Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid High quality astronomical observations, by the million, are consistent with the early universe being a (very) high energy (density) thing.

I think that in the BBT that all of the particles that compose matter were there from the start in a “soup”, if I may use that term. They were too hot to function together and so from some initial cause unspecified in BBT, the soup began to “expand” but I think it could be called “spread out” or “separate”. And it cooled as it expanded and when it cooled sufficiently it began to function as matter as we know it, absorbing and emitting photons, reacting to gravity, making a CMBR, forming stars, stars explode into “dust”, dust forms stars and galaxies, all separating from each other.

In the ISU, the precondition that caused the “expansion” which is a merging of two huge energy density fluctuations is identified. It was a big crunch that burst. That is why I predict an EEP. The EEP enables the undiscovered physics to cause a big crunch to burst.

Choosing a cosmology that provides an origin of our expanding universe must include the missing physics that allows for the formation of conditions that could result in the initial expansion. It is unavoidable that a discussion of possible causes of the initial event be considered because there might be some aspect of the preconditions that affects how our observable universe works today.

Using observations well documented and confirmed about the expansion of our universe and acknowledging a very dense precondition that I find is absolutely required in my cosmology based on observation, it occurred to me that a big crunch was that “precondition”. A big crunch came to mind because it is mentioned as one of the possible ways that entropy will prevail in BBT.

Logic says that if there was a big crunch as a precondition, then entropy did not prevail and so there are some undiscovered physics that could be the cause of the initial expansion and that defeat entropy.

BBT does not consider the preconditions properly IMHO.

Why did I resort to a bottom up approach? Because there are some things that we just don’t know and can only speculate about. For any speculation to be of use it has to be responsible and must strive for the simplest explanation IMHO. That is the bottom up approach. In order for a crunch to become a big bang I knew that there had to be some missing physics.

That physics is embodied in the elemental energy particle (EEP) with which you are beginning to get familiar. The EEP is the tiny self-contained pulsing quantum energy density fluctuation that makes up the energy density of space and that combines to form all particles and matter that exist and that provides the power source behind all of the energy of the universe. When it comes to defeating entropy, it is the EEP that is behind the “energy to matter to energy” process, the huge energy density fluctuations (the forming and “dissolving” of an arena is a huge energy density fluctuation) that recycle matter and energy in each arena. An example of an arena is our presently expanding “big bang” universe.

The ISU cosmology is built on defining the missing physics of the EEP. In the ISU there is a simple assertion that there will be a discovery of such a unifying particle because there is undiscovered physics and the EEP embodies the characteristics necessary. The preconditions to the big “bang” are enabled by that missing particle. The preconditions unfold into a greater universe characterized by a pervasive metamorphosis from matter back to energy. This metamorphosis occurs in big crunches that form and burst in an interwoven lattice of regeneration across the greater universe (I know you hate the word salad but it is just an attempt to describe what I am talking about).

The Role of the EEP throughout the life of an arena

Each arena is only temporary; but then they might exist for ten trillion years forming and “dissolving” back into the greater universe. We think the galaxies in our arena have been forming and separating for 13.7 billion years (the estimated age of our expanding universe) so what is another ten trillion years, almost never relative to the infinite, right?

Matter is prevalent because there has always been a balance between energy and matter across the greater universe.

Gravity working on this matter is the first phase of the life of an arena. Under the attraction of gravity, matter from the greater universe naturally and slowly forms into great attractors that acquire an accretive disk that compels matter to swirl toward their center of gravity forming a big “crunch”.

The second phase occurs because there is a natural critical capacity that each crunch can encompass. We are talking about matter in the form of galaxies, black holes, cosmic dust and even passing photons being accumulated in the crunch. All arenas are essentially the same as to content and length of service because of this “critical capacity”. The characteristics of the EEP determine what constitutes critical capacity. This means that the big crunch that accumulates around the center of gravity in an arena can only get so big before it bursts.

The burst occurs because EEPs get locked in the core of the crunch and can’t pulse. As the locked core grows there is a growing potential energy struggling against the compression of gravity. The locked core is the extreme energy density environment.

The accretion into the crunch continues and as the locked core grows, the potential “burst” energy increases. Interestingly enough, the locked core is no longer “matter” because matter loses its identity even before the EEPs get locked. When matter is compressed at the core of the crunch, it is “negated” and becomes an extremely dense energy environment instead of matter. The distinction between matter and this extremely dense energy is that the locked core does not exert gravity, only matter exerts gravity. The mass of the crunch is being converted to potential burst energy.

Eventually a sufficient amount of matter is negated within the crunch so that the potential burst energy of the locked core exceeds the compression of gravity and the burst occurs.

Please note that when the burst occurs, the critical capacity of the crunch has been reached and the burst becomes a simple matter of the missing physics. Because of critical capacity, all crunches will burst instead of growing endlessly. This is the reason that the entire greater universe does not collapse into a single crunch as is predicted by cosmologies that don’t include the EEP.

The burst marks the release of the near infinitely dense energy environment into the extremely low energy density of surrounding space, i.e. into the greater universe surrounding the crunch. The surrounding energy density of space (EDS) is referred to as “extremely low” relative to the extremely high EDS released by the burst. Both environments consist of EEPs. Matter in the arena has been negated except for the residual accretive disk. The disk close to the crunch is already plasma which is negated along with any matter in the vicinity when the burst occurs.

The expansion that occurs in each arena after the release of the near infinitely high energy density is the process of energy density equalization at work. Equalization is the merger of two adjoining energy density environments. Energy in space is continually trying to equalize its density across contiguous space and so our dense ball of freshly unlocked EEPs emerges from the crunch and immediately expands as it merges with the low energy density of the greater universe surrounding the crunch. The energy density of the emergent ball is being diluted by the equalization process as it expands.

The dilution of the energy density continues until the ideal energy density for matter formation is achieved. This is the energy density of space that allows the individual EEPs to sufficiently express their expansion and contraction. Sufficient pulsing results in an energy environment that favors EEP combining.

