Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs

So for the disturbances that do disperse: Is that something that is happening all the time? If so, does it manifest itself in some way?

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 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:

Eventually the will undergo the process above and we get:

At this point there are no disturbance left in the quark-gluon fields.

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.

What I was questioning wass that, since QM+R demand the excitation be concentrated into small lumps (i.e. a photon) then how can a single photon emission also be an extended excitation (and thus exhibit the wave-like behavior needed to make the pattern)?

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:
6 Quark fields.
6 Lepton fields (three neutrino fields, electron field, muon field, tau field).
The photon field.
The weak field.
The gluon field (mathematically we often deal with this as a set of eight fields like I mentioned above, but really those are just eight facets of a single field).
The Higgs field.

So matter is the result of the collective vibrations and interactions of sixteen indeterminate, four-dimensional mattresses.
That is the Standard Model.

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.

quote:

---

Probably, but you have admitted to using non-standard terminology of your own invention.

---

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:

---

The Dirac field is not used to describe an electron's position and momentum. Electrons are excitations of it. See "Peskin and Schroeder: An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Chapter 3".

---

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'm sorry, but this is completely false. The particular quantum theory that we happen to be discussing is related to a classical field theory, but there are several relativistic quantum theories that cannot be related to classical fields. See for example the discussion in Araki's book "Mathematical Theory of Quantum Fields", the second and third chapters. There are similar comments in Haag's monograph "Local Quantum Physics".

---

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:

---

The uncertainty principle does not state that position and momentum are the only observables in QM. The closest true statement to what you are saying is that all observables are functions of position and momentum. However that is only true in quantum mechanics, not quantum field theory.

---

quote:

---

basic QM

---

i.e. the Schrödinger equation

quote:

---

Of course it can, the Schrödinger equation is a whole class of equations, describing different particles in different potentials.

---

Can you provide an example of where a particle other than an electron is treated within the Schrödinger equation?

quote:

---

Think about it, introducing additional fields could only increase the degrees of freedom.

---

Are you saying that minimal coupling doesn’t reduce the degrees of freedom after the introduction of the additional field?

quote:

---

Look at it this way, Quantum Electrodynamics is a relativistic quantum field theory. Get rid of the "quantum" part and you have classical spinor electrodynamics, which has spin, this is the classical version of the theory that I mentioned.

---

The “classical” interpretation in my theory is fully relativistic and Lorentz invariant.

quote:

---

Point me to a reference for this statement. By spacetime algebra, I assume you mean the Clifford algebra in 3+1 dimensions. Yes, this algebra can be used to manipulate the spinor/Dirac field (the field the electron is an excitation of) mathematically, however the interpretation you mention really only makes sense for the single spinor associated with an electron, not the spinors of the Dirac field. These spinors are two seperate objects. Again see Peskin and Schroeder: Chapter 3 to get an idea of this.

---

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:

---

It is not. See any introductory textbook on quantum field theory. The second section of Mark Schrednicki's textbook will demonstrate this to you. Or Part 1 of Anthony Zee's textbook. I can get you the exact page numbers if you wish.

---

Yes it is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_adjoint

quote:

---

How can one have a path integral over one trajectory? The path integral is an integral over all trajectories of the Dirac field, not a single trajectory of an electron.

---

quote:

---

What I'm working on is the path integral formulation along one of the infinitely possible trajectories.

---

I never said I was applying a path integral to the single trajectory..

quote:

---

Exactly what do you mean here? If it is what I think it means, i.e. you can get QED with classical fields + ensembles, then there is a solid mathematical proof that this is false.

---

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.

That is basically current theoretical physics. Sixteen mattress like objects living in a four-dimensional background spacetime that warps and bends under their presence.

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.

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.

justatruthseeker writes: 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.

Could you fill in a few details:

1. Why do you think GR behavior hasn't been verified outside the solar system?

2. Science uses different models for the behavior of plasmas than it does for solids, liquids and gases. What leads you to believe it doesn't?

3. Where specifically is science inappropriately applying models for solids, liquids and gases to plasmas? You said it was "in space", but could you narrow it down a bit?

--Percy

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.

justatruthseeker writes: 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.

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?

2. Show me one single plasma experiment where the gravitational force was ever any consideration at all?

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.

Solids, liquids and gasses are "neutral" - that is they have equal numbers of protons and electrons in their atomic makeup.

Plasmas are also electrically neutral.

Plasma responds strongly to the electromagnetic force and acts collectively. And hence galaxies (99% plasma) rotate collectively.

When you say that galaxies "rotate collectively", do you mean they all rotate in the same direction?

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.

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.

And hence they require a 95% fudge factor for applying the incorrect theory to the situation at hand.

Do you have an example of application of this "fudge factor"?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Mainstream has yet to show that GR applies anywhere but in the solar system in describing the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses.

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.

He doesn't sound typical, but obsession with plasma is a red flag.

Dr. Bridgeman at http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/ has lots of moderately technical discussion on EU wackos. FWIW.

Is this an Electric Universe guy

Yes. See Message 259 and onward.

And Message 24 too.

For those interested, electric universe discussion can resume in the The cosmic conspiracy. thread. Please do not discuss that topic in this thread.

justatruthseeker writes: 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.

But don't we have a 90% ad-hoc fairie dust? Isn't it called dark matter/energy.

Please take discussion of electric universe topics to the The cosmic conspiracy. thread.

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.

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.

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.