Unexplained preference for infinite space.

[meemoe_uk]

Guys! Nice to see physicsforums still seems to be going strong.

Lost my interest in physics for a few years but now its back.
Been reading about galaxy rotation curves and how MOND, a new stop gap theory, is doing so well compared to the old man dark matter. MOND isn't consistent and has no theorectical foundation, so while it's a great prediction formula, it give no insight into the what's going on. So the fundamental error in our understanding of comso-dynamics is still at large. Now is the time for new theorys.

We've got to look at our current model and identify possible bugs.

I talk about one candidate bug here...

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/newsgroups/mond/messages/576.html

You don't need to consider that gravity wave bit.

Just consider the central questions and points:
Why do we insist we have infinite space in our model?
There is no proof space is infinite.
Most of the gravity potential in the current infinite space model is lost to the infinity of space.
Finite space redistributes onto the universe force otherwise lost in infinite space theory. No energy is lost.
Observations show there is a large amount of gravity force unacounted for in the classical, infinite space, model.

This one simple change of a parameter in our model is a possible solution.
change infinite to finite.

 

[ohwilleke]

In your link you said:

Hi Ohwilleke,
I take it you don't know of any substantial reason why infinite fields are preferred over finite fields. I doubt if anyone does. I've been asking this question for a few years now, with still no answer.

Infinite fields are a relic of classical physics. Considering the cosmos-knowledge at the time, it is no surprise that the issue of finity wasn't important. Newton knew of no bound to the universe and couldn't measure the kinematics of the stars, so he was probably satisfied enough that his formula gave correct predictions within the solar system.

Infinite and instanteneous fields are a product of Newtonian theory, but not of more advanced classical theories (theories which are strictly deterministic and non-quantum and presume a "smooth" space are called "classical theories").

General relativity, which is a classical theory (although it is also a post-Newtonian theory) when taken together with the Big Bang Theory, is not an infinite field theory. The universe it proposes is closed and has a radius of 15 billion light years give or take. Quantum theory is also not an infinite field theory. It has fields that likewise propogate at the speed of light and the time that has been available for those fields to propogate is finite.

Also your notion that even an infinite field theory with instantenous effect would necessarily lose energy does not follow. The total energy of an infinite field is the integral of its potential from the object to infinity. For a well behaved field function (such as Newtonian gravity), this integral has a finite value and the difference between the total value of the integral and the value of the integral out to a radius R becomes infintessimally small in the limit as R becomes arbitrarily large.

Observations show there is a large amount of gravity force unacounted for in the classical, infinite space, model.

No such observations exist. The difference in the amount of Newtonian graviational potential accounted for in a field with 15 billion light years diameter for the largest known objects (e.g. galactic clusters) and the amount of gravitational potential accounted for in a field of infinite diameter is on a percentage basis so tiny that humans have no instruments with sufficient precision to measure them, even if there was some way that this could be achieved.

An object might travel a infinite distance if the medium is infinite. This is what the infinite field theories today assert. They do not assert the medium is infinite.

General relativity doesn't really presume any medium.

Anyway. I just wanted to go on about a simple thought experiment in finite space with a very simple immediate consequence.
1.Consider a finite space universe with just 1 body of matter ( any scale ). If this bodies emits radiation, then since the universe is closed the radiation must return to the body.

This does not follow. To take a fairly simple example for purposes of proof by contradiction, suppose that your universe has the topology of a torus. Suppose further that the radiation gets into an outer loop around the torus while your black body stays on an inner loop around the torus. The radiation need never return to the black body.

Alternately, suppose that your closed universe has dimensions 100 billion light years in radius. Suppose further that all mass in your closed universe is located at point A in the center of the universe and that the mass began emitting radiation 15 billion light years ago. There is no reason for the radiation to have returned to the center of the universe and there is no way that any observer within the 15 billion light year radius could be aware that it might ever do so.

2.Consider if the body emits mass . As long as this emitted mass doesn't interact with, in any way, the original mass, then it could be expected to behave like a wave in accordance with quantum theory. Since the universe is closed, and assuming the wave cannot collapse upon itself, then wave will collapse back onto the original mass.

Again, this does not follow due to similar reasoning. Also, at the universe type scales your are talking about the expectation that an emitted mass would exhibit strong wavelike behavior is unreasonable and does not flow from quantum theory.

3. Now consider a closed universe with two bodies of matter. ( kept in particle behaviour by repeated interaction with each other ). If one of the bodies emits radiation ( separate from the repeated interaction energy transfer already mentioned ) then since the universe is closed, this radiation can only end up on one of the two bodies.

No. The radiation can spend forever (or at least for all time that has passed to date) between the two bodies unless you are proposing a very small two node universe.

[snip] One box this dynamic can tick immediately in the " what advantages this theory has over the other 1001 force field theories out there " sheet, is a symmetry that may help in the explanation of why omega seems to be very near 1. The likeliness of a wave collapsing onto anyone selected body of mass decreases as the amount of mass in the universe increases. i.e. a gravity constant perhaps G will be decided by the amount of mass in the universe. e.g. G = 1/M ( very rough guess! ) .

This is called a "Machian theory" and is part of a large class of disparate theories which have apparent physical constants that are emergent properties of the entire mass in the universe. The more common theoretical suggestion is that interia, rather than G itself, is a product of all the mass of the universe. Another is to have a slighly non-flat universal topology produced by the entire mass of the universe, e.g. making the entire geometry of empty space slightly Reiman.

I suggest in that script that infinite force fields cause the infinities in QM equations.

The infinities in QM are associated with the notion that space is infinitely divisible, not that space is infinitely large.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ohwilleke,
Your first answer was the one I was after. It seems to be the most popular idea at the mo.

Yup.

Your right, in it's most raw stripped down form, CoE is compatable with the popular " universe is bounded by ever expanding shell of light, expanding at speed c ".

Yup.

However, if true, it is the oddest CoE in the universe, it has a unique property.
Energy can be classified into intuitive subsystems e.g. on the top level, galaxy clusters. Energy in these subsystems mostly stay within the subsystem, sometimes though, it transfers to another system, e.g. by radiation from galaxy to galaxy.
All observed energy systems in the universe do this in one way or another.
Energy lost in one system can always be observed in another.

There is nothing natural or intuitive about the subsystems your suggest and no natural top level. It is a completely arbitrary construct. But, suppose that you parcel the finite universe of conventional cosmology into an arbitrary number of spaces each with a fixed volume and define those spaces such that each contains one galactic cluster. It follows that you can to one of two things to make your divisions a complete mapping of the universe. You can either define all space not yet accounted for in the last of a finite number of galactic clusters, or you can have one last arbitrary space which consists of that finite volume of space that is not associated with any galactic cluster. Either way, energy is always located in some numbered space within the finite universe. The fact that it may not be possible to know the volume of the last one of these arbitrary spaces with precision does not prevent you from observing energy in that system. And, there is no law of conservation of volume of empty space.

General relativity is a highly local theory. Assuming that a point and another point a centermeter away are in the same frame of reference is viewed as an approximation only by general relativity theory.

Local conservation of energy necessarily implies global conservation of energy, although the converse (i.e. that global conservation of energy implies local conservation of energy) is not true.

The universe expanding light shell is unique because it never interacts with the rest of the universe. It's a unique one way energy transfer.

So when I said classic field theory violates CoE I meant it violates this immediate consequence of CoE that restricts the rest of the energy in the universe.

These are nonsense statements that have no connection to any conventional formulation or corollary of the law of conservation of energy in mainstream physics.


An Intuitive engineering debugging approach to physics would go thusly...

Junior physicist : "The model works well apart from at the edges of matter concentrations, where we get many incorrect results."

No such problem with the model.

Debuging Engineering : What does the model say there?

JP : "It predicts a result which goes against everything ever observed, energy moving through a one way transfer "

No such observed data.

DE : Oh maybe that's the prob. What's it cause by?

JP : " Force fields that extend infinitely "

DE : " Oh no! Not those things AGAIN! They've plagued quantum physicists for years, and they still render best quantum theories MATHEMATICALLY COMPLETELY INVALID. "

No such problem in quantum physics.

JP : " Maybe we should get rid of them "

DE : " Yeah "

Senior physicist : [ walks in the room ] " No. We need infinite field theories because... < this is the bit that is currerntly bugging me, someone explain please meemoe > "

Your conclusion would make sense if only your premises were true, which they are not.

ohwilleke, are you a senior physicist? No, I am not. I am an educated layman with a solid working command of the basics of modern physics and more patience than most senior physicists. In my college days I made my pin money tutoring college students in math and physics and economics.

I hope you will consider this line of thought to be reasonable, because anyone who goes down this line of thought will hit a logical dead end here, and therefore feel the infinite field assumption is wrong.

Your line of reasoning is reasonable except that it involves multiple incorrect assumptions and therefore reaches a false conclusion.

 

[meemoe_uk]

I am the only one out of the 15500 physicsforums members who flatly disagree with almost all of ohwilleke's last post? Something is very wrong with physicsforums if members can post stuff like this unnoticed and unhindered.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I am the only one out of the 15500 physicsforums members who flatly disagree with almost all of ohwilleke's last post? Something is very wrong with physicsforums if members can post stuff like this unnoticed and unhindered.

What is your problem with it? I went through it carefully and found no major errors. Some of his gedanken examples were very good in fact, such as the toroidal universe (that requires the BH to be pointlike, BTW). Are you sure you just don't like it because it contradicts your cherished beliefs?

 

[meemoe_uk]

Are you sure you just don't like it because it contradicts your cherished beliefs?

I'm certain that I don't like it because it contradicts my cherished physics beliefs, and not just because of them either at that!

Here are my corrections and comments to ohwilleke lastpost, I given a mistake score for each error, but I haven't totalled them. It's pretty clear we've got self proclaimed physics god here, a college level guy who towers above the physics world, 100% confident he's perfect. no need for a degree in physics eh ohwilleke?

Infinite and instanteneous fields are a product of Newtonian theory,

They are not a 'product' of Newtonian theory, they ARE newtowian theory. Don't add unnessacery words to try and sound clever. Keep it as simple as possible. 1/5

but not of more advanced classical theories
ok.

(theories which are strictly deterministic and non-quantum and presume a "smooth" space are called "classical theories").

ok. people often like to classify relativity theory as a classical theory, but since it was invented the same time as quantum theory, it's a slightly confusing classifcation. Best to just classify it as deterministic and non-quantum.


General relativity, which is a classical theory (although it is also a post-Newtonian theory) when taken together with the Big Bang Theory, is not an infinite field theory. The universe it proposes is closed and has a radius of 15 billion light years give or take.

Here is one of your key misunderstandings. In GR theory the universe has no set radius, it is variable over time, you know this. You state 15 billion light years as the radius because that is the current radius of the light shell. However, this light shell radius will continue to increase with no bound. In maths, infinite series are named as such because they have no last element and extend infinitely, even though every element can be assigned a real number. To suggest that a series is not infinite because a given element is not infinite is incorrect. You are suggesting GR is not an infinite field theory because the current radius of the light shell is not infinite, you are wrong. 5/5

Quantum theory is also not an infinite field theory. It has fields that likewise propogate at the speed of light and the time that has been available for those fields to propogate is finite.

Wrong for same reason. I guess in which ever GR book you have read, the distinction between instaniously infinite and infinite given infinite time was stressed. This does not mean fields that reach infinitely given infinite time are not infinite. Any object affected by the former type of field, will also be affected by the latter.

Also your notion that even an infinite field theory with instantenous effect would necessarily lose energy does not follow.

1. Sorry but it does, and it's not my notion. Never mind your argument about the energy intergral, it misses the problem completely. You happily go ahead with integrating a force field, without stating by what construction mechanism this force field has come into existence. You need to ask "How does the force from one body get to another?" By bus? by magic? No, the current model states by messenger particle. For electromagnetism for example, the messenger particle is the photon. In every electro-magnetic interaction, a number of photons sent from one body exert force via their electromagnetic fields on their arrival at the other body. When you calcuate an electromagnetic force on a body you are calculating the electromagnetic force of the photons that happen to have just arrived at a given instance of time. When you do your integration over space, you are just summing the energys of all the messenger particles in a given volume of space.
You intergrate a force field. But you have no regard for what you are integrating - traveling quanta. Photons have energy. By the currrent model, these quanta can be sent in certain directions so that travel away from the material universe forever. Thus the universe is losing energy. 5/5

your notion that even an infinite field theory with instantenous effect

2. I have not stated a specific type of infinite field being nessacery for what I saying. This is your fabrication. This is your fixation on the distinction between GR and Newtonian grav, and lack of understanding of types of infinite fields coming into play again. 3/5

The total energy of an infinite field is the integral of its potential from the object to infinity.
ok, as long as you mean the 'object' is the source of the force field.

For a well behaved field function (such as Newtonian gravity), this integral has a finite value
Ha! One day, if you ever aqquire some maths skill, you might want to actually calculate an inverse square infinite force field integral. Watch out, the answer might upset you. You might consider going to the math help forum and getting tom's help. 5/5
In the mean time, consider the photons the sun emits in one second. Consider the space in a one light second radius sphere around the sun. In this shell is 1 light seconds worth of photons. You can then wrap this 1 light second shell in another shell 2 light seconds from the sun, then another 3 light seconds etc... in each one of these 'layers' is 1 unit of photons. Summing these to infinity : 1+1+1+1+... = infinity. Infinite photons have a sum energy of infinity.
I expect your incorrect belief spans from what you've read about line integrals in inverse square force fields , i.e. the integrals of paths of particles in inverse square force fields, which are not infinite.

and the difference between the total value of the integral and the value of the integral out to a radius R becomes infintessimally small in the limit as R becomes arbitrarily large.
sorry, but you can't blindly rely on the assitotion to zero of inverse proportion to stop it's integral from diverging.
e.g. integrate 1/r with limits infinity to 1. answer = Log infinity - Log 1 = infinity - 0.
4/5


Observations show there is a large amount of gravity force unacounted for in the classical, infinite space, model.
No such observations exist.
Good grief, I don't believe it. This coming from a person who supports MOND. If no such observation exists why have physicists been working on dark matter theories for 30 years? Trying to find their lost black socks in deep space? duh. Galaxy rotation curves. 5/5 + 5 for self contradiction.

The difference in the amount of Newtonian graviational potential accounted for in a field with 15 billion light years diameter for the largest known objects (e.g. galactic clusters) and the amount of gravitational potential accounted for in a field of infinite diameter is on a percentage basis so tiny that humans have no instruments with sufficient precision to measure them, even if there was some way that this could be achieved.

Again, only correct again if your considering only line integrals in inverse square force fields. Although by now, I'm thinking it's more luck than understanding when you get it right. Your statement actually supports my argument. If we have no way of telling, then why are we so sure of the current theory?


General relativity doesn't really presume any medium.
plainly wrong. Space is a medium, and you know it. 5/5

Anyway. I just wanted to go on about a simple thought experiment in finite space with a very simple immediate consequence.
1.Consider a finite space universe with just 1 body of matter ( any scale ). If this bodies emits radiation, then since the universe is closed the radiation must return to the body.
This does not follow. To take a fairly simple example for purposes of proof by contradiction, suppose that your universe has the topology of a torus.
You've misunderstood what I mean by closed, probably because you have only read and know of one notion of closed space, the one used in GR. spactial closure. I'm talking about energy closure. i.e. the universe is a closed energy system, no energy gets in or out. 3/5

Suppose further that the radiation gets into an outer loop around the torus while your black body stays on an inner loop around the torus. The radiation need never return to the black body.
No. Only if you model the light to be an infinitely thin line, which is pretty bad modeling. If it has any width, it will eventually go through space it's already been through. But this is irrelavent, since your argument is already dead. 4/5

Alternately, suppose that your closed universe has dimensions 100 billion light years in radius. Suppose further that all mass in your closed universe is located at point A in the center of the universe and that the mass began emitting radiation 15 billion light years ago.
ok, but this argument is dead.

There is no reason for the radiation to have returned to the center of the universe
You haven't stated a dynamic for when the radiation hits the edge of the universe. Either it bounces or it doesn't. If it bounces, then it will get back to the centre eventually. 4/5
and there is no way that any observer within the 15 billion light year radius could be aware that it might ever do so.
You haven't considered the possibility of a bouncing dynamic, in which case an observer could be aware of the radiation if he was around 200 billion years after the radiation was sent . 1/5
Your argument doesn't work, and is completely misdirected. 5/5


2.Consider if the body emits mass . As long as this emitted mass doesn't interact with, in any way, the original mass, then it could be expected to behave like a wave in accordance with quantum theory. Since the universe is closed, and assuming the wave cannot collapse upon itself, then wave will collapse back onto the original mass.

Again, this does not follow due to similar reasoning.
Wrong, due to your same misunderstanding about closure. 1/5

Also, at the universe type scales your are talking about the expectation that an emitted mass would exhibit strong wavelike behavior is unreasonable and does not flow from quantum theory.