The combining of EEPs occurs when they become synchronized. Synchronization is achieved when a fully contracted EEP finds itself adjacent to a fully expanded EEP, a condition that can not occur when EEP overlap is too high. Synchronized EEPs are merged into the same space, one expanding in that space while one contracts from that space, held together by their tiny individual energy density fluctuations as they pulse in alternate phases. Synchronization causes a migration from chaos to order. As more synchronization occurs, the more orderly becomes the use of space by synchronized EEPs. Space is thus freed up or vacated by the jostling that results in synchronized groupings of EEPs.

Vacated space causes an energy density differential between that empty space and the EEPs that make up the energy density of the surrounding space. In fact empty space is the ultimate energy density differential and EEPs swarm to fill it even at the lowest ranges of EDS. This means that individual EEPs from the background are squeezing into the vacated space which provides the synchronized grouping of EEPs continual access to unsynchronized EEPs and the synchronized group grows as each niche is filled by a willing EEP pressed in by the “weight” of the swarming EEPs.

The proton is the first stable particle that forms from this grouping process. The surface of the proton is a completely synchronized EEP barrier that prevents additional EEPs from finding a niche. The swarming of the proton continues as it is still surrounded by this zone of vacated space perpetuated as EEPs are taken up into the forming proton.

Once the stable proton exists the swarm surrounding it forms an electron, a concentrated cloud of EEPs still attempting to find a niche in the proton but rejected by the proton and captured in the protons vacated space.

The rejected EEPs overfill the vacated space and are forced to slough off some of the excess energy back into and against the flow of the swarm. The excess energy builds up until the pressure in the swarm exceeds the “weight” of the swarm and a packet of EEPs is forced from the cloud in a discrete packet of EEPs called a photon. The force of the ejection from the electron causes the photon to travel at the speed of light attesting to the huge potential of the energy differential caused by the tiny zone of vacated space surrounding the proton at the instant that it stabilized.

This process of matter formation causes hydrogen to form abundantly and almost simultaneously across the entire expanse making a homogeneous and isotropic environment of hydrogen atoms across the entire expanse.

It is amazing how quickly the energy density of the expanding ball diminishes as matter forms. Logic says the “post matter formation” environment is still a very high energy density environment because only a portion of the EEPs that emerged from the crunch found a niche in the stable proton and it’s captured electron.

After this abundant matter formation period there is still active energy density equalization occurring between the homogeneous and isotropic hydrogen environment and the surrounding low energy density of the greater universe into which it is expanding.

Gravity has been reintroduced into the environment by the formation of the hydrogen atoms. These atoms are attracted to each other by gravity and they begin a clumping process that quickly leads to the formation of huge fast hot burning hydrogen stars. The stars, because of their huge size are quick to collapse, explode, and die out permeating the environment with their “dust”. This is the environment where thermalization occurs and the CMBR originates.

This heated dust contains the product of fusion, the heavier nuclei that lead to nucleosynthesis and the emergence of heavier slower burning stars and the formation of galaxies composed of stars that are often surrounded by planets.

These galaxies are all moving away from each other as a result of the ongoing expansion. As the energy density slowly becomes equalized with the greater universe, the galaxies, dust and uncombined EEPs from the burst rejoin the greater universe. The arena that formed as long as ten trillion years ago has now dissolved back into the greater universe.

The greater universe has been replenished with useful energy in many forms, an example of the defeat of entropy orchestrated by the tiny EEP.

After the hydrogen stars formed and as they collapsed and exploded.
There is high energy in the hydrogen star epoch.
You asked this already. They do not exert gravity but are influenced by the gravitational field. Does that make them matter, I think so in a way but not in the same sense that atoms are matter. Atoms exert gravity and are influenced by gravity.
The same answer applies to them.
As mentioned above, the dilution of the energy density continues until the ideal energy density for matter formation is achieved. This is the energy density of space that allows the individual EEPs to sufficiently express their expansion and contraction. Sufficient pulsing results in an energy environment that favors EEP combining.

The combing of EEPs occurs when they become synchronized. Synchronization is achieved when a fully contracted EEP finds itself adjacent to a fully expanded EEP, a condition that can not occur when EEP overlap is too high.
The matter formation period is very rapid in cosmological terms. I put it in a range from ten thousand to a half a million years depending on how efficient energy density equalization is. I wish I could do better on that but I am working alone with almost no input to help me brainstorm these kinds of questions.

I would like to find that a critical capacity is a Black Hole - our Observable Universe has a critical density like in Black Hole.
I would like to prove that Dark Energy is not from nothing but it is an energy supplied into our Observable Universe from an outside space.
The potential gravitational energy in the space is attractive and kinetic energy in the rest mass particle is repulsive.
It will support the ISU I think.

In a quick summary then, how does the ISU/EEP idea account for five key cosmological observations?

1) Olbers' paradox: what do sight-lines end on?

2) Hubble relationship, including that traced by high-z 1a SNe: expansion of spacetime (just like the LCDM models?)

3) the CMB: thermalisation of early stars (for the BB spectrum); the angular power spectrum is not explained

4) primordial abundance of light nuclides: should be soley H; existence of primordial D, ³He and ⁴He is not explained

5) large-scale structure: same as LCDM models (gravity dominated hierarchical structure formation), except that there is no CDM (so the details of the large-scale structure are not explained).

Oh, and there are no numbers, so no quantitative matching is possible.

What did I get wrong?

I have addressed two of these points in the past so that may help me a little in responding to this question.

Unfortunately I won’t be able to jot off an answer off the top of my head because several of these “observations” I am unfamiliar with. That means it will take some time and time is a commodity in ATM.

PM me or email me if there are any comments in the interim. If anyone would like to assist me in developing a response they could explain the issue for some or all of the observations and email me. What am I supposed to be trying to explain?

Please close the thread while I get busy.

Thread closed at originator's request. PM a moderator or report this post in order to request that it be reopened.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Thread re-opened at originator's request.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I can see where these questions though ”just a quick summary” as you say, can be used to qualify a cosmology based on a fit with the referenced observations.

My answer to all five is that I don’t know.

But I will go on to say that nothing in the content of my posts leads me to believe that those observations pose a problem. They are the kind of questions that will need to be addressed but it is too early for my particular cosmology to address them.

I’ve mentioned before that my cosmology is being built from the bottom up and so far, the only science that I have violated as far as I know is the “taboo” on speculation.

To address that objection I have defined “responsible” speculation and how it is part of the bottom up process that is behind my posts.

What “responsible” speculation?

1. There is a “before and beyond” the big bang, i.e. preconditions that caused the big bang.
2. There is a unifying particle that has not yet been observed.
3. That particle would have to have some particular characteristics in order for it to be behind the missing physics necessary to explain the “pre-existing cause” of the big bang.

I have done a good bottom up analysis of such a particle, and I have described a greater universe that is consistent with such a particle and that could explain the “preconditions” the lead to the big bang if such a particle existed.

It is the key content of my posts that should be addressed and shown to be incompatible with science. Key content in my posts and in those descriptions include these characteristics of such a particle:

1. They are the tiniest possible increment of energy; a quantum of energy.
2. They are self-contained perpetual energy “machines” that pulse by expanding and contracting.
3. The expansion and contraction provides the power behind all of the energy in the universe.
4. They are indestructible and have always existed.
5. They make up the energy density of space.
6. Energy density fluctuates as the “energy to matter to energy” process plays out in small “arenas” like our expanding universe; our finite observable universe is expanding within a greater universe that is potentially infinite.
7. Matter forms from the energy density of space as expansion occurs, and matter is “negated” back to energy in the form of individual unifying particles under the force of gravity in a big crunch. Matter can only exist within a certain range of energy density. When the energy density gets too low gravity defeats expansion and crunches form and when the energy density gets to high (due to gravity) matter is negated back to energy which then defeats gravity and bursts back into expansion.
8. Matter forms in this order: Protons first, electrons form around protons, and electrons emit photons. All other matter and observable particles form later under high energy circumstances that require the forces within stars or when matter is accelerated.

All of the characteristics of the undiscovered unifying particle and the fluctuating energy density of space that characterizes their existence combine to defeat the entropy predicted by BBT.

The ISU Dialogues, Part Three -- Things ATMers Forget (or Never Learn in the First Place)

The three of us looked up from our coffee cups to discover that the "Infinite Reach of Gravity" thread has reopened.

CM: "Where were we? Yes, we were going to get back to discussing post #2 after our sidebar on his 'computation' of the number of EEPs in the proton and neutron."

BH: "He doesn't appear to accept your refutation."

DB: "In fact he's pretty much stuck his fingers in his ears and gone 'la-la-la-la-la'."

CM: "Doesn't matter. But I'm not ready right now to go back to post #2. I want to speak more generally about some of the ATM theories we've seen that posit some as-yet more fundamental particles below our current set of fundamental particles. You see there are certain things that ATMers forget about particles and how to build them up."

BH: "Or never learn in the first place!"

CM: "True, true. So let's begin. The first thing that theories such as Bogie's ISU and its EEPs and Sylwester Kornowski's theory with its 'eterions' and 'higgsons' forget is angular momentum--spin in other words. Neither of these theories says anything at all about the spins of their fundamental particles and how these particles are to be put together to yield the observed spins of the fundamental particles that we do observe."

DB: "Could the spin of the composite be due to orbital angular momentum of the components?"

CM: "Not entirely, because orbital angular momentum can only be integral. To get a half-integral total momentum you must have an odd number of fermions. You cannot build a fermion from bosons alone."

DB: "Then Bogie's EEPs must be fermions."

BH: "But he claims millions and even billions in the electron and proton. How is it that these particles have the minimum possible angular momentum? How is it that all of the orbital and spin angular momentum from all those particles magically almost cancel?"

CM: "That's a severe problem. Here's another thing that ATMers forget or never learn in the first place: charges. No composite can have a charge that no component has. If you could somehow put together a bound state of a neutrino and an anti-neutrino the resulting composite will still be neutral. This is something that neither Sylwester Kornowski nor Bogie could satisfactorily answer.

CM: "Of course we can put together neutral composites out of charged components, such as color-neutral nucleons and electrically-neutral atoms and molecules.

CM: "One more thing these 'theorists' forget is just what force holds their 'fundamental' particles together to form the particles that we actually observe? Almost without exception they never propose a credible force for binding their particles together. At best we get numerology such as Bogie's post #20."

BH: "Speaking of that post, something's been troubling me about it."

CM: "What?"

BH: "Well, in his little 'story' all these billions and only that one precise number of billions of EEPs form a proton. Somehow that proton magically acquires a positive charge and attracts a number of EEPs that will fit on its surface. This number of EEPs in the hundreds of millions and no other number of EEPs magically acquires a negative charge. Now what prevents that electron from attracting other EEPs to its surface, and forming a much smaller positively charged particle, and what prevents that particle from attracting enough particles to its surface, and, well you get the idea?"

CM: "Indeed, that is probably the fatal flaw of this theory. And that brings me to one last thing ATMers forget: the neutron is not a bound state of the proton and electron. Just because the neutron decays into these particles and an electron anti-neutrino does not imply that they were all contained within the neutron.

CM: "In the earliest days of nuclear physics when only the proton and electron were known a lot of hand-waving went into explaining how electrons could be confined to the nucleus and yet could also form the outer shell structure of atomic and molecular physics. This problem went away with the discovery of the neutron, but some people, such as Eddington, never accepted this. And many ATMers make the same mistake."

CM: "Maybe it's time to refill our cups. I don't know how much longer this thread will stay open."

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.

Particles are not spinning locally.

Spin results from the fluid like flow of the EEPs a corriolas effect.
Take a cork in a whirlpool, it has a regular spin because of the water flow.
From the point of view of the cork it is stationary.
The cork does not "experience" spin.

Particles do not "experience" spin.
Because we are an outside observer we do not see the flow of the EEPs.
We do see the particle and to us it is spinning.

Take an elephant examining its trunk, it sees skin.
The elephant does NOT see the spin of its particles but they do spin.
From the elephants limited point of view its trunk is very stable.

We have electron microscopes and we can only get down to electrons.
So we see spin but can not see down to the level of flow.
From the electron microscopes limited point of view it sees spin.

If it was possible to look further down in size the particle would not spin.
It is floating in a sea of EEPs and is very stable.
What you would see is the vortex like spin of the flow of EEPs.

Cheers Mike

It is tricky to do a bottom up approach because things like spin, angular momentum, half integrals, fermions, bosons, etc. are not yet seen in individual hydrogen atoms at rest as they form from the energy density of space (I read Michael Noonan’s response with interest).

It is fitting that you bring these things up because the bottom up approach needs to address all observed physics. That is no small mission however and it is a mission that must be addressed one “bottom up” step at a time. We need to go from hydrogen atoms at rest to the hydrogen atom environment that begins to exist as photons are emitted to heat things up and to start stirring the peaceful hydrogen environment. That will come and I will start a thread to address spin and further calculations aimed at quantification but that is beyond where I now stand in the bottom up process.

But first, your coffee group is not demonstrating the depth of understanding of the “Bogie idea” necessary to serve as the quintessential panel yet, though I have confidence that with a little participation I can raise their level of awareness.

First there is the “La-la-la” comment that is just wrong. The fact is there are three things wrong with that conclusion. I acknowledged as I put those calculations together that I had unit of measure issues and that input from the community would require a second round of calculations. Secondly, CM’s last paragraphs:

… lays the groundwork for the next round of calculations. And thirdly, the two relationships still stand, i.e. the mass ratio and the surface to volume ratio. The next calculations need to deal with the “units of measure”. I didn’t see a “refutation” in CM’s post but maybe my optimism about further calculations based on the two relationships is unfounded.

Now back to the depth of understand of the coffee group. The coffee group is probably well qualified to understand and form conclusions. But the issue of “charges” as stated in the Dialog Part Three indicates that the group does not appreciate the energy differential caused by vacated space. They don’t appreciate the swarming of the vacated space by the EEPs that make up the EDS. They don’t appreciate the perfect boundary of the completed surface of the proton, and they don’t appreciate how the energy differential surrounding the proton is perpetuated by the sloughing off of excess energy in the form of photons.

Charges and how charges are formed is far from the “fatal flaw” that the coffee group concluded.

There is also the statement in Dialog Three about, “what prevents that [smaller group of EEPs] from attracting enough particles to its surface, and, well you get the idea”.

EEPs are not particles in the same sense that proton, electrons and photons are particles. EEPs are individual energy packets that occupy space. EEPs are the tiny self-contained pulsing quantum energy density fluctuations that make up the energy density of space (EDS) and that combine to form all particles and matter that exist and that provide the power source behind all of the energy of the universe.

Particles of matter form from the EDS when they combine through synchronization. Synchronization only occurs when the EDS is in that narrow range that accommodates matter formation.

The comment from the coffee group about what prevents smaller positive particles to from and attract particles to their surfaces misses the point that they do exactly that. They do that until the surface is a complete boundary that has no niches remaining that can be filled by the attracted (swarming) EEPs. That is when the proton surface is complete and the election forms around the completed proton.

Then there are the groups statements that “the neutron is not a bound state, and about the “outer shell structure” in regard to molecular physics. In the bottom up approach neutrons don’t from directly from the EDS. Neutrons are not considered a “bound state”. Under the gravitational field within a hydrogen star (or any star in later periods of star formation) the electron of a hydrogen atom is forced into the surface of the proton. Once the proton surface is compromised in this manor it accommodates the EEPs that comprise the electron and it re-stabilizes with different surface characteristics and its surrounding low energy density is gone so it no longer attracts EEPs and it will not form or attract an electron.

As for how much longer this thread will stay open, by my calculations it is due to close on June 5th.

The problem with your so-called "bottom up" approach is that you are skipping too many levels to get from your imagined bottom of EEPs to the level of hydrogen atoms. Before you can get to hydrogen atoms you have protons and electrons, both of which have spin angular momentum. These things don't magically turn on because they have been put together in a brand-spanking new hydrogen atom, they are intrinsic to the proton and electron and exist in the proton and electron the moment they are created.
Unfortunately you are not addressing more than a very small part of "observed physics". As has been pointed out you do not address antimatter, relativity (special or general), quantum mechanics, angular momentum, charges and the gauge theories that give rise to charges, nor neutrinos. As Nereid has gotten you to concede, you haven't really considered electromagnetism, the most visible (pun not intended!) of the forces. Your "stories" are a long way from ready for prime time.
Again you are skipping many steps. What about quarks? What about the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? Just how the heck do billions and billions (and only that particular number) of EEPs bind together to form anything?
We have about 15 years of graduate school physics combined. That's awareness enough, I should think. We really would appreciate some equations to sink our teeth into, not the stories and numerology you have given us so far.
Well, I pretty much showed it to be wrong on dimensional grounds. You have not redone the calculations to resolve this, you have not come up with a different pair of absurdly large numbers, so I will consider your earlier calculation effectively refuted. As for your two relationships, they are actually quite ad hoc and arbitrary.
Maybe some equations would help in the appreciation.
Stories, just meaningless stories without the equations.
Just fairy-tales and fables without the equations to back them up.
We didn't miss the point; we understand that that is exactly what you're saying.
Fine. So what prevents these swarming, pulsing, synchronizing EEPs from gathering about an electron and forming a smaller particle, a particle in our sense of the word "particle", and what keeps EEPs from forming on the surface of that particle and forming an even smaller one. Your answer to this question is not satisfactory; this is the fatal flaw.
Another interesting story. Of course the rest mass of the neutron is more (by 0.3 MeV) than the mass of the proton and electron put together. That means several hundred million more EEPs are required. Why are they required? Can you predict how many more millions are required?

Meanwhile, what does your "bottoms up" theorizing say about quarks? You really should consider it, because there is a huge collection of known hadronic states with known masses, charges, strangeness, charm, beauty, angular momentum, parity, etc. That will need explaining. You can't just skip ahead to the hydrogen atom, you've got to explain this stuff first as best you can.

__________________
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.

Your perspective is a top down perspective. You assume a hot bang, a primordial soup, maybe quark-gluon plasma at 100 trillion degrees, out of which came your protons with angular momentum and your electrons with spin as the soup cooled; do I have that right?

I’m not with you on that. I am wondering where the 100 trillion degrees came from, where did the soup come from, how did it get so hot, and what form did the components of the soup take before heating up? If the soup had all the pieces to form those protons and electrons and I presume photons were all there too, why do you think the quarks and gluons were sitting there unaffected at that temperature?

