Thanks Ron, for the teaching in particular particles. Allow me to interspace some naive remarks into your text
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier

On 26 Feb 2004 at 11:37, John M wrote:
> Ron:
> do you believe there are non-virtual gravitons?
> John Mikes
Greetings, John. Over the decades I've waffled a lot on that
very question. I currently do not believe that any type of
gravity force carrier exists, and it is an attempt to
explain the (seemingly verified by observation of supernova)
accelerating expansion of the universe that tilts me in that
Agree, but it is a great idea and many awards, tenures,
prixes were accelerated with it. Hubble was a genius, just
did not consider other (less plausible?) explanations for the
redshift than the fashionable optical Dopler.
So you don't believe the 'real', only the 'virtual' which
shows appreciation in imgination. (Read on)
But I do believe in the existence of virtual particles, and
I further believe that our entire universe is a rather
improbable but possible collection of virtual particles.
Actually, I think there might be 2 entirely different
classes of virtual particles. One type is seen as
particle/anti-particle pairs. The other type has no anti-
particle pair, and the first type of virtual particles along
with all the matter in our universe is composed of it. I
think of this second type of virtual particles to be a
localized (meaning the spheroid and non infinite but
expanding boundaries of our entire universe) energy
fluxation against a truly infinite area that is on the
average composed of 100% nothingness. That fluxation I think...
If you just "think" about 100% nothingness, it disappears: by
thinking of it you imply the information of such and that makes
it already into "somethingness" .
of as being something not at all related to nothingness, I
think of it as being completely separate and not sharing any
properties of nothingness. Nonetheless, I think of the
fluxation as being exactly that - a fluxation that seeks to
ultimately return a localized area of (on the average) 100%
nothingness back to its average energy density of exactly
zero. I think that gravity is that `seeking' phenomenon, the
universal `desire' to return to an equilibrium condition of
zero energy.
Zero energy could not start anything, a universe has got to
get started. Do you assign that to "outside" factors only?
Or - as seen below - a nihilistic solipsism?
Through some more convoluted thinking, I think of space/time
and matter/energy as being `universally localized'
expressions of that `seeking' phenomenon, i.e. what is
measurable within the spheroid volume that we call our
universe. I also think that the `seeking' phenomenon, not
being particle based, is a true analog phenomenon and thus
not describable by QM; it is a separate thing expressed as
space/time coexisting with an ultimately temporary condition
known as matter/energy. My thoughts are that space/time and
matter/energy, these 2 things, are not at all related to
each other and that they are what we can `locally' measure.
For lack of a better word, I've thought of that `seeking'
phenomenon as a sort of tension that is not a force nor is
it energy. Weirdly, I think that our universe exists and is
only measurable within its own framework against something
that we call space/time, but that on the average and in the
context of infinity it never really existed, because an
equilibrium of 100% nothingness exists on the average. That
thought is quite difficult to fully explain.

And I've certainly been wrong before!

But the thought of virtual particles appearing and
disappearing (and so on the average never having existed)
affecting upon our universe is also quite difficult to fully
explain. Perhaps one must conceptualize outside the boundary
of our universe in order to explain our universe.
I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations of inevitable
stress-seeds in a Plentiude of Everything in total dynamic
exchange, an infinite symmetry where the completeness of
diversity produces violations of the invariance = BigBangs,
i.e. fluctuations into universes which re-dissipate into the
symmetry in a timeless manner. This is outside the boundaries
of our universe.
The  dissipating "stress-seeds", however,, are called 'energy'
in the reductionist physics. So I disagree with your zero-energy
startup and only the endup is such when "universe" also
disappears in the Plenitude.
[RMcF]: Ron McFarland
[JM]: John Mikes

Reply via email to