I didn't state a scale. That I stated a cosmological size scale is your fabrication. 4/5
There is no known mass upper bound where the wave aspect of matter becomes theorectically impossible. Most physicists believe a mass of any size will exhibit wave properties given the right circumstances; i.e. no contact with radition that would give away it's state to another piece of matter. The practical limiting factor on Earth is that larger objects are harder to absolutely sheild from radiation. In deep space there is little radiation, so it can be expected bodys may exhibit slighty more wave nature than when close to other mass. But this is speculative and has been for decades, and was partly what I was speculating on in my inital posts. 4/5

3. Now consider a closed universe with two bodies of matter. ( kept in particle behaviour by repeated interaction with each other ). If one of the bodies emits radiation ( separate from the repeated interaction energy transfer already mentioned ) then since the universe is closed, this radiation can only end up on one of the two bodies.
No. The radiation can spend forever between the two bodies unless you are proposing a very small two node universe.
I would not have believed someone who has college level physics believes this, staggering. Plainly wrong. 5/5

(or at least for all time that has passed to date)
This statement signifys your at least vaguely aware of your shambles logic of falsehoods and mistakes.
1. I was not talking about reality ( the real universe ). I was talking about a hypothetical universe. The date in reality has no bearing whatsoever on my thought experiment. 4/5
2. It seems you are still thinking about your 100 billion light year radius spatially closed universe, and your arguments that it is closed based on the fact the light shell has only traveled a finite distance. What if you allow more time than has pasted to date? 4/5
3. It totally contracdicts the conclusion in your last statement. It seems you know you wrong, but you can't bring yourself to fully admit it, to me or to yourself. 5/5 + 2 for self contradiction

 

[meemoe_uk]

[snip] One box this dynamic can tick immediately in the " what advantages this theory has over the other 1001 force field theories out there " sheet, is a symmetry that may help in the explanation of why omega seems to be very near 1. The likeliness of a wave collapsing onto anyone selected body of mass decreases as the amount of mass in the universe increases. i.e. a gravity constant perhaps G will be decided by the amount of mass in the universe. e.g. G = 1/M ( very rough guess! ) .

This is called a "Machian theory" and is part of a large class of disparate theories which have apparent physical constants that are emergent properties of the entire mass in the universe. The more common theoretical suggestion is that interia, rather than G itself, is a product of all the mass of the universe. Another is to have a slighly non-flat universal topology produced by the entire mass of the universe, e.g. making the entire geometry of empty space slightly Reiman.

I don't know much about Machian theory, and I'd like to learn abit about it, but based on your previous writes, I don't believe what you say.

I suggest in that script that infinite force fields cause the infinities in QM equations.
The infinities in QM are associated with the notion that space is infinitely divisible, not that space is infinitely large.
We both agree I made a mistake then.


Energy can be classified into intuitive subsystems e.g. on the top level, galaxy clusters. Energy in these subsystems mostly stay within the subsystem, sometimes though, it transfers to another system, e.g. by radiation from galaxy to galaxy.
There is nothing natural or intuitive about the subsystems your suggest
?!? This is a real madness induced statement. I think you are trying to be too clever again. There are parts of science that are really simple. This is one of them.
1. They are natural, because they, er, happen in nature. Don't know what you've under 'natural' in your dictonary. 5/5
2. I spose there is some ambiguity in what I meant when I said "intuitive", if you thought I meant "easy to predict given the current model" then sorry I gave the wrong impression, I meant; pretty easy to learn. I just thought the former interpretation was so unlikely that no-one would discard the latter interpretation in favour of this. But then I hadn't talked to you yet. 2/5

and no natural top level.
Oh no. Let me guess, you've got atoms higher in the hireachy than galaxy clusters in your attempt to classfiy them, right? Madness. 5/5

It is a completely arbitrary construct.
Well, if this is true, since I only mentioned galaxy clusters, it seems unlikely you are referring to what I said since you can hardly call a single element a 'contruct', how would you work out the rest of my construct if it was arbitary? You can only work it out because it isn't arbitary. I take it you are referring to generally accepted hierachy of galaxy clusters ( galaxys ( solar systems ( celestial bodys ( matiarials ( molicules ( atoms ( quatums < simiplfied version, natch >. If this hierachy is so arbitary, why have nature, science, you and me selected it out of all the other hierachys? Because it is not arbitary. Jeezus. Madness induced by a love of overcomplicating things at every perceived operturnity. Have you heard of philosophy? you'd love it. 5/5

However, if true, it is the oddest CoE in the universe, it has a unique property.
Energy can be classified into intuitive subsystems e.g. on the top level, galaxy clusters. Energy in these subsystems mostly stay within the subsystem, sometimes though, it transfers to another system, e.g. by radiation from galaxy to galaxy.
All observed energy systems in the universe do this in one way or another.
Energy lost in one system can always be observed in another.

