|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| 4petdinos | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Son Goku Member  Posts: 1121 From: Ireland Joined:
|
Yes to both questions. Essentially the disturbances disappear because the quark and gluon fields will pass their vibrations on to other fields. For example the  meson is a reasonably common disturbance in the quark-gluon fields. However it is highly likely that the quark-gluon fields will pass the vibrations into the photon field, hence the  disappears and is replaced by two photons. This is written schematically as: The Something like this happens to virtually all disturbances in the quark-gluon fields. They slowly lose their vibrations to other fields, reducing their own vibrations to simpler and lighter ones, until eventually the simplest and lightest vibrations pass into typically the electron, neutrino and photon fields. Leaving the quark-gluon fields undisturbed/at rest/silent. The proton is the only stable vibration they possess. The only one that lasts.
Oh, that comes from its probabilistic behaviour. The wave-like behavior of a photon doesn't really come from it being an extended object, but rather from it's indeterminate behaviour. Since quantum mechanics is involved, these vibrations in the mattress/field are indeterminate. One has a probability of a vibration being here or there rather than a definite vibration exactly in one place on the mattress. Of course usually all the possible locations for the vibrations form a very small area, so you can just draw a circle around that and say the photon is located in that area. This leads to the idea that the photon is spread over an area, but really its the possible locations that are spread out. So there is a single vibration/lump (a photon) in the mattress. However due to quantum mechanics, that vibration is definitely in any one place. So let me sum up. A quantum field is essentially an indeterminate (you cannot say vibrations are definitely occurring in one place, you cannot say one field will definitely pass a vibration to another at a given time) four-dimensional (fills all of spacetime) mattress (it behaves like a set of springs connected to points). According to the standard model there are sixteen such fields: So matter is the result of the collective vibrations and interactions of sixteen indeterminate, four-dimensional mattresses. These mattresses live in spacetime, which itself is distorted (curvature of spacetime) by the presence of any vibrations in the sixteen fields. How exactly it distorts is described by General Relativity. That is basically current theoretical physics. Sixteen mattress like objects living in a four-dimensional background spacetime that warps and bends under their presence.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Alphabob Member (Idle past 2018 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
quote: It’s a new concept however, so I didn’t really have an option with respect to terminology. I feel that it would be beneficial to go over the crucial aspects of my theory before continuing with this debate of quantum mechanics. 1. I’m sure that we can agree upon the significance of vacuum energy density and it’s relation to fields and particles. What I have proposed is that vacuum energy density is the result of planck-scale fluctuations of space itself, i.e. the distance between physical points in space are varying analogous to a spring and mass system. 2. This vacuum energy density is directly proportional to the gravitational potential and electric potential of a massive, non-composite particle (electron or positron). The space-time metric is further derived from vacuum energy density at each point in space, acting as a relative medium. 3. Quantum mechanics with minimal coupling allows vacuum energy to be conserved due to its direct relation to the electric potential of particles. This is further extended to neutral fields with electroweak symmetry, which is derived upon the foundations of the electromagnetic field. 4. The degrees of the Planck-scale fluctuations of space can be reduced to a single scalar-vector field. Both the Higgs field and scalar component are directly proportional to the mass of a single fermion. quote: Which section in chapter 3 are you referring to? The probability 3-current density of a spin-1/2 field is obtained from the dirac field and dirac adjoint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_adjoint). So it is safe to say that the dirac field is directly related to the position probability density of an electron (and momentum). However, the spinor component does complicate the processes with respect to the usual (psi)(psi*) interpretation. quote: I thought we were discussing the theories within my paper, which proceed from the Schrödinger equation, to the dirac, to QED, then electroweak and finally the Higgs field. quote: quote:i.e. the Schrödinger equation quote: Can you provide an example of where a particle other than an electron is treated within the Schrödinger equation? quote: Are you saying that minimal coupling doesn’t reduce the degrees of freedom after the introduction of the additional field? quote: The “classical” interpretation in my theory is fully relativistic and Lorentz invariant. quote: http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/REAL_DIRAC.pdf “This claim is false, as should be obvious from the fact that, as we have noted, the wave function determines a unique family of electron trajectories.” quote: Yes it is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_adjoint quote: quote:I never said I was applying a path integral to the single trajectory.. quote: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential The total potential is the classical contribution (without spin) and the quantum potential (due to spin). So by semi-classical fields I mean with the inclusion of spin, which provides the quantum results. This is of course with respect to pre-QFT, i.e. the Schrödinger equation. As you said, the next step up to the Dirac equation requires Lorentz invariance.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, thanks again. Your explanation was really helpful. I can't think of any questions right now, but if I do I'll reply again with them.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 1341 days)  Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
