The real observable Universe consists of infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Observable infinite surface is the one and only macroscopic entity one real observable Universe could acquire. The real Universe does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in invisible space.

Joe Fisher, Realist

  • [deleted]

Wouldn't this "special collapsing field" be identified with the consciousness of the observer?

It is really so nice to see researchers promote the idea of a collapsing universe. My wish is that Curseanu's research will allow her to find the fundamental universe decay rate of 0.26 ppb/yr. Her lambda is 0.31 ppb/yr at 1e-17 interactions per s, which is so very close to the right answer, but at least she is heading down a productive path and away from the blind alley of GR.

Now if Hossenfelder can only see the light as well, there might be a quorum and this silly little gravity problem will finally be licked...

    It is really nice indeed.Could you develop a little please Mr Agnew about this small problem of gravity?

    Regards

    It is utterly pathetic that any researcher would waste time researching any invisible "collapsing " universe. The real observable Universe consists only of infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Infinity is incapable of inflating or collapsing.

    Joe Fisher

    Joe, I think you will have a hard time proving something is infinite but even so there are limits to what is observable. What is observable is something different from the totality of what might exist. Do you disagree with the notion that what is observable can change over time?

    My personal favoured speculation at this time is that the change is due to the motion of the observer relative to the EM radiation in the environment. I have recently been considering the idea that the Milky way and local group are in a different frame of reference from more distant galaxies. The local group having similar accelerated motion not showing cosmological red shift but some motion of members of the group towards the Milky way giving blue shift. Thinking about looking at faraway everyday objects there is much less change seen for a particular movement over a distance than when that happens close to hand. If the distant objects light is from or seems to be from a more inertial frame of reference a red shift of the EM from distant star origin is what SR would predict. Not indicating expansion of the material universe but just gradual loss of observability.

    Re "collapse" of the wavefunction giving a fixed macroscopic outcome: I really don't think there is a mysterious field causing this but it is a change in the way the universe is being considered. A switching from one model to another.

      • [deleted]

      I thought the wavefunction collapsed continuously because the particles in a macroscopic object are constantly reacting to each others' presence. Measurements are being made constantly, causing the wave functions to collapse.

        This small problem of gravity is not so small after all, but a collapsing universe ties gravity and charge forces together rather nicely.

        The notion of a collapsing universe, which then takes care of collapsing wavefunctions, provides the basic force and energy that drives both charge and gravity forces.

        For charge force, the collapsing aether acts on each of two charges with opposite phase and there is a aether flux of mdot = 1.1e-10 kg/s. This is simply a reinterpretation of the constants of charge action mdot = me re / (rB tp), electron mass times charge radius divided by Bohr radius times charge spin period. This interprets charge force as a result of a universal collapse.

        Gravity is the effect of aether collapse scaled to the time size of the universe. In effect, the universe wrapped back onto itself in time. Every photon emitted at the CMB entangles every matter particle in the present but with a time separation of tB / 2Tu, the ratio the Bohr period to the universe pulse period, Tu, of 13.4 Byrs.

        So gravity force scales from charge force simply as e tB / (2Tu), where e is the electron charge. This means that the aether particle mass simply scales from the Planck constant, h, as mae = h / (4 pi c Tu) and the size of a collapsing universe is what determines gravity force. Of course while dipole photons mediate charge force and so charges have sign, quadrupole biphotons mediate gravity force and so all matter attracts even while both charge and gravity are due to the collapse of aether.

        Georgina,

        There are no limits to what is observable because only real infinite physical surface that is always illuminated by real infinite is non-surface light is observable. Please note that Dr. Curceanu stated: "The theory of quantum mechanics is very successful in describing the world and phenomena on a microscopic scale (electrons, atoms, and even molecules), but it starts to be questionable whether the same theory can describe macroscopic bodies, or aggregates of many, many atoms."

        The real observable Universe consists only of infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Observable infinite surface is the one and only macroscopic entity one real observable Universe could acquire. The real Universe does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in invisible space.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Infinite surface is neither inflatable nor collapsible.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Infinite surface is not measurable.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Hi Joe, thanks for replying. It is not possible for us to observe far beyond the distance light can travel to have reached us. So the whole infinite surface you propose can't be categorized as observable, unless you are redefining what observable means. I will admit that it could be potentially observable by beings elsewhere in such a universe but that is adding more speculation. Another question is what you mean by the 'real universe'. I don't think you are completely wrong when you describe a material surface that is illuminated but I don't think there being surfaces precludes structure below and within those surfaces and different scales of material being. Another idea you might consider is that a surface itself is not (really) observable only the image produced from the received light is observable. There are in that way two universes, the material and the image.

        Georgina,

        Real light cannot travel because real light does not have a real surface. That is why Einstein's unrealistic assertion that (invisible) energy exactly equals (invisible) mass multiplied by the constant speed of (invisible) light passing through an (invisible) vacuum tube multiplied by its (invisible) light self, is UTTERLY WRONG. Newton's laws of motion are all WRONG because they deal with the supposed finite motion of invisible objects through invisible space.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Hi Joe,

        I think you may need to define your use of the term "real light" I agree light is not the same as matter. The electromagnetic radiation in the environment is invisible but upon receipt it can be used to generate vision and seen light. Consider another wave phenomenon, water waves: you might argue that the wave itself doesn't have a surface because it is the material water that is in possession of a surface. Yet the energy of the wave does change its location over time. That is visible. So can't it be said to be travelling? I don't think invisibility makes something unreal. Experiments have been done where tiny objects have been rendered invisible by the bending of light rays around them. They are only visible in the first place because of the scattering of light from the surface (including absorption of some wavelengths and re-emission of others) which then provides information to an observer enabling vision. I actually agree with you that Newton was actually giving us Laws that apply to invisible objects (the objects themselves and not the images of them produced by observation). That does not make the laws wrong.

        Joe,

        Further to:I don't think invisibility makes something unreal. The object rendered invisible remains a part of the material reality of the universe (that I have called 'Object reality') but ceases to be part of the observer's reality generated from received EM, (that I have called 'Image reality'). The visible and invisible realities co-exist without paradox/impossibility.

        Dear Georgina,

        Real matter is real infinite surface. It is observable because it is always illuminated by infinite real non-surface light. Real infinite light is not produced by finite invisible waves of kinetic energy. You wrote: "I don't think invisibility makes something unreal." But you cannot see a state of invisibility, therefore a state of invisibility MUST BE UNREAL

        Joe Fisher

        Hi Joe,

        Re. your statement "But you cannot see a state of invisibility, therefore a state of invisibility MUST BE UNREAL" There are in my opinion two kinds of reality. The kind that is observed, measured and or experienced from the input of information from the external environment and the kind that exists independent of observation , measurement and experience. From a quick Google search one definition of "real" shown first, is "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed". That isn't qualified by the requirement that it is visible. I mentioned an experiment where an object is rendered invisible by bending of light rays around it. It would be quite easy to show that the object is not de-materializing by having it on a weighing platform and seeing if the weight shown changes when the object becomes invisible.

        Hi Joe,

        you have previously said that the light does not travel. How is it then that material objects are visible? You have said they must be visible to be real. It is known from biology that the visual system receives EM radiation input that stimulates the cells of the retina. Individual cells respond to certain frequencies and intensities of input. Illumination, rendering objects visible, requires the processing of the EM input. Without that input and processing there is no vision of the external environment. It is not visible (without that) even if there is a relation between the EM radiation (light) and the material object.