Again, this post took a
loooooong time to write. Hope you all enjoy...
DevilsAvocado said:
Brain delays seem like a troublesome topic.
Yes, very troublesome given the ridiculously complicated machinery that underlies a single human brain. My only point is that, just like the talk about the "real world components" that allow for the existence of satellite links between various parts of the world, the brain also consists of such components that allow for signals to be transferred between the optical nerves and the regions of the brain that are responsible for visualization. Indeed, these are not easy processes to understand.
According to all known facts these photons from the CMB show us the state of the surface of last scattering, when universe was about 370,000 years old, i.e. roughly 13.8 billion years before our time.
Are you saying that this is “its current, immediately given state”?
This must be a joke.
Strange indeed, but true. By the way, it's not technically
me that is saying it. I personally don't care what the actual, deep truth of the universe is. I'm just saying that if a person happens to be interested in the idea of theoretical models of Bohm-like universes, then that person might be interested in understanding the theory underlying the model that I've developed. My point is simply: according to my model, the explanatory picture that consists of some kind of independently given "particle" that moves in a linear trajectory through space at some universally given velocity simply doesn't apply.
You even used the word "photons" in the buildup to your question. But I clearly anticipated your argument when I wrote the following in the paragraph immediately preceding the one you quoted:
glengarry said:
The difference between this model and the current model (based on independently traveling photons) is profound. In the current model, there is a definite distinction between a source event and a reception event. But in this model, there is no distinction because there is truly no separation between the elements at the source and those at the receiver.
Now there should be no theoretical controversy here, as I have made pains to ensure that my model is internally logically consistent. The next obvious question, therefore, is how the picture of the CMBR can be explained by my model. So here it goes...
First of all, I've made reference to the idea that some of the elemental waveforms in the universe should be fast and feeble in order to model matter, while others should be slow and intense in order to model gravity fields. But I wasn't quite explicit enough, because what I meant to say is that there should be a strict inverse relationship between the maximum amplitudes (aka "intensities") and the frequencies of any given waveform.
This relationship can be trivially satisfied by the equation:
frequency x maximum amplitude = a universal constant
But don't worry if this doesn't seem like how nature works, because I'm not fundamentally making a commentary about any empirically determined wave phenomena. That is, I am fully aware of the ability to, for example, amplify sound waves and make laser beams more intense without changing the frequencies involved. I'm rather making a fairly simple commentary on the fact that gravity fields obviously do not oscillate very quickly (e.g., the Earth has been around for billions of years) and that atoms obviously do (given the frequencies of atomic spectral emission/absorption lines). The next step is to realize that we just think of it as "natural" that very powerful oscillators are relatively slow, and that very feeble oscillators are relatively quick. This should just make "sense," and I could offer additional illustrations to show this, but for now, I'm just going to assume that we can all agree on its reasonability.
Now, the next point of agreement must simply be that, in terms of the model that I've constructed, the theory of independently propagating particles (i.e., photon theory) simply cannot possibly apply. All that this Bohm-like universe consists of is universally defined waveforms that are always collectively trying to realize a state of maximum smoothness of the composite waveform. In other words, this universe is already completely "occupied". There simply isn't any room for things like photons. I don't care how many photons come knocking at the door of this universe: the sign outside says
NO VACANCY!
So, my previous post attempted to clearly describe the mechanism that would allow for something like electromagnetic energy to traverse effectively isolated regions of the universe. And the keyword to note from the above sentence is "effectively", because the reality of the universe is that all of the elements in it are
universally defined. The question at hand, therefore, is concerning the nature of this "effective isolation" between regions of the universe. That is: why are we not being constantly bombarded with sensations from every part of the universe at once? The answer is simply due to the way in which each elemental waveform must be morphed into a hyperspherical form in order to allow for the possibility of relative translations between other waveforms. In the morphed state, its spatial density increases squarewise as we approach the central boundary point. This is just the natural geometric consequence of morphing a three-dimensional ball into a hypersphere.
So, now let us imagine a universe with two very slow, powerful [gravity field like] waveforms that have settled at polar opposite sides of the universe. Now let's randomly fill the universe with trillions of very quick, feeble [atom like] waveforms. We are going to see what looks like two big spheres of atoms ("worlds") as the atoms seek to fill the "holes" that are created by the gravity fields.