But, suppose that you parcel the finite universe of conventional cosmology into an arbitrary number of spaces each with a fixed volume and define those spaces such that each contains one galactic cluster.

What I said, but you've used more words and introduced 2 errors.
1. You say it's "an arbitrary number of spaces". The number of sets you divided space into is obviously not an arbitrary number, it's defined by the number of galaxys clusters there are. You may be making the correct point that some galaxys distrubutions don't obviously belong to one galaxy cluster. This is correct, yet completely irelavent to my arguement. 3/5 For believeing this had bearing on my argument
2. No need for fixed volume. Why is it so nessacery to my arguement? 1/5

It follows that you can to one of two things to make your divisions a complete mapping of the universe.
ok, but the finer aspects of mapping the universe are not nesssacery to my argument.

You can either define all space not yet accounted for in the last of a finite number of galactic clusters, or you can have one last arbitrary space which consists of that finite volume of space that is not associated with any galactic cluster.
All the space not yet accounted for is the space occupied by the light shell.
ok, but irrelevent. I like how you wrote 'finite number' like the words finite and infinite are still spining around your head.

Either way, energy is always located in some numbered space within the finite universe.
ok, but this is not addressing the point at all. Assigning a set to each quanta of radiation has no bearing on my argument that radiation in the light shell is in a one way energy transfer.
The fact that it may not be possible to know the volume of the last one of these arbitrary spaces with precision does not prevent you from observing energy in that system.
Correct, it is the fact that the radiation is in the 'light shell' which by definition puts it beyond reach of any material observer which prevents observation of this energy.
And, there is no law of conservation of volume of empty space.
completely irrelavent. 3/5 You've prooved nothing.

General relativity is a highly local theory.
There are local theories and non local theorys. There are no highly local theorys, and GR is a local theory. 4/5

Assuming that a point and another point a centermeter away are in the same frame of reference is viewed as an approximation only by general relativity theory.
It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Local conservation of energy necessarily implies global conservation of energy, although the converse (i.e. that global conservation of energy implies local conservation of energy) is not true.
correct. so?

The universe expanding light shell is unique because it never interacts with the rest of the universe. It's a unique one way energy transfer.
So when I said classic field theory violates CoE I meant it violates this immediate consequence of CoE that restricts the rest of the energy in the universe.
these are nonsense statements
They make sense. If you can't understand them, tough. I'm not going to explain the english language to you. 5/5
that have no connection to any conventional formulation or corollary of the law of conservation of energy in mainstream physics.
I flatly disagree. To falsify my statement, describe just one physical process where energy lost in one system cannot be said to have been transfers to another ( without sending radiation on an endless journey into deep space ).

The model works well apart from at the edges of matter concentrations, where we get many incorrect result.
No such problem with the model.
5/5 +2 for self contradiction. Galaxy rotation curves. the mass discrepancy problem.

It predicts a result which goes against everything ever observed, energy moving through a one way transfer
No such observed data.
you really are being childishly silly now. Every energy transfer ever observed is part of the material universe, and is therefore part of a closed energy system. To falsify my statement describe just one physical process where energy lost in one system cannot be said to have been transfers to another ( without sending radiation on an endless journey into deep space ). 5/5


"...best quantum theories MATHEMATICALLY COMPLETELY INVALID. "
No such problem in quantum physics.
renormalization. You don't even know this? 5/5

Your conclusion would make sense if only your premises were true, which they are not.
Maybe, maybe not, I was hoping I could find someone who knows about physics to help me decide.

ohwilleke, are you a senior physicist?
No, I am not.
True.
I am an educated layman
false
with a solid working command of the basics of modern physics
false
and more patience than most senior physicists.
False!

What amazes me most is a Super Mentor - selfAdjoint thinking there are no major mistakes in Ohwilleke's post.
Ohwilleke, your post is a shinning testoment to your level of understanding, thanks for letting me know how good you are. I could not have deduced it by your declaration of college level understanding alone.