But I’m not asking you to defend BBT nucleosynthesis or to answer my questions. I just want to point out what I’m sure has occurred to you and that is that the soup scenario is no more than theory and all of the “science” you refer to that I have skipped is always the mainstream position. The theory has no answer to preconditions that lead to the soup, or the 100 trillion degrees, or really exactly what was in the soup or how it got there.

My ATM idea starts with the preconditions (the greater universe and the crunch), follows a scenario that could stem from those preconditions (critical capacity and the burst), and identifies a missing unifying particle that must have particular characteristics to enable the transition from the preconditions to the now (the EEP).

There was no hot bang, no soup aside from EDS, no unmentionable preconditions, no singularity.

Do you appreciate that my approach takes a different path? Everything that mainstream says must have been and must have happened to get to where we are is different from my path that actually identifies the preconditions, identifies the unifying particle, and describes the missing physics to get from there to here.

You are debating from a position that is flawed by its lack of continuity, its lack of evidence, and its refusal to attempt to explain origins and causes. I am debating from a position that overcomes those flaws up to the point that I have reached, but is characterized by what I call “responsible speculation”. There is room for both approaches. There has to be.
What I have is a starting point that offers an explanation of preconditions. I don’t expect an answer but do you ever wonder about preconditions? Do you wave them away as unimportant or unknowable? Do you ever wonder about what initiated the expansion? Or how space gets created? You have to be uncomfortable with the lack of possibilities allowed by the mainstream.

By taking my approach I admittedly will have to reconstruct a universe that fits the observations. But when I reconstruct it, it will be different from mainstream. It is not an effective argument to point out that my path does not coincide with the mainstream theory.

My progress finds me at the period of matter formation and the beginning efforts to quantify the basic building block. I am undaunted by having it pointed out that I am dealing with a very small part of observed physics just as you are undaunted by me referring to the “soup” and the 100 trillion degrees at the beginning of the expansion and wondering about causes and origins.

I do see such extreme temperatures in the crunch that I predict preceded the burst and the expansion, but in my scenario that temperature negated all of the components of matter right down to leaving only EEPs. And the EEPs were locked in the core of the crunch. The core of the crunch is where all of that was converted into potential energy that caused the burst. But with just EEPs in the core, i.e. no matter, no photons, just EEPs, there would be no gravity, no EM, and low temperature not trillions of degrees, and no soup, only extremely condensed EEPs.

We are talking low energy physics at the instant of the burst, and the expansion is caused by the abrupt mixing of two vastly different energy densities. When I said you don’t appreciate the energy differential of vacated space you can also interpret that to mean that you don’t appreciation energy density fluctuations. The mixing of the two vastly different energy densities results in a huge energy differential being utilized to cause the energy density fluctuation of an expanding burst into the relatively low energy density of the greater universe that surrounded the burst.
Again you offer up mainstream theory and under appreciate the matter formation scenario that I have presented in my content. The synchronization of the pulses of the adjacent EEPs, the freeing up of space, the energy differential of vacated space, etc. all are part of the “binding together” that you just asked about; and yet I have included that in detail.

You may well go away after this thread is closed feeling good that the education brought to bear to refute the Bogie idea has relegated it to the junk heap.

And yet I will go away feeling that the intent of your effort was to go away with such a feeling, and not to think out of the box. I don’t fault you for that. I will point out though that I have not and will not receive an answer from the mainstream that puts to rest the very questions that have started me on my path.

Call my effort what you will; you may have never stuck your toe in the water for some reason. If you have not you must be content with the mainstream even with its omissions. I just think there is more to it, and I think that what ever that “more to it” is would certainly change mainstream thinking. I’m offer outside the box ideas.
It is good to know where you stand. I stick by the relationships and the conviction that there is math that can be developed. Though it is true that I have not recalculated, I may have to hire someone to help me there. I have mentioned several times in my threads that I will add content about the quantification as it is available.
I know. I will keep that in mind as if I have not always had it in mind. I know you can’t wait.
I know. That has been the mainstream position right along. I know you can’t wait.
I know that is your position.
Good, I wasn’t sure you appreciated it.
You may be right but let’s get down to it. The electron is made up of the swarming EEPs in the low energy density space due to the energy differential caused by vacated space as the proton formed. They are a swarm that occupies the reserved space surrounding the proton, they don’t form up into a “solid” particle like the proton, but continue to approach and be rejected by the surface of the proton. They would retain their “cloud” structure. Electrons are highly “fluid” structures consisting of EEPs that are not joined or synchronized. I see it as possible that small groups of EEPs in the electron became synchronized and if so they might be what is emitted as photons when the capacity of the energy differential is reached.
I have thought that the difference could be that the binding energy in the hydrogen atom plays a role but I haven’t gotten far enough to quantify it.
I did point out earlier that the mainstream theory and my scenario will take different paths. Protons are observed to consist of various particles when they are accelerated and collided. My hydrogen atoms are not yet subject to those forces. I agree that if I am to completely rewrite physics that I will eventually have to address those particles. It may take awhile. I have what I have and am where I am. Mainstream has what it has and is where it is. I understand that you are giving my idea just what it deserves here in ATM. I hope that there are a few who actually can relate to what I am doing and join in in-spite of the fact that I have to present it in the ATM forum. If anyone wants to assist with the advancement of these ATM ideas you can always email me or PM me and remain anonymous.

Thanks.

It's refreshing to hear this kind of answer, here in the ATM section.

However, it does lead to at least this following question: what, so far, does your idea say, quantitatively, in terms of anything that can be observed (by astronomers)?Actually, as Celestial Mechanic has noted (at some length), it's only "bottom up" within your own definitions.

Putting this another way: the ISU/EEP idea does not connect with anything in modern physics or astronomy or cosmology ... except via a set of definitions that are not quantitative.

Take 'low energy', for example. It seems your criteria for selecting the H atom, and not anti-hydrogen, or neutronium, of BECs, or ... is that, here on Earth, the H atom is, in some sense 'low energy' whereas everything else is 'not low energy'. But surely this presupposes the very thing you are trying to derive! The Earth as somehow typical of the physical regimes which arise, billions of years down the track ...

