The ISU Dialogues, Part One -- The Theory That Goes EEP

DB: "You haven't had us over for coffee as much lately. Are the ATM rule changes at BAUT the reason?"

CM: "Yes, I'm afraid so. There's been slim pickins' in ATM lately. I wanted to discuss Coldcreation's cosmology because there was one topic, the possibility of an upper limit to the amount of curvature, that I thought worthy of discussion. But the thread got derailed on some peripheral topic and kept getting closed, so we won't be discussing that."

BH: "Maybe we could deconstruct Dutch's 'Hyperdimensional Design'?"

CM: "A complete waste of time. There's no science in it, everyone (well, almost everyone) can see that, he's only making it up as he goes along. Not worth our time.

CM: "A worthier use of our time and my coffee would be taking a good look at the 'Infinitely Spongy Universe' theory of Bogie. I've not been able to work up an interest in it until now. I want you to read this printout of 'The Infinite Reach of Gravity' thread and see what you think."

A half-hour and a cup of coffee later, we put down our copies and started to discuss.

BH: "The most notable thing about Bogie's presentation are the things that are not there: no equations, no anti-matter, no neutrinos, no quarks, no quantum mechanics to speak of, no mention of relativity, special or general."

CM: "That bothered me a little. You'll notice my comment in the thread about Eddington's Fundamental Theory. I really did read it back at the university; an interesting book but ultimately left behind as a dead end because it did not acknowledge all of the particles discovered and already known within Eddington's lifetime. To Eddington and to Bogie the universe seems to consist only of protons, electrons and photons. Such was the list of known particles at the dawn of quantum mechanics. Within Eddington's lifetime the positron (predicted by Dirac), neutron and muon were discovered. Since then we've seen an explosion of particles which have given way to the fundamental particles of the standard model: six quarks, six leptons, photon, W+/-, Z, gluon and (maybe) Higgs and graviton. Could any of these be composites of some smaller number of particles? Possibly, there are models out there but so far no observations to back any of them up."

DB: "I notice that Bogie doesn't really say much about the properties of his so-called EEPs. He doesn't say how much mass they have, how much angular momentum, well, in post #20 he does say how much charge, but I don't really believe it."

CM: "There's a very fundamental error in his calculation of the number of EEPs in the proton and the electron. We'll get to that later. But first let's look at post #2 of the thread.

CM: "There's a lot here; we don't have spacetime to comment on it all, so I'll try to summarize."
BH: "And not an equation in any of it! I'd feel a lot better if there was a wee bit of quantum mechanics describing an equation of motion for these EEPs, or maybe a propagator or something."

DB: "All Bogie is doing is telling a story; he's after understanding."

CM: "But it won't come just from storytelling. A story is just that; a story. An equation is a library-full of stories, stories that write themselves if you only have the understanding. ( ) Unfortunately when most people use the word 'understanding', such as when VivPope wrote 'understanding is more important than equations', it's not understanding that they're after, but some kind of new-age mantra for their navel-gazing. I'm not willing to provide this. OK, here's something for you navel-gazers out there: 'Mass is what enables us to sit still and wait.' This should provide hours of navel-gazing enjoyment. Meditate on that."

CM: "While the navel-gazers are occupied elsewhere, let's get back to post #2 of this thread. Let's look at it in a little more detail. One of the first things I take issue with is this:"
CM: "Quantum field theory has been one of the most successful of our theories; quantum electrodynamics (QED) makes predictions to ten decimal places and more that are measured in experiments. And at the bottom of it all is the conception of creation and destruction operators. And with the exception of the photon (which is treated as its own anti-particle), this means creation and destruction operators for particle and anti-particle."

BH: "I noted that there was no mention of anti-matter anywhere. How does he propose to put together an anti-proton out of hundreads of millions of EEPs in such a way as to guarantee the same mass but opposite charge?"

CM: "Indeed. In some other thread I also asked how all of these presumably neutrally-charged EEPs could give rise to a charged composite. I did not find the answer satisfactory. But there is a way out for Bogie, if he's willing to take it. If he allows for the existence of anti-EEPs, anti-particles of his EEPs, he is then able to build anti-matter that is exactly the 'mirror image' of matter simply by combining anti-EEPs in the same way as EEPs where combined. As a bonus, a photon can then be considered as a composite of EEPs and anti-EEPs, although there is no evidence as yet for such structure in photons."

DB: "Why are you telling Bogie what his theory should be?"

CM: "Well, if he does progress in his reading and learning he will ultimately have to take in some quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. I'm hard-headed enough to know what is necessary and soft-hearted enough to give it to people, whether they understand it or not."