Now, let's consider a thought experiment in order to develop a crude model for the sensation of sight. Let's say there is a group of a million atoms on one of the worlds to be used as a light source. And on the other world, there is another group of a million atoms to be used as a receiver. In terms of the receiver, the atoms begin in a particular configuration that we can call "no reception". But once the configuration has been suitably rearranged, we can say that it is in a state called "signal received". In terms of the source, the particular configuration doesn't matter. All we want to do is coordinate the relative motions of the source elements so that there is a singular, suitably intense waving of the spatial manifold at the region of the receiver.
In the "off" state, the atoms at the light source are indeed moving, but we can say that their motions are fairly calm and disorganized. Given the fact that the local amplitudes of the individual atom-like waveforms get increasingly "spread out" through space as we move from their central boundary points, the ability for each one to offer any substantial changes to the composite universal waveform consequently diminishes. But if relatively large numbers of these elements can oscillate in tandem, then they will collectively be able to effectively alter further depths into the universe.
All that we really need to know about this thought experiment is that there is one of two situations:
1) The elements at the source
are not oscillating with enough collective energy in order to change the configuration of the elements at the receiver to the "signal received" state.
2) The elements at the source
are oscillating with enough collective energy in order to change the configuration of the elements at the receiver to the "signal received" state.
What this means is that for every level of energy transferred to the collection of source elements, there is a corresponding distance for which a receiver located at that distance will be affected by the oscillations of the composite waveform such that it will
just barely cross over the threshold from the "no signal" state to the "signal received" state. And the crucial thing to realize in this picture is that the fundamentally thermodynamic character of the universe dictates that there is a necessary delay between any two given source energy states. That is, the process of inputting energy into the elements at the source necessarily requires some positive length of time.
So, when we flip the switch at the source to the "on" position, we can see that there will be a moving "surface of possible signal reception" whose precise location is determined by the following factors:
1) the amount of energy that has been input into the source
2) the level of sensitivity of the receiver to detect whether the arrangement of its elements has been suitably altered
In this theoretical universe, it is precisely the speed of this surface that determines what, in our universe, is called the speed of light, or
c.
Now, the only reason I went through the preceding explanatory process was to show that the frequency of oscillation that is detected at the receiver is fundamentally correlated to the maximum amplitudes (intensities) of the elemental waveforms. That is, the only mechanism we have available to us in order to cause
relative translatory oscillations (i.e., the motions that occur between elements) is nothing other than
absolute elemental waveform oscillations (i.e., the motions of the spatial manifold that are intrinsic to the elemental waveforms themselves). All of these considerations point simply to the following: the location of a given source's "surface of possible signal reception" is proportional to the intrinsic intensities of the source elements.
This just means that source elements of larger maximum amplitude will tend to have two characteristics:
1) smaller frequencies
2) the ability to generate signals that effectively penetrate deeper into space
Now, let's just take this idea to an extreme level. Let's imagine that we can live forever and wait for gravity field waveforms to oscillate many times. Each of these waveforms obviously have very significant amplitudes at extremely far depths into space. So, for every oscillation, the elements at the receiver will likewise undergo relatively large changes in configuration. In this case, however, the "configuration change" is much better understood as the translation of the encompassing "spatial frame" of the entire receiver rather than the mere rearrangement of its individual elements. Nevertheless, we'll say that the receiver can somehow magically detect changes in its absolute location within the universe. In this case, it is obvious that the two characteristics outlined above will hold. That is, by virtue of being able to detect whether it has changed its absolute location in the universe, we can see that the receiver has detected a signal of very low frequency at a very large distance.
In terms of a way to understand the "map" of the Cosmic Microwave Background, we can thus say the following. In the first place, we must assume a sufficiently large universe filled with a sufficiently large number of signal sources that cover a sufficiently wide spectrum of frequencies. At any given location in the universe, there will be such a number of "lines of sight" that end in signal sources of relatively low frequency, such that the density of these sources will appear to be practically homogeneous.
The end result is that the CMB map is nothing other than the constantly bright sky of Olber's paradox.
[PLAIN]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox said:
The[/PLAIN] paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.
The only difference is that the model I've developed understands signal propagation in terms of a thermodynamic process that depends upon a fundamental relationship between the wavelength detected at the receiver and the effective penetrative power of the elements at the signal source, as determined by the maximum amplitudes of the waveforms of the source elements. Also, it is not necessary for there to be any "moment of creation" in my model. I simply make the assumption that it exists in an eternal state of thermodynamic equilibrium. I take the CMB to simply represent the natural limit of our immediately given field of vision within an infinitely old universe of a practically infinite -- although theoretically finite -- size.
?)
). So I won't try to interpret further what the OP meant.