Why aren't the cores of white dwarf stars, or neutron stars typical physical regimes? Or the intra-cluster medium of rich galaxy clusters?

Nothing, but throughout the various threads about the EEP and the ISU I have been able to qualitatively address many possibilities that must be quantified in order to get any constructive traction. I keep coming back to the stimulus for taking the bottom up approach in the first place; that being that the omissions in the mainstream thinking when it comes to causes and origins.

I agree that I have not yet established a connection to reality but I fall back on the fact that the mainstream relies on theory for most of the period from the instant of first expansion up to galaxy formation. I am still working way back there at the period of abundant matter formation before the first stars formed.

There are no bottom up definitions to work with so it is true they are of my own doing for the most part. It is a catch 22 if you think about it. If I use mainstream theory to support my ideas I am buying into all of the chain of events that lead to that particular theory. I will say that facts are facts and are the same in both the mainstream and the bottom up realm.The closest I am to establishing a connection is my concept of energy density and the formation of matter. The use of EEP synchronization, the freeing up of space surrounding the forming particle, and the energy differential of vacated space are parts of the effort to establish such a connection.
I don't exactly understand the question. The hydrogen atom that is "built" from the energy density of space is the first stable matter to form. It may be composed of quantum particles that from along the way but that are not themselves stable. When you back engineer the atom you find them there in the proton, but they do not independently exist at the time of formation in my scenario. I know that they exist in the mainstream scenario that has a primordial soup and quark-gluon plasma, but that is at 100 trillion degrees. In my scenario that only happens inside the big crunch and the gravity and heat actually destroy quarks, gluons, and even photons, reducing them to the elementary particle, the EEP. Without photons or particles there is no temperature and no gravity. You have to "be there" I guess.

(my bold)

Good luck.(my bold)

But this is an assumption, isn't it?

I mean, you call your approach 'bottom up' because you assume H is "the first stable matter to form".

And, as we discussed earlier, the only reason you choose to say H - and not anti-hydrogen - is "the first stable matter to form" is that, here on Earth, anti-hydrogen is generated, by us earthlings, in 'high energy' experiments.

Take another example: why isn't neutronium (the stuff that neutron stars are (largely) composed of) "the first stable matter to form"? Is it because the only neutronium we know of happens to be formed in rather energetic ways?

Another angle: in the ISU/EEP idea, what are quarks? Specifically, are protons composed of (three) quarks?

Thanks.
I don’t see it that way but it may be that I am conditioned to think that the proton is the most stable, most prevalent nucleon and that the neutron first formed inside the first stars. That way my sequence of events works. If I was preconditioned to think differently I might see some other stable particle scenario but I don’t.
Picking up at the point in the expansion of the high density EEP environment after the burst of the big crunch is expanded to where matter can form, there needs to be a trigger to start that matter formation. The trigger results from the fact that expansion has finally proceeded to the point that the overlapping EEPs begin to be able to pulse without overlapping. Are you with me to this point?

Once they can fully expand and contract without interfering with each other then they can achieve full contraction occupying minimum space. And they can achieve full expansion occupying maximum space. Everywhere around them EEPs are still jostling for space and so the complete expression of the pulse starts here and there and as the energy density continues to get lower the occurrence of full pulsing increases.

When by coincidence one EEP achieves full contraction when an adjacent EEP achieves full expansion, they can become synchronized and pulse alternatively in the same space. This synchronized pulsing makes for a more efficient use of space than goes on in the jostling environment that is still prevalent all around the synchronized EEPs. The mutual and adjacent pulsing combines the EEPs to each other as their alternative expansion and contraction establishes an energy density fluctuation and they take turns attracting each other. I doubt if anybody is with me this far, but maybe.

Since each is still fully expanding and contracting, they can each get synchronized with more than one EEP, with the fluctuation attaching them to other EEPs at different places. The synchronized grouping grows. As it grows, the group is efficiently utilizing space which causes space to be freed up around them. This vacated space is special. Vacated space has the ultimate energy density differential, i.e. vacated space has the lowest energy density and the surrounding space filled with EEPs has much higher energy density.

The EEPs in the surrounding space swarm to the vacated space providing a high density of EEPs to add to the synchronized group and as the group adds synchronized EEPs, the low energy density space enlarges or as I called it the ultimate energy differential increases around the grouping. They are swarming but they are not synchronized or organized. Occasionally though they offer an EEP in perfect unison and additional synchronization occurs.

Maybe we have quarks at some point as the grouping grows. Maybe three quarks grow from the energy density of space and then find each other and are attracted by their individual surrounding energy differentials, but when the particle becomes stable it is a proton.

Stability is achieved when the surface of the grouping is so packed with synchronized EEPs that there is no place that another EEP can fit because the frequency of expanding and contracting EEPs on the surface is so great that there is no possibility that one of the swarming EEPs will find a niche. OK, I know I lost you but that is my idea of how a proton becomes stable.

And as stability is reached the low energy density space, i.e. the surrounding energy differential is still swarmed by randomly pulsing EEPs in overlap mode due to the congestion within the vacated space. They don’t freely combine with each other in the “zone” because of the forced overlaps and their continual failure to penetrate the surface of the proton keeps them attacking and bouncing off of the proton filling the “zone” until the capacity of the differential is exceeded and excess EEPs are sloughed off in the form of a photon. The photon is an organized grouping of EEPs. Maybe they got synchronized in the zone, couldn’t penetrate the surface of the proton and when the energy differential of the zone could not sustain all of the EEPs in the zone the photon is emitted because it represents the weakest area of attack on the surface of the proton.

The EEPs in the “zone” are the electron. The have a “cloud” characteristic made up of individual EEPs that are swarming and that represent that inward face of the swarm that is rejected by the proton, i.e. one EEP in the electron for each EEP on the surface of the proton. They are not synchronized and are not all being rejected at the same time, but in a random fashion determined by their unsynchronized pulsing and jostling within the swarm that causes overlaps and incomplete expansion and contraction of the pulse cycle of the individual EEPs.

