A former member
Post #: 48
Hi Ian and Andrew.
Your stuff is too hard (and a bit dreary, if I’m honest).

The universe started out as something ever so teeny which after all this time is as big as it is. The best guess is that it is a ‘field’ of some sort and the only thing we can say for certain is that it has a remarkable capacity for expansion. There is no evidence that at any point, God or anyone else added any condiments or spices, the field is all there is.

We ‘know’ that stuff is made of particles, they in turn are made of the field hence they too have a remarkable capacity for expansion. So why isn’t everything getting bigger? Well the universe of course is, but in the maelstrom of it’s early stages it turns out that some of the eddies and vortices got tangled up in knots and formed matter. The matter doesn’t get any bigger, because the knot doesn’t, but the field associated with it is part of the universe which is still ‘exploding’.

The knots clatter about making waves in the field, particular events being associated with their own wave. For instance; forcing a tangle of knots like a proton into a tangle like a nucleus will take such and such a kick creating a so and so wave, or gluon as some people like to call them.

Rather than being warped, as Einstein suggested, the field is condensed wherever there is a bunch of knots, matter, and rarefied where there isn’t. Hence waves and particles passing matter are refracted. Since particles are two or more knots tumbling over each other they are doubly refracted; as a knot goes one way it is refracted by the field, as it swings around it’s partner and goes the other way it is still refracted by the field, so the particle feels a force towards the matter that is the source of the condensed field, which is gravity. Mass, rather than being the degree to which an object warps spacetime, is how much field it puts out increasing the local density.

That, more or less, is the bunniverse, without the bunnies. As Andrew quite rightly points out, it is only a model, but I don’t know of any phenomenon that falsifies it and will probably ignore any that are brought to my attention. I would like to know what they are though.
A former member
Post #: 159
No need to comment on your note, Will, as you are just describing your own metaphorical way of looking at the physics. Ian in contrast is promoting some stronger opinions which invite a bit of analysis and response. I agree that the topic he raised is unlikely to be of interest to most, but it is about real science unlike the 'synchronicity' topic for the next Meet Up. No surprise that real science, which is the basis of our future technological progress, is often less entertaining than pseudo-science which is more like fiction.
A former member
Post #: 49
Hello Andrew

“No need to comment on your note, Will, as you are just describing your own metaphorical way of looking at the physics. Ian in contrast is promoting some stronger opinions which invite a bit of analysis and response.”

I’m not so sure that what we are doing is all that different. Certainly Ian and I, and you for that matter, have different takes on the subject, but frankly, once you have done the measurements, who isn’t describing their own metaphorical way of looking at the physics?
A former member
Post #: 160
Nice question: why be hard on Ian?  The easy response is just that he is confident enough to stick his head above the parapet and so invites being shot at.  

The best minds in modern physics, such as Einstein and Feynman, were challenged and perplexed by QM. There are now 14 or more different interpretations, there is no consensus from the scientific community because of lack of, or even the physical impossibility of obtaining, relevant experimental data. The maths is difficult. So it is fair to use mental imagery as an aid to understanding at least the broad outlines.

Actually I think that the decoherence view promoted by Ian is in the same sort of category as the 'knot model' that you have mentioned, except that of course that the decoherence model is solid science. Neither of them can be used to justify and interpret the precise mathematical formulae that describe Nature so well. (That is what i have tried to argue in relation to decoherence and Ian has so far not produced any reference to the contrary.) 

I sometimes wonder if the interpretation of quantum physics into concepts that we can understand might be intrinsically too difficult. Maybe every attempt at envisaging the quantum world in terms of stuff that is recognisable to us, in terms that our 3d organic brains can understand, is doomed to failure. Whilst mathematical descriptions that are not limited by conventional analogies may succeed. 
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy