Fluctuation in Quantum Field or Sine-wave?

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 4
Topic's author
#1
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,206
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
AI... 'According to current cosmological theories, the prevailing idea is that the Universe began as a result of a quantum fluctuation, essentially a random fluctuation in the quantum field that allowed for the creation of space, time, and matter from what is considered "nothing" - a concept often referred to as the "quantum vacuum" - leading to the Big Bang event that initiated our universe '...

Another version of this above says it has to do with Hesienbergs Uncertainty Principle

The way I always remember first hearing the ole saying  was that ...' it was a fluctuation in the quantum wave, that created the Universe '....

I always took wave to mean a quantum sine-wave. I'mm pretty sure ive posted my first version of how I skewed this idea to be funny --not seriously--  via involving bi-lateral consciousness some where in the sine-wave, as the monkey wrench through into the symmetrical system as uncertainty

Ex /\/\/\/\/\/*\/*\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

I want to make clear here again, and as Ive seen in recent interview with R Penrose, that, biologic consciousness does not precede the quantum waves or fields of Universe except in the most simplistic view of consciousness as B Fuller expresses being that of two-ness equals other-ness equals consciousness and then only as and extreme simplicity version.  

The two-ness only version would include Gravity as the line-of-relationship between the two individual events of consideration. 

(*)()()()(*) where the geodesic lines-of-relationship are Gravity and the asterisks some kind of events that are mass-attracted to each other, whether truly aware of the attraction or not.

Of course this all is a moot point because we can deduce from human observations and logical, common sense critical thinking, that, finite, occupied space Universe cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed eternally. End of that story/scenario, however, there is another scenario/story that, appears to me to make be of a logical, common sense critical thinking nature, based on human observations.
#2
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,986
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
AI... 'According to current cosmological theories, the prevailing idea is that the Universe began as a result of a quantum fluctuation, essentially a random fluctuation in the quantum field that allowed for the creation of space, time, and matter from what is considered "nothing" - a concept often referred to as the "quantum vacuum" - leading to the Big Bang event that initiated our universe '...

Another version of this above says it has to do with Hesienbergs Uncertainty Principle

The way I always remember first hearing the ole saying  was that ...' it was a fluctuation in the quantum wave, that created the Universe '....
There are a lot of people trying to work out the process involved in the "creation of space, time, and matter from what is considered "nothing"", but in my opinion, they are just playing with mathematics, it has nothing to do with reality. They are attempting to mathematically apply relativity and quantum theory to define the process by which time and space came into being, without considering that you can’t have a process without time or space for that process to occur in. 

The speculation is that the universe could have been the result of a quantum fluctuation in empty space, which then could have “inflated” rapidly because the positive energy of inflation would be balanced by the negative energy of gravity, which would produce a universe with a net energy of zero. In the end we are just conjuring with mathematics here, when nature doesn’t exist yet, principles can’t exist yet either, if nothing exists then there are no states and no principles of laws and it’s impossible to say what might come into existence or how it might occur. 

They are asking us to accept the existence of mathematics without a mind for it to occur in and accept the existence of physical laws without a physical universe for them to represent.  They postulate that the real basis of the physical universe is conceptual or mathematical but without a consciousness for the mathematics or concepts to occur in and postulate a cosmology that tells us that in the beginning was a deep mathematical structure that is true by definition and which necessarily existed, and from it the physical universe arose. 

Now, according to this thought process, when you apply relativity and quantum theory to the infinite primordial nothing you get a cosmic loophole big enough for all creation to jump through. In a kind of mathematical transubstantiation, there was some kind of quantum fluctuation whereby the numbers took on substance and became physically real...and the physical universe came into existence.

It is just abstract mathematics without any connection to the reality the mathematics is supposed to be representing.

 
Topic's author
#3
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,206
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
@Sidewalker
...They are attempting to mathematically apply relativity and quantum theory to define the process by which time and space came into being, without considering that you can’t have a process without time or space for that process to occur in.......

SD, glad to see we agree on an eternally existent, dynamically operational, occupied space and finite Universe.

...if nothing exists then there are no states and no principles of laws and it’s impossible to say what might come into existence or how it might occur. ...

I agree SD, except for some facts regarding the eternally existent, cosmically absolute, ex Meta-space principles,  as the limits to what is possible for any occupied space Universe to exist ex. ..' There can only exist five, regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra in Meta-space mind/intellect/concept and any occupied space Universe.

Cosmic absolute Meta-space principles are eternally absolute aka inviolate, irrespective of any concept of any Universe.

 ... They postulate that the real basis of the physical universe is conceptual or mathematical....

 The occupied space Universe and abstract Meta-space,  cosmically absolute principles eternally exist in complement to each other. Aka cant have one without the other.  Cant have an occupied space, without the Meta-space geometric pattern and the maths of any static or dynamic geometry.

but without a consciousness for the mathematics or concepts to occur in and postulate a cosmology that tells us that in the beginning was a deep mathematical structure that is true by definition and which necessarily existed, and from it the physical universe arose. 

The two --Meta-space and occupied space---  eternally exist in complement to each other. Simple, logical, common sense critical thinking conclusion. We seem to agree on this scenario/story/model/concept, at least I hope we do.

Now, according to this thought process, when you apply relativity and quantum theory to the infinite primordial nothing you get a cosmic loophole big enough for all creation to jump through. In a kind of mathematical transubstantiation, there was some kind of quantum fluctuation whereby the numbers took on substance and became physically real...and the physical universe came into existence.

Yeah, R B  Fuller contradicts himself in Synergetics, as he his comments suggest and eternally existent Universe, while some of his comments also suggest a manifestation of Universe via cosmic principles.  He probably means in complement to each other.  His Synergetics books were written in his 70's and he was also very busy flying around the world doing speaking engagments etc.

I would also add, in the last interview with R Penrose I watched, he made it clear, that, this idea of consciousness leading to Universe is backwards. Universe exists and consciousness arises within Universe.  I agree with him, if we put aside Fullers definitions of the minimal consciousness as two-ness > other-nerss > aware-ness.

It is just abstract mathematics without any connection to the reality the mathematics is supposed to be representing.

I agree, however, I would make one moot point of clarification.  In not possible theory, we could say the abstract Meta-space maths could exist, without the occupied space Universe, whereas on the other-hand, we cannot have occupied space {the medium } without the Meta-space maths and at minimum the static or dynamic, complementary geometric patterns.

Again, that is a moot point, because we an eternally existent, dynamically operating Universe.  The one place I believe ive gotten closer to absolute truth, is that, non-quantized and non-quantified ultra-micro Gravity and ultra-micro Dark Energy are Meta-physical,  --not Meta-space--  and our physical reality exists in-between those two as Observed  Time.

You may think Im being picky, and yes I am, as I believe im exhibiting logical, common sense critical thinking in those picky places i.e. until a phenomena is quantised and quantified, it is outside of Observed Space-time of physical reality, and my other thread recently posted, --tho not this specific part yet-- in 9 = Fluctuation of Quantum Wave.

#4
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,288
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
It is just abstract mathematics without any connection to the reality the mathematics is supposed to be representing.
That is a good summary of Quantum Theory.