DB: "Or want it or not!"

CM: "That too."

BH: "But I'd really like to know what you found wrong with his computation in post #20."

DB: "And I'm sure most of our readers would like to know, too."

CM: "OK, let's get a refill and I'll deconstruct post #20."

To be continued ...

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

The ISU Dialogues, Part Two -- Numerology

Our cups refilled, we got back to Bogie's Infinite Spongy Universe:

CM: "We're taking a brief detour to discuss Bogie's assertion that the proton contains 699,955,457,517 EEPs and the electron contains 381,239,356 EEPs."

BH: "Why those magic numbers?"

CM: "We'll see in a few moments. I'll quote the relevant passages from post #20:"
CM: "No need for a spreadsheet; algebra and fifteen seconds will suffice."
DB: "But the units are wrong! The ratio of the masses, 1:1,836, is a dimensionless number, but the ratio of area to volume has dimensions of inverse length!"

CM: "Exactly correct. And that's why this computation is wrong, as so often happens when amateurs finally start putting numbers on their stories. I do offer a way out, though."

DB: "How?"

CM: "Consider a proton to be made up of M EEPs and an electron to be made up of N EEPs. If the EEPs all have equal mass, and binding energy does not enter in, which I realize is a bit of wishful thinking, then M/N = 1836. Let the proton have radius R and the EEP a radius of r. Then if a proton is put together out of M EEPs with no spaces or overlap (possibly another bit of wishful thinking) then M = (4/3 pi R³)/(4/3 pi r³) = (R/r)³. Now let us imagine trying to put N EEPs on the surface of this proton. The area of a great circle of an EEP would be 4 pi r², so N of these squeezed together on the surface, again ignoring gaps and overlaps would be N = (4 pi R²)/(4 pi r²) = (R/r)². So finally 1836 = M/N = (R/r), that is the radius of the proton must be 1836 times the radius of an EEP if the mass of the EEPs on the surface of the proton is to add up to the mass of the electron.

CM: "Knowing that the radius of the proton is about 1.3x10^-15 m then tells us the radius of an EEP. Of course this is still numerology and there is precious little physical content in it."

BH: "Amen!"

CM: "After this sidebar, I'd like to get back to discussing post #2."

To be continued ...

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

CM's dialog is good and I want to participate by putting in emphasis here and there.

ISUEEP5-13-07

We must always keep the following in mind when talking about the ISU and the EEP.

It is not practical to think of a universe containing one EEP, but if there was just one, would it expand forever as its tiny quantum amount of energy spread thinner and thinner or would it simply expand and contract by itself in empty space?

I think it would be the latter. If so would each expansion be fulfilling some finite relationship as to full expansion and each contraction reaching some limit as to its own internal density? I think so, and I think that the full expansion and full contraction would have specific limits and would define the space that one EEP could occupy if allowed to fully expand and contract. If so we could assign a constant to the fully expanded size and a constant to the fully contracted size, and assign a function to the pulsing by using a time factor for each full pulse cycle.

It is not practical to think of a universe containing so many EEPs that they could not expand at all. They would be locked in their contracted state and could never have enough space to expand. Even if while in the locked state they had potential to expand they would have no space to expand in. The value of that potential would eventually be derived from the math of the pulsing EEP if it could be quantified, and I think it can be.

Each of the above two cases is an extreme of energy density. One EEP expanding and contracting may only need a tiny amount of empty space to exist and fully pulse representing the lowest possible energy density, while a universe of fully locked EEPs that could not expand at all would have the highest possible energy density.

Energy density of space is the number of EEPs divided by the volume of space that they occupy.

Lets us explore the energy density possibilities that are between those two extremes.

Let us take first a “low energy density environment” where all of the EEPs can fully expand and contract in their own space, there is even room to add more EEPs before you begin to get some overlap. And let us define the term overlap to simply mean that there are too many EEPs in a given space to allow them all to fully expand and contract with intruding on each others required allotment of space. In this low energy density environment there is no overlap.

Let us take next a perfectly “equalized energy density environment” where all of the EEPs can fully expand and contract in their own space, but if you add one more EEP there will begin to be some overlap. This energy density of space (EDS), with complete freedom for each EEP, and yet with the maximum EEPs allowed without overlap we will call the equalized energy density. This is the perfect EDS for an EEP that likes companionship but wants its own space; the perfectly equalized energy density of space.

Not only is this perfect for the comfort loving EEPs, this is the energy density that space seeks to achieve. It is the perfect background. Now don’t take me literally, I am not suggesting that EEPs or space have a mind of their own; I am speaking figuratively. The perfect background is the energy density that allows this perfect relationship between all EEPs and the space that they occupy.

Next let us take an energy density of space that has too many EEPs to allow them each to fully expand and contract in their own sufficient space, but that does not cause them all to be locked so that they can never expand at all. They are only compressed to some degree and go on pulsing with only minor inconvenience.

Just to define that landscape in the most general parameters, this would be termed a high energy density of space that causes there to be some degree of compression at all times. The term compression means that none of the EEPs can fully expand, and before they can fully contract their space is intruded upon by an adjacent EEP and they can never fully contract without intrusion. They are slightly compressed.

Up to this point we have discussed five different energy densities of space: One EEP alone in space, so many EEPs that they can only exist if they are locked in their contracted position, a low energy density environment, the ideal energy density of space, and a moderately high energy density of space.

I think the universe, the greater universe in the ISU, has a high energy density on that scale. And I think that the universe has always existed and has always had this high energy density. High energy density forces matter to exist. The proportion of matter to energy density of space is determined by how high the average energy density of the greater universe is.

The matter that exists is made up of the excess EEPs over and above the ideal background of perfectly "equalized energy density" described above.

This may have covered already ... if so, could you please point to the post(s) where it was?

In the ISU idea, what is the equation relating the acceleration of photons to "gravity"?

If photons "can be accelerated by gravity", then your idea requires replacing (or trashing) the theory of Relativity (both Special and General), right?

How does an idea become mainstream?

Certainly not by the mechanism you summarise here!

You need to get it published, in a relevant peer-reviewed journal ... and that would be just the first step in your idea becoming mainstream.

It seems you've sorta covered gravity, in this thread, and along the way electromagnetism crept in, via your speculations on the charge of an EEP.

Let's see if you've actually covered electromagnetism, in a semi-classical way ...

What, in the ISU/EEP idea, is a photon?

How, in the ISU/EEP idea, does electromagnetism 'work'? As in, is it a force? (if so, how does it arise, what are its fundamental characteristics?) If not, what is it?

For gravity, what is its speed of propagation, in the ISU/EEP idea?

Which of the relevant equivalence principles, at the heart of GR, does the ISU/EEP idea say are wrong (or need re-stating)?

Going a bit further, perhaps beyond the scope of this thread, what are the weak and strong (nuclear) forces, in the ISU/EEP idea?

In particular, how many EEPs to a neutrino?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid This may have covered already ... if so, could you please point to the post(s) where it was?

I don’t have that equation.
Replacing GR or trashing GR may not be the right words. In my response to you on another thread I said, “These ideas have to be considered speculation, but it is responsible speculation that would change GR if true. It might not change the accuracy of the GR predictions and EFEs, but with the existence of a greater universe with different energy density environments (consisting of arenas like I predict), GR would have to be revised, and space time would have to be reconsidered.

Photon mass is a discussion that has to take place. The only place that I mention it is where you picked up the quote from my earlier post. But in the ISU, anything that forms from the energy density of space is denser than the energy density of the space from which it forms. Therefore anything that travels through the energy density of space will follow the energy density fluctuations (low energy density caused by mass). That includes photons.

However photons differ in that they don’t exert gravity themselves like other mass that is composed of atoms. It is the electron/proton relationship that is responsible for gravity and the photon does not have that relationship. Therefore mass is accelerated in a gravitational field because mass is both affected by and exerts gravity. A photon is affected by a gravitation field because a gravitational field is a low energy density fluctuation surrounding mass that causes the path of photons to follow it like “curved” space, but photons do not contribute any curvature themselves and so they pass through the gravitational well in a straighter path.

I see. Thank you. I thought I could just declare it, NOT .

That post was to demonstrate that I was not getting and responses and I was pretending that in the abscence of responses my content must be OK. I was kidding.

Let me say this here, I have not covered electromagnetism.
A photon is a packet of EEPs emitted by an electron.
I have only just figured out a rudimentary way of quantifing the energy of an EEP. That calculation was the result of a bottom up approach to describing how matter would form from the energy density of space when that density reached the ideal density for matter formation. I am at the point in the specifics of matter formation where a photon is being emitted from an electron for the first time after the hydrogen atom has formed from the energy density of space. I have not even thought through what the emission of the photon does to the atom the emits it. I guess it imparts rotation in space but I'm not there yet.
I have given that some thought. I can't tell you in meters per second but I am thinking that the shift in EEPs due to gravity fast. I don't see that it is related to the speed of light though. I just don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.

