fundamental field sufficiently.”

Both the ISU and Vilenkin have matter coming from the fundamental energy field when it has expanded sufficiently.

The article then gets to the good part: “But what if the universe is much older than it appears? Professors Paul Steinhardt (Princeton University) and Neil Turok (Cambridge University) have come up with a novel solution that gives the cosmological constant time to decay to its required value. Resurrecting a ghost of the cyclical universe, they propose that our universe is one of two embedded in the eleven-dimensional space of string theory.”


What follows is their summary of this Cyclic Universe theory:

“The two universes are linked with a spring-like attraction, and so pass through each other (moving along one of the higher dimensions) periodically. Every time they interact, enormous energies are released and both universes fill with hot plasma—a new Big Bang. There is no Big Crunch, as both universes are constantly expanding. A trillion years or so after one Big Bang, when the universe is practically empty, another Big Bang occurs and the stars and galaxies can form once more.”

“The underlying cosmological constant, however, is unaffected by this process and has all the time it needs to decay to a small value. Eventually stars and galaxies will have time to form, and the same will be true of every subsequent cycle. In this modern version of the old cyclical model, the coincidence is resolved because only a few cycles are required for the cosmological constant to decay. The number of star-producing cycles following the decay, however, is practically infinite.”

The article closes with: “Either way, it is clear that our perspective has changed. A single universe is no longer satisfying, given the most unlikely nature of our own. To explain our existence, it seems we must imagine others.”

The ISU is in line with that perspective. It doesn’t require 11 dimensions as the Steinhardt model that relies on string theory, but it is simpler.

The ISU isn’t “practically infinite” as the Steinhardt model, it has a potentially infinite number of universe that play out in arenas the size of our universe, i.e. no unused space and no question about what is “outside” of the cyclic space of the Steinhardt model.

The Steinhardt model is practically infinite but it still has to deal with the entropy problem eventually. The ISU solves entropy through the energy to matter to energy process, and because energy is indestructible.

The timeframes mentioned in the Steinhardt model, like the timeframes in the ISU are not attainable in BBT, but in both, the young universe that we observe occurs because of the “cycle” in Steinhardt, and the “process” in the ISU.

The Steinhardt model sticks to the hot bang; the big bang nucleosynthesis is how the theory meshes with the huge body of research that supports a hot expansion of BBT. After all, this guy is a PhD and has a lofty position at Princeton.

I am not beholding to anything but observation, and the CMBR really sets the bar for any alternative cosmology.

In the ISU, each burst is not hot to start with because it is a burst of energy after matter has been converted to energy, i.e. not matter accompanies the burst. But it still produces the CMBR through a sequence of events outlined in the OP. In this way the ISU can avoid string theory all together and mesh with some aspects of BBT at the point that the CMBR emerges from the Thermalization Epoch.

“Superstring theory relies on the idea that the Universe contains nine or ten spatial dimensions, depending on the formulation, all but three of which are curled up in a compact manifold of microscopic size.”

In place of this manifold idea, math at its finest, The ISU uses an elementary energy particle that can form from the energy density and can cause matter to return the a state of energy density at different phases of the energy to matter to energy process.

So as not to discuss my ATM idea on Coldcreation's thread I linked this post over to my ISU thread.

Well, if I’m dead by then …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermalization
In physics, thermalisation (in American English thermalization) is the process of particles reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interaction.


It requires a big crunch to burst and Type 1 Energy to emerge. Type 1 Energy is not matter dependent to distinguish it form forms of energy that we are familiar with. I think Type 1 Energy may be dark energy that drives the expansion but I’m not making that claim.

Maybe we shouldn’t get into this on Coldcreation’s thread. I started a thread call The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) and the first post gave a description of the scenario leading to the CMBR in the ISU.

If you don’t mind, I bet Coldcreation will appreciate me getting the heck out .

I mention things that require new physics and I am prepared to explain qualitatively the new physics but I have only circumstantial evidence that we all have, and I have not come up with a test that can be carried out in our life times.

The ISU scenario is not similar to Big Bang nucleosynthesis and photon decoupling, but it is an alternative idea of cosmology and of how the CMBR originated.

For an overview see the first post in this thread.

I don’t think I’ll ever be able to answer that question. I will be able to say that in my idea, all of the matter in our expanding universe was formed during a brief period of abundant matter formation as elementary energy particles formed from the energy in space, and EEPs combined to form stable protons. Hydrogen atoms quickly followed, and hydrogen stars then formed using that abundant and isotropic hydrogen.

I don’t know what % of the hydrogen was used in the stars and what % was left in interstellar space.

If by “the number of local densities” you mean stars, I don’t know except to say that they would have been quite evenly distributed (isotropic) and they formed everywhere across the entire expanding universe almost simultaneously (over maybe a few hundred thousand years?).

Here is the OP from the Q&A forum:

Can a Planck black body spectrum equivalent to the CMBR have been emitted from an early causally connected environment composed of only hydrogen, helium, heavier nuclei, stellar radiation, and remnants of burned out hydrogen stars, with slight anisotropy from the uneven burn out of the hydrogen stars, that had gone through a period of thermalization until it reached thermal equilibrium?

By Planck black body spectrum I am referring a thermal spectrum like that found in the CMBR.

By “emitted” I am referring to the emission of photons from atoms that exist in the particle mix that I have describe after it has reached thermal equilibrium.

By “a period of thermalization” I mean that the environment of particles I describe started at different temperatures and then mutually interacted for a long period of time, eventually reaching thermal equilibrium.

By “causally connected” I mean to refer to an environment whose history goes back all the way to an initial event; not saying that event was a big bang, but saying that there was an initial event and the environment I describe evolves from it and has the isotropy of the initial event that it evolved from.

By “environment composed of only hydrogen, helium, heavier nuclei, stellar radiation, and remnants of burned out hydrogen stars” I mean to imply that the environment reached a point where it was composed of hydrogen gas in perfect isotropy and then evolved as follows:

The perfectly distributed hydrogen atoms formed hydrogen stars in an isotropic pattern throughout the entire causally connected environment, i.e. our entire universe almost simultaneously. The stars radiated a gradient thermal spectrum that is not a Planck black body spectrum because its temperatures originate from different depths of the stars surfaces. The stars were large and short lived and they all burned out before the period of thermalization began. The hydrogen stars produced the helium and the heavier nuclei. The only anisotropy in the entire environment crept in only because the hydrogen stars, though short lived, had slightly variable life times.

So the question is, “Can a Planck black body spectrum equivalent to the CMBR have been emitted from an early causally connected environment composed of only hydrogen, helium, heavier nuclei, stellar radiation, and remnants of burned out hydrogen stars, with slight anisotropy from the uneven burn out of the hydrogen stars, that had gone through a period of thermalization until it reached thermal equilibrium?”

Another comparison of recent cosmologies to the ISU cosmology

Frampton and Baum
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/9098/1066/

Steinhardt and Turok
http://www.physorg.com/news68731082.html


The problem of entropy in most cosmological models, how it is solved in the recent cyclical models, and why the ISU does it better.


Lovely word salad with ham and cheese.


BBT makes no bones about it. Entropy is a problem no matter what the value of the cosmological constant might be and no matter what the “curved” shape might be aside from perfectly flat. BBT leads to an endless expansion or to a final collapse that will radiate itself into complete entropy.

Until recently Cyclical models all suffered from entropy. They get larger with each cycle and so if you go back far enough in time you are faced with a tiny beginning of one kind or another, and if the cycle is tracked forward far enough it will eventually expand forever.

Variations that bring in dark energy and/or string theory are coming along. They defeat entropy in the same way I have imagined that it is defeated in the ISU. Frampton and Baum say matter exists in patches that are so remote from on another that entropy in one patch has no effect on the other patches. Matter in each patch is disintegrated by dark energy, and without matter, entropy does not occur. In their model the reoccurrence of matter and the expansion of the universe containing that matter take place in each cycle but the “disintegration” of matter by dark energy stops entropy.

The Steinhardt and Turok model is more complex, combining ten or eleven dimensional space, most of which are in an infinitesimal manifold. They see our universe as one of two embedded universes in the eleven-dimensional space of string theory, connected in spring like fashion. Using this idea there can be an infinite or practically infinite number star-producing cycles following the decay of matter from each previous cycle.


These models like Steinhardt and Turok, or Frampton and Baum are cyclical but defeat entropy because they don’t need the universe to have been smaller in previous cycles, and they don’t need the universe to be bigger with each subsequent cycle going forward.

They are describing a cycle that can repeat itself infinitely because the condition allows contraction to occur without increasing the length of each subsequent cycle. This eliminates the need for an initial event like the big bang, and allows for an infinite number if iterations of the cycle with matter being converted to energy which defeats entropy.

But they are finite and they make no comments about space beyond each cycle. Because they require only a finite amount of matter, energy and space, they leave unanswered the question of what goes on in the universe beyond. Even if they allow for the fact that the greater universe could contain a potentially infinite number of similar cyclical universes, there is no certain future outcome that could demonstrate that fact like there is in the ISU.