You can look at the proton formation as a process of trial and error among swarming and jostling EEPs that are attracted to the vacated space created by the coincidental synchronization of a group of EEPs when the energy density of space gets right. But once the proton is formed it is the most stable configuration of EEPs possible in this energy density environment.

The physics that you are skipping is not the initial conditions of the big bang; you are skipping such things as antimatter, quarks and neutrinos, physics that is very well established and that you completely ignore.
But you do have a soup, why not just call it "EEP Soup"? What is the temperature of this soup? Or is that some "unmentionable precondition?
You say you have taken a different path. How are we to know without the necessary equations? "Identifies the preconditions"? Hardly. What is the temperature of your EEP Soup? What is the energy density? How do these quantities evolve until the time of your hydrogen atom story? "Identifies the unifying particle"? Hardly. What is its mass (zero is a valid answer)? What is its spin? What sort of charges does it have? "Describes the missing physics"? Hardly. Your theory is the one with missing physics. It's not a theory, it's just a mishmash of conjecture.
Hardly. It is you that have consistently ignored the evidence, that has ignored antimatter, quarks, and neutrinos, all of which have far more evidence than your so-called "EEP"s. Evidence must be accumulated before there can be any meaningful or "responsible" speculation about origins and causes. I think most will agree with me that we do not have enough evidence for this speculation; your "theory" has even less.
You have a starting point that explains nothing. What are these "preconditions" of which you speak? What is the temperature? What is the energy density? How do they evolve? Mainstream cosmology may not have a perfect explanation for the first second of the universe, but it explains the rest of the history very well. What "history" is there in your stories?
Either it fits the observations or it doesn't.
To be considered a viable theory your work is going to have to 1) explain everything that the mainstream theory does as well and preferably better, and 2) where it does not agree it will have to produce suggestions for experiments to decide between the two.

Speaking of experiments, do you have any that could detect your EEPs? That could measure their mass, spin angular momentum, charges, etc.?
Equations please?
You do not seem to appreciate mainstream physics, its answers and yes, its unanswered questions well enough to say that. You really need to study some of the things that you have ignored and that we have pointed out to you.
All right, so why does the electron remain "fluid" yet the proton becomes solid? And what about neutrinos? "Solid" or "liquid"?

My advice: get thee to a library. There are many gaps in your physics education that should be closed before you attempt the daunting task of building the universe from the bottom up. In particular you should learn about relativity (special relativity at least), quantum mechanics (the elementary stuff at least), enough particle physics to understand what the Standard Model is and what its shortcomings are. Learn what antimatter is. Learn what spin and orbital angular are and how they combine. Oh, yes, and be sure to learn electromagnetism and possibly a bit about non-Abelian gauge theories. Then you will have the physical and mathematical foundation needed for "responsible speculation".

Happy learning!

__________________
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.

Over what time period does this 'particle stabilisation' work?

From your description, it would seem that the anti-proton is just as likely to form; for one thing, the energetics should be exactly the same, shouldn't they?So why isn't the universe filled with nothing but electrons and positrons?

Or just vast numbers of neutrinos, of different kinds?

After all, they are (all) stable, in the same sense as the proton (and anti-proton) is stable.

Further, in terms of swarming, synchronising, having no place to go, etc: as the electron, positron, and the various neutrinos are of 'lower energy' (or something like this, to do with energy density) than the proton, they'd form first, and there'd be no free EEPs left over to from protons, wouldn't there?Since this is a 'bottom up' approach, why the proton (or electron, or neutrino, or ...)?

What properties of the EEPs (or anything else) lead to just the right number of them becoming protons? How are the properties of the proton (etc) - mass, charge, spin, ... - the collective consequence of exactly the right number of EEPs?(my bold)

Is this an assumption? Or can you show that it is the proton (and not, say, the muon, or the down quark) which is the most stable?

From the bottom up (i.e. derive that stability from properties of the EEPs alone).

I don’t ignore antimatter, quarks and neutrinos. The sequence of events is just different. The earliest time in BBT is a hot 100 trillion degrees and high in EMR. This earliest time is the instant after … something … a singularity. More happens in that first instant than in a whole season of the show, 24 Hours. You have all of the components, all of the energy, the quark-gluon plasma, all is there from the start and it is not sitting idle. It is theory, and it doesn’t say where it all came from or how it got hot or what caused it to expand.

I bet you could point to a million equations that deal with some aspect of this process from just after the “beginning” to some point over some 13.7 billion years, and yet they all fail when they the sum total of all of the equations results in dividing by zero, a singularity at the beginning. I bet that most of those equations are the same in the ISU as they are in the mainstream. And the missing ISU equations would not result in a singularity.

I have a greater universe where matter and energy go through a continual process of energy to matter to energy. The matter forms big crunches from the greater universe, the crunches process matter back into EEPs, the crunch bursts and the EEPs emerge as an extremely dense environment of EEPs, not a soup with various components, just EEPs. It is the highest possible energy density. Expansion thins the density to where matter forms again and as the energy density of the expansion equalizes with the greater universe the re-formed matter, stars, galaxies, black holes, “dust” rejoins the greater universe. It is “responsible” speculation and it does say where our expanding arena came from and how it got cold, and what caused it to expand. It also says that there was no beginning. The EEPs and therefore the greater universe have always existed.

The temperature of the emerging EEPs is on the order of the background temperature of the greater universe; very low. Temperature is not a feature of the individual EEP. EEP environments are perfect conductors but have no temperature themselves. Matter forms and temperature becomes a feature of matter. Photons are emitted and the environment heats up. Matter becomes part of the greater universe where crunches form. The matter gets hot in and around the crunch but the process going on inside the crunch uses the heat to convert matter back into EEPs. The compacted core of EEPs that have been “negated” from matter has no temperature of its own but it transfers the temperature of the surrounding crunch very effectively so that the progress of negation occurs around the core as the core grows.