There is an energy density differential caused by the formation of the proton. The formation of the proton occurs as EEPs become synchronized and join together to pulse alternatively. When they become synchronized there is space vacated that causes an energy density differential between the vacated space and the energy density of the surrounding background. That differential still exists when the proton has completed forming and is the reason why EEPs swarm the proton. The swarming results in the formation of an electron which I predict has a one for one relationship between the number of EEPs in the electron and the number of EEPs on the surface of the proton.

That energy differential is what holds the electron to the proton. I haven't tried to analyze that in regard to weak and strong (nuclear) forces. I also have not built atoms bigger that hydrogen using the bottom up approach.
The number of EEPs in the electron and proton that I predicted are determined by this so called bottom up process. This is the lowest of energy environments, long before stars form, and early in the process of photon generation that extracts energy from the background and adds it to matter. Neutrons don't even exist yet though I predict that they form in the first round of hydrogen stars.

Neutrinos probably form from the collapse of the first hydrogen stars but I have not gotten that far in my bottom up approach.

Right now, where I stand in the bottom up approach is at the point that the young new matter is heating up from the proton emissions due to gravity, i.e. the photons that are emitted by atoms perpetuate the low energy density surrounding mass. Gravity is the response of mass to the low energy density surrounding mass. Mass tends to move toward the low energy density path through space. The lowest energy density path is a straigh line between masses. This tends to cause mass to move into the gravitational wells of other mass.

In an earlier Bogie-Nereid-Bogie triad of posts, in this thread, I learned that you were joking.

Are you joking now too?

I mean, take a look at this Bogie post, from earlier in this thread (my bold):Perhaps I misunderstood, big time ... what does "The electrical charge of the EEP = -4.20260913 × 10-28 coulombs" mean?

In particular, in this phrase, what is the meaning of "electrical charge"?

In the ISU/EEP idea, what are positrons?

In particular, how many EEPs go to make up a positron?

What happens in (electron-positron) pair production (according to the ISU/EEP idea)?

What happens in electron-positron annihilation (in thie ISU/EEP idea)?

In the ISU/EEP idea, can photons be emitted by positrons? by protons?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid In an earlier Bogie-Nereid-Bogie triad of posts, in this thread, I learned that you were joking.

Is this where you are referring to where you learned I was joking?
The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU

You can see I was kidding about declaring it mainstream; the joke being as if just by saying it, that made it so. That is what I was kidding about.

I wouldn’t say that I covered electromagnetism by saying the flow of EEPs that I refer to is like an electrical current. The suggestion is that because the flow of EEPs is initiated by the energy density differential surrounding the proton that it is like the flow of electrical current.

Am I wrong to make a comparison between an electrical current and the flow of EEPs that is due to an energy density differential?

That is the electrical charge of an electron divided by the number of EEPs in the electron at rest from my earlier calculations.
It is an effort to compare gravity as I describe it to an electrical current, i.e. to make a comparison of the electrical charge of the electron to that of the EEP in that comparison. It compares the flow of EEPs that cause gravity to the flow of electrons that cause electricity.

My description of the formation of the hydrogen atom and the generation of photons as part of the flow of gravity takes place in a very low energy environment. Positrons are the product of high energy physics that I have not addressed in my posts.
I don’t know.

I did say that the electron at rest contains 381,239,356 EEPs.

I don’t know if it is possible to have a positron are rest, is it? I’m not sure of how your positrons are created put I think you are talking about producing them in high energy experiments. I haven’t addressed high energy physics in my posts.
I haven’t addressed that reaction in my posts. And I don’t know.
I haven’t addressed that reaction either.
I haven’t addressed the high energy physics that produces positrons. I am using a bottom up approach that starts at the low energy end of physics.

Some clarifications then please:

1) your post, which I quoted, intended to make 'gravity as (electrical) current' an analogy (despite what you actually wrote in it)?

2) In the ISU/EEP idea, there is no relationship between photons and electrical charge?

3) introducing calculations of the charge on an EEP, in that post, was not intended to have any relevance to 'gravity as a current' (other than that both involve some kind of 'flow')?

4) Other than 'flow', from some kind of higher (density) region (or state?) to a lower one, in what respect(s) is it legitimate to use the 'gravity as current' analogy?

For example, charge carriers (both positive and negative)? generation of gravitational radiation (due to accelerating charges)? existence of a 'gravitomagnetic' force (due to special relativistic 'frames of reference')?