The ISU defeats entropy in a similar fashion by using a “matter to energy to matter” process as part of each big crunch/big burst taking place in an infinite number of arenas across the greater universe.

In the ISU energy exists across the infinite universe and plays a role in each crunch/burst in each of a potentially infinite numbers of arenas, past present and future.

The ISU has the advantages of the newer cyclic models, i.e. it does not require a beginning and in fact is better described as having always existed. It uses widely separated patches of space in which matter is converted into energy and back to matter. And it features an endless number of crunch/bursts that don’t succumb to entropy.

But unlike its cyclical alternatives, it answers the question of what is beyond the finite universe that they describe; beyond their finite universe playing out its infinite repetitions.

In the ISU everything is connected across the infinite universe. Though there are finite patches of space with finite matter and with finite energy that is progressing through the “matter to energy to matter” process, each arena is ultimately connected to the greater universe.

That connection occurs because each crunch/burst is temporary and contributes to a perpetual migration of matter and energy; a migration that sees indestructible energy fluctuate between a state of energy and a state of matter, and galaxies from each matter state leave the arena to converge with similar matter from other arenas, which in turn forms new big crunches in new arenas.

And the indestructible energy that is behind each “matter to energy to matter” process emerges from matter in each arena at high energy density and migrates to low energy density because of expansion throughout its arena, pausing only long enough for a period of abundant matter formation midway through the expansion.

So while the migration of matter/energy across the universe takes place indubitably it is always interrupted in each arena as the new crunch converts itself back to energy and energy emerges from the crunch and expands until matter can again form to resume its endless migration across infinite space.

In the ISU there is a connection between any point in the universe and all other points as matter and energy migrates throughout the greater universe and endlessly traverses the infinite expanse.

The energy that makes up the matter that forms your ham and cheese sandwich has converged from similar universes in all directions and distances from our universe. Each EEP in your salad and sandwich is on an infinite journey that for now is paused to serve to sustain you as you follow your path through life. You can be sure that each EEP will eventually resume its endless migration and might end up in someone’s desert somewhere someday in other universes much like our own anywhere across infinite space and time.

In the ISU:

The entire greater universe is occupied by crunch/bursts.

There is no need for a beginning.

Entropy is defeated.

Everything is connected by migrating matter/energy.

At what point in the ISU does physics resemble the GR + quantum theory that we know and love of the universe we can (so far) see today?

In the ISU, is there (was there?) some equivalent of Planck time or a Planck regime, in which GR and quantum theory are impossibly mutually incompatible?

"Impossibly mutually incompatible?"

I am having trouble with the phrase "impossibly mutually incompatible". If I take it literally it can be restated to say "mutually compatible". That would make sense because to most people they don't seem to be mutually compatible at this point. That would mean that the question is, "Were they mutually compatible at some point in the past in the ISU?” wouldn't it? Or to put that into the context of your post, “In the ISU, is there (was there?) some equivalent of Planck time or a Planck regime, in which GR and quantum theory are mutually compatible?


If that is not the question then can you rephrase it for me?

GR and quantum theory are mutually incompatible, period.

However, in the regimes we can 'see' so far, that incompatibility is invisible.

The incompatibility becomes 'visible' as one gets close to the Planck regime.

In the Planck regime, the incompatibility becomes so great that it's impossible for one to say anything meaningful, about anything physical ....

In an ISU, is there the equivalent of a Planck regime?

In an ISU, what regimes (if any) are there where the mutual incompatibility between GR and quantum theory is clearly 'visible', but not so strong as in a universe with GR+QT Planck regime?

I don’t know, but I want to try to give you more than that "trite" answer.

“If it is observed or proved in our universe then it is observed and proved in the ISU”. The thing is that the ISU addresses the infinite greater universe that doesn't require a beginning. The ISU deals with an energy that can occupy space without matter being in that space. The ISU defeats entropy by employing a "matter to energy to matter" process in each arena.

In the ISU arenas are connected to the past by the matter that forms the crunch that defines each new arena, and arenas are connected to the future by the matter that forms in the arena from the energy that emerges from the crunch. Matter in the form of galaxies and interstellar “dust” is carried out into the greater universe to converge with similar matter from other similar arenas to form new crunches. Yikes, even I get dizzy thinking about it, .

So when we discuss GR and quantum theory and the Planck regime we are talking about science and physics in only a small patch of space occupied by a small amount of matter and energy, all of which are finite quantities in what I imagine to be an infinite greater universe.