When the core has negated the matter, there is no matter to be hot except for the outer reaches of the crunch and the accretion disk; a small portion of the sum total of the matter that entered the crunch.
Most of those that you know will agree. Most of those at BAUT will agree. Most of those in the scientific community will agree. And yet there is a need to address the origin and causes even if there is only a small chance that new theories will emerge that offer better explanation for what we observe.
Much of the history is the same and so the explanations work “very well” for both. Not forgetting Nereid’s five observations that all good cosmologies must account for, I am proposing early differences but there is a point where the ISU and the mainstream become one. I just haven’t gotten the ISU to that point and realistically I never will, but what I will leave behind is an attempt to answer all of mainstreams early “unmentionables” and a determined effort to get attention to the issue. I’m not alone in this cause and others will surely carry on. I just offer what “thinking” I can to the effort.
EEPs are the kind of thing that can’t be seen individually. Only the result of their existence can be observed. Can we create an environment that negates matter back into EEPs? That would require the forces inside a big crunch. Can we duplicate the matter formation process where synchronization of EEPs frees up space and the surrounding EEPs swarm the vacated space and construct a stable particle? Maybe so but even if that was what happens in high energy experiments, the EEPs themselves go undetected and the observables may or may not represent the product of the same matter formation process that I describe. Can we isolate protons at rest with any assurance that the process of accelerating and decelerating them and capturing them in a Penning trap would preserve their original characteristics? I don’t know. I don’t have any specific experiment but it seems like there could be experiments constructed to find out.
It has to do with energy density. The electron is a swarm of overlapping EEPs. Overlap prevents grouping. Neutrinos are “solid” in the sense that protons are solid.
I do that.
And I have the Internet for reference. All of us could stand to learn more. My whole effort is aimed at learning things that mainstream waves off as unknowable and therefore unimportant. I see those things as important because there are answers and though the eventual “answers” will be mostly theory, the theory will better explain what we observe if it includes a position on the “before and beyond” BBT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid Over what time period does this 'particle stabilisation' work?

I don’t have a reliable estimate as you can imagine but it happens quickly in relationship to the 13.7 billion years we think of. I would say that matter formation takes 10 thousand to 500 thousand years.
Do you mean anti-protons and positrons? Maybe it is. I know that sounds like I am being “cute” but if we can’t tell the difference we don’t know which it is. All we know is that if it is anti-protons and positrons, there are no protons and electrons floating around when matter formation takes place. On the other hand, if it is protons and electrons, there are no anti-protons and positrons floating around when matter formation takes place. It is one or the other.
Neutrinos don’t have electrons, they are always accelerated as far as I know, and they are not surrounded by the “zone” of low energy density that represents the energy differential that attracts the EEPs.

It may be hard for anyone besides me to understand why those distinctions preclude them from being the first particles but the stimulus for first matter formation is the synchronization of EEPs that vacates space creating the energy density differential that is a characteristic of the first particles to form. That differential assures that the forming particle (I say proton, you may say anti-proton) is swarmed throughout its construction until it is completely stable.
I understand what you are saying, … I think. The proton forms and why don’t all of the EEPs end up in protons leaving no free EEPs if I understand that part of the question.

Or why are there free EEPs left over after the matter formation process is complete; why don’t those free EEPs keep forming particles until they are all used up? Is that what you are wondering.

The answer is that the space that this matter formation occurs in is filled with EEPs at a density that accommodates matter formation. I know I don’t have the exact density but it is the density that expansion brings us to where the individual EEPs begin to have enough space to fully expand and contract. The full pulsing is a requirement for synchronization. When matter formation takes place, matter forms abundantly across the entire expanse in what I boldly estimated to be from 10 to 500 thousand years.

After that period of matter formation, the energy density is too low to perpetuate the matter formation process. After the density is thinned by continued expansion and by the matter formation process itself, the hydrogen atoms are homogeneous and isotropic throughout a background of energy density. The background is still thick with EEPs but the density range that accommodates abundant matter formation has passed. We have moved on the photon emissions, gravity, and star formation.
The answer is in three parts:
1) Matter formation occurs quickly and is over.
2) All of the abundant matter, i.e. all of the mass that forms is in hydrogen atoms, the simplest configuration possible. It is the product of synchronization and the resulting energy density differential that drives the formation of the hydrogen atom and no other matter forms in this epoch.
3) To ask why the right number of them becomes protons misses the point that at the end of matter formation and the beginning of the hydrogen epoch, all of the matter is in protons and electrons in a background of “free” EEPs.

I know that no one likes it when I “cop out”, but I can’t directly answer that. I can say that the atom that forms has momentum but it is associated with, maybe equivalent to the rate of expansion of the background in which it forms. Every atom is moving away from every other atom at the instant of formation because the background that they form out of is expanding. I can say the every atom that forms begins to emit photons; as the electron energy exceeds the capacity of the energy differential of the proton, the excess energy in the electron is periodically sloughed off as a photon. I can say that the sloughing of a photon affects the juxtaposition of the atom. I won’t say what these physical effects have to do with mass, charge, spin, in the mainstream sense because I don’t want to be held accountable for mainstream theory about how mass, charge, spin … originate in the mainstream. A brilliant mind, if applied to the scenario I present can make its own conclusions about these things. Even I might be able to form some conclusions about these things but the “cop out” is that I am not there yet.
This goes back to the energy environment in which abundant matter formation occurs. In the mainstream it is a hot but cooling environment that already has various particles, maybe muons, or down quarks, what have you, and they form into matter as cooling and expansion occur.

In my idea we have only a background of EEPs that make up the energy density of space. The background has emerged from the burst of a crunch and is expanding into the greater universe that has always exited. It is a completely different scenario and all of the components of matter that exist in the hot mainstream soup are replaced by the simple EEP. Expansion leads to synchronization, then to an energy density differential surrounding the synchronized grouping of EEPs, then swarming of the grouping by EEPs attracted by the energy density differential between their background density and the density of vacated space, and this continued process leads to the proton, the electron, and the emission of photons. Gravity begins, photons heat things up, hydrogen stars form, collapse, explode burn out and the environment becomes a “dust” that now looks more like your soup. Thermalization occurs after the hydrogen epoch. Galaxies form from the thermalized (thermalised) dust following the pattern of anisotropy left behind in the dust from the positions of the hydrogen stars or at least that is a possibility for the cause of galactic structure. Large scale structure could have it roots way back to the burst itself and the shape of the accretion surrounding the crunch and the position of the remnants of the outer structure of the crunch at the time of the burst. Oops. Yikes. Turn this thing off!