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

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

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.