Can we even say that GR can be meaningful in the ISU? I’m not sure.

Can we conclude that the Planck regime is not meaningful in the ISU? I’m not sure.

In the greater universe things must happen to enable and support our finite situation, i.e. our expanding universe. Those things require physics that we don’t see everyday because it may take ten trillion years for a crunch to form before it bursts as a result of some infrequent but recurring phenomenon.

On the other hand, all around us, at the very heart of all of the physics that we observe, there could be a unifying particle or force from which all other forces are derived. I call it the EEP; the unifying particle that is itself a perpetual energy machine. The energy comes from the pulsing of the EEP, i.e. it expands and contracts all by its little self.

Is there any way that the EEP is compatible with quantum theory and the Planck regime? I don’t know.

I would appreciate if you would tell what you can about those questions from what I have told you about how I imagine the ISU to work.

The EEP ushers the “matter to energy to matter” process that occurs in each arena by enabling the crunch to burst, and by enabling matter to from form the energy density that emerges from the burst. Everything that the EEP does is pressure dependent. Pressure in the core of a big crunch is the ultimate pressure or said another way, when the core of a big crunch is negated into energy it is the ultimate energy density.

Energy density and pressure of the emerging energy is reduced as it expands into the low energy density left in the arena from which the big crunch formed. As the energy density and pressure decline, the pulsing and seething energy reaches a point where matter can reform from it, i.e. a point where EEPs again begin to pulse individually instead of be crammed into a dense overlapping energy environment that does not support matter formation.

So to answer your question, physics of the ISU “resembles the GR + quantum theory by embracing all that we know and love of the universe we can (so far) see today”, but qualified by the fact that we can’t observe crunch/bursts, and we can’t detect the infinitesimal EEPs, even though they are everywhere.

Thinking that you have read the OP and that you realize that it does not follow Big Bang nucleosynthesis, it is valid to wonder at what point the ISU and the universe we occupy became one in the same.

The answer is after the CMBR was emitted. The galactic structure would have been born out of the seeds of the anisotropy that I describe creeping into the CMBR as a result of the slight difference in burn out rate of the first round of hydrogen stars.

Stellar nucleosynthesis from stars that formed after the CMBR was emitted might be the point where the ISU and what we describe and observe as “our universe” became one in the same. I don’t know enough about the evolution of galaxies and black holes to say definitively.

In this ISU idea, in what way(s) do "energy", "space", "matter", "pressure", "density", and time differ from terms with the same spelling, as used in GR?

In this ISU idea, in what way(s) do "energy", "pressure", "density", "particle", "force", and time differ from terms with the same spelling, as used in quantum theory?

In this ISU idea, what is the explanation of the angular power spectrum of the CMB?

In this ISU idea, what is the explanation of the polarisation of the CMB?

Is this ISU idea falsifiable?

Is this ISU idea testable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid In this ISU idea, in what way(s) do "energy", "space", "matter", "pressure", "density", and time differ from terms with the same spelling, as used in GR?

The following refers to how those words are used in the ISU.

“Energy” is the ability to do “work”. In the ISU there is Type 1 Energy that can exist without the presence of matter. All other energy, as far as I know, requires matter to exist. Type 1 energy has a characteristic called pressure (see pressure below).

“Work” is any change.

“Space” is where things happen. Space can be empty theoretically but in the ISU there is no empty space.

“Density”: All space has some level of energy density. Energy density is highest in the core of a big crunch and lowest at the margin between big crunches (see EEP below). Density in this particular usage in the ISU refers to the amount of T1 energy in a volume of space.

“Matter” is composed of EEPs.

“EEPs” are the Elementary Energy Particles. All matter is composed of EEPs. EEPs can form matter under moderate pressure conditions in Type 1 Space. EEPs can not hold their matter forming ability when the pressure conditions become too great, i.e. in the core of a big crunch. The result is that matter forms from EEPs when Type 1 Energy has expanded to the right pressure conditions for matter to form. Matter clumps and forms stars and galaxies and black holes, all of which are carried apart by the expanding volume of Type 1 Energy. This matter formation occurs in an “arena” defined as the sphere with a radius starting at the center of a big crunch and extending outward to the farthest point in space that is affected by the formation of the big crunch. That point will be the lowest point of energy density that exists in the space between adjacent big crunches that are forming and bursting all over the ISU.

“Pressure”: One particular use of the word “pressure” is that an energy environment has pressure that is directly related to the amount of energy and the volume of space that energy occupies.

An “energy environment” is characterized by energy and pressure. The boundary of the environment is marked by the change in pressure. Energy in contiguous space is an energy environment.


So an "energy environment" is a spatial region in which energy and pressure is constant or is consistently changing.

The pressure of an energy environment is ever changing since it is in a continuous process of equalizing itself with surrounding energy environments.

“Time” in the ISU has always exited. There was no “start” of time because the ISU has always existed.

“Time” can be thought of as stopping and starting in an arena of the ISU. In an arena in the ISU if time stops at all it would be in the core of a big crunch where matter is negated, and starts again with the burst of that big crunch or maybe when the matter forms form T1 energy after the burst of the big crunch. Even so, time still passes elsewhere in the ISU.

Exactly how these word usages differ in this ISU idea, i.e. the way(s) that "energy", "pressure", "density", "particle", "force", and time differ from terms with the same spelling, as used in either GR or quantum theory depends on how they are defined in GR and quantum theory. If you offer the particular word and tell me how it is defined and/or used in GR or quantum theory I will be glad to elaborate beyond this brief review of the definition and usage of those words in the ISU.
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/cmb/vsa/CMB_power_spec.html

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html
http://www.iac.es/galeria/raw/cosmosom/node2.html
http://www.iac.es/galeria/raw/cosmosom/node3.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507494

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302217
I have read up on the angular power spectrum that you mention by reading the above links.

I have noted that the synthesis of the CMB in the ISU differs from that of BBT. In the ISU, the first anisotropy crept in after the Hydrogen Epoch which started with the abundant formation of hydrogen and ended with the irregular life time of the first round of hydrogen stars. These stars formed and died before the Thermalization Epoch began. During the thermalization that followed, that slight anisotropy left a pattern in the CMB that pointed in all directions because the anisotropy caused by uneven burn out existed in all directions.

The lack of any particular direction in the source of the power spectrum associated with the CMB agrees nicely with the ISU idea of where the anisotropy originated, i.e. from the scenario in the OP.
(Or polarization per my “MSWord” dictionary that I use for spell check)

http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/Presentations/polar.pdf

http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/polar/webversion/polar.html

I have read the links above about the polarization of the CMB and conclude that any polarization that is detected is consistent with the ISU scenario of the source of the CMB as noted in the OP. If you have thought that would or could mean that the ISU scenario in the OP could not produce the polarization or the power spectrum that is observed please be specific.
I hope so. If I could get a scientist to look at it and could prove it is wrong by pointing to evidence that there could not have been a big crunch, that Type 1 Energy could not exist, that matter couldn’t form from energy, that there couldn’t have been an isotropic hydrogen epoch before the CMB formed, or that the scenario in the OP could not produce the CMB that we know and love then it could be falsified.

The ISU seems able to account for every observation that I know of that can be accounted for by any means. If there is an observation that can not be accounted for in the ISU, that can be accounted for in BBT or in any cosmology that excludes the ISU then the ISU can be falsified by that.

The photon has to be composed of EEPs. A photon would have to be an EEP environment that forms from the EEPs that are part of the electron that emits the photon.

The proton has to be stable because of the vibration of the proton caused by the pulsing of the EEPs that make up the proton. There has to be a huge number of EEPs that cause the vibration and the synthesis of the proton from the EEPs must mean that there is no stable vibration pattern at any sub-proton level that could be stable in an EEP rich environment.

There are probably some possible observations that could differentiate our universe from the ISU in the area of the EEP. If matter is not made of EEPs for example the ISU would be falsified so if there were some test that could show that the energy in matter is not quantized then EEPs do not work the way they must to let the physics of a big crunch work the way it must.

To do testing on the EEP level would require the observation of some very low energy phenomenon and be able to control the experiments. Science will someday be able to do that and then EEPs may be tested.

Another way to test and to falsify the ISU, even if it could not be falsified immediately, would be to have a team of scientists that understood the ISU well enough to make predictions from it and then let science evolve until those predictions can be tested and falsified.

What is anti-matter composed of?There is an exchange of posts in another ATM thread on 'space'; to borrow just one:It would seem that, in the ISU idea, space and time are independent, that GR does not work, and that ISU (in this respect) is background dependent.

Does GR work in the ISU?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid What is anti-matter composed of?

Anti-matter is not naturally occurring in the very early ISU, i.e. it is not part of the matter that forms form EEPs during the period of abundant matter formation. Matter formation takes place in a low energy environment, at the other end of the energy spectrum from high energy particles like X-rays and gamma rays.

Anti-matter is the product of high energy environments that exist later, after star formation. They are the product of matter that is made of EEPs. There must be som