Mainstream has yet to show that GR applies anywhere but in the solar system in describing the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses. But then that's why they have to add 95% ad-hoc Fairie Dust when they apply that same math to the behavior of plasma. Why would anyone expect correct results from applying the math for solids, liquids and gasses to a universe 99% plasma???? No one does that in the lab with plasma, so mainstream still has yet to justify doing so in space and requiring 95% ad-hoc Fairie Dust for doing so, against every single laboratory experiment with plasma ever performed. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. If one closes their eyes they can imagine a universe of infinite possibilities, but until one opens their eyes they will never see the light.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 18492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 |
Could you fill in a few details:
--Percy
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 1341 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
1. Because everywhere "but" the solar system you require 95% ad-hoc Fairie Dust. That's why flat rotation curves don't match what is predicted. 2. Show me one single plasma experiment where the gravitational force was ever any consideration at all? Solids, liquids and gasses are "neutral" - that is they have equal numbers of protons and electrons in their atomic makeup. Plasma responds strongly to the electromagnetic force and acts collectively. And hence galaxies (99% plasma) rotate collectively. 3. To the behavior of plasma - 99% of the universe - instead of where it only applies - to the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses (solar systems - planets), 1% of the universe. And hence they require a 95% fudge factor for applying the incorrect theory to the situation at hand. The behavior of charged particles, not "neutral" matter. But then if people knew what plasma was and how it behaved, they would know this. But I expect that's why Plasma Physics isn't required study in a universe 99% plasma, and why they require 95% Fairie Dust. Go figure. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. If one closes their eyes they can imagine a universe of infinite possibilities, but until one opens their eyes they will never see the light. Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory - Fairie Dust.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member Posts: 18492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 |
Did you mean to say, " That's why flat rotation curves don't match what is observed"? If so, then since it would make no sense for cosmologists to use flat rotation curves that do not match observations, why do you think this is what they are doing?
I don't think I could show you a single plasma experiment, let alone one where gravity was a consideration. I was just asking you for more information.
Plasmas are also electrically neutral.
When you say that galaxies "rotate collectively", do you mean they all rotate in the same direction?
When I asked "where specifically" I was thinking more along the lines of an example of where "in space" science is inappropriately applying models for soilds, liquids and gases to plasmas.
Do you have an example of application of this "fudge factor"? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Wrong. GR applies just fine to binary and other multiple star systems. In fact in some cases we can verify that it works on such systems when Newtonian gravity does not. Perhaps you want to restate your objection more accurately. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JonF Member Posts: 4890 Joined: Member Rating: 3.1 |
Dr. Bridgeman at http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/ has lots of moderately technical discussion on EU wackos. FWIW.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes. See Message 259 and onward. And Message 24 too.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director  Posts: 12602 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Big_Al35 Member Posts: 384 Joined: |
But don't we have a 90% ad-hoc fairie dust? Isn't it called dark matter/energy.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director Posts: 12602 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Please take discussion of electric universe topics to the The cosmic conspiracy. thread.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Astrophile Member (Idle past 50 days)  Posts: 80 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
The orbits of binary stars work perfectly well with Newtonian gravitation, without any 'Fairie Dust' at all. You should read some books about binary stars, or look at catalogues of the orbital elements of binaries.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
starlite Member (Idle past 1085 days)  Posts: 83 Joined: |
Then it has to be laziness also to claim a singularity existed you know not why or how, and burped out the universe for no known reason.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
(1)
is another common disturbance. Sometimes some of the vibrations associated with it will "bleed off"/pass into the neutrino and electron fields. This creates an electron and a neutrino and the remaining vibrations of the quark-gluon field rearrange themselves as a 
. This is the reaction:
will undergo the process above and we get:
