I see this as a universe that in its entirety, is like a liquid. Nothing can separate from the liquid ln the way that happens during a 'splash' in water. There is no 'outside' of the universe. But space is dynamic and individual — universeness

The universe like a liquid? Hidden variables constitute space. They are like liquid in the sense that particles swim in it and are guided by it. Particles hop around within the confines of the wavefunction. You repeatedly have made the mistake to see fields as disturbances of space. Fields are just mathematical tools. The fields assign operator valued distributions to every point in space. The operators "create" or "annihilate" free particle states. Creation means turning a virtual particle real and annihilation means turning real to virtual. Two electrons interact by coupling to omnipresent virtual photons. There is no emission, no absorption. All particles are conserved. Ther only are shapeshiftings from real to virtual and vice-versa.

So in a sense, the water analogy is a good one. But what the water is, is wrong in your case. The fields not are space. It are the hidden variables.

Jiddu was a BS artist in pursuit of a free lunch in my opinion, sorry Tom, sorry sis! — universeness

Doesn't worry me what people think about him. I think of him these days as a talented performance artist and his private life was bad. I have read a lot about him. Unfortunately. I spent a lot of time 35 years ago in the company of 'New Age' folk, teachers, gurus, monks, seers, and their disciples (yoga, Steiner, Buddhism, theosophy, Gurdjieff, etc). What I found was that the people involved were as racked with anxiety, flaws and substance issues as any other group. So far from providing consolation or peace, most of the folk were ambitious, status obsessed and very poor advertisements for the contemplative life. Doesn't mean the beliefs are untrue, just that I see little point in them.

How would talking with a mystic change your physics, and how do you know it's not for the good? I think Bohm learns more about physics from talking to the mystic than from talking to you and listen to your view on physics, which is rather shallow, if you don't mind me saying.

I think he was a flim-flam man who was clever enough to earn an easy living. — universeness

J know a few of them on the university department of physics! 15000 euro/month. For sitting around, making notes, and having free lunches.

I also still am currently most convinced by the idea that our Macro 3D space could be due to something akin to or exactly like string vibrations in > 3 dimensions. Phenomena like Gravity and time etc would result purely as a consequence of subatomic interactions in a similar way to wind or weather phenomena being a consequence of interactions rather than a separate fundamental force — universeness

Emergent gravity is an old theme (Erik Verlinde's take has it the wrong way round though). 3D space and thermodynamical time are indeed emergent on a wider 4D space context. Empty space doesn't emerge from graviton strings, as strings are woowoo in the first place. The problem with quantum gravity is that condensates of gravitons can't account for curvature, even though they are tensor particles. Ask this question on a physics forum and... The problem is how spacetime is curved. This can only by letting gravitons get a direct grip on space. And the hidden variables make up space in which, even in a vacuum, particles whirl around. The virtual whirling is accompanied by space. Negatively curved.

Noooooooooooo! You will never be allowed to do that. Your scientific musing will always be related to your dalliances with theism — universeness

What the fuck? Are you serious here or role playing? I hope the last! We have enough discussed about the gods. Let them peacefully rest and look how we talk science! Just ignore them or pretend they don't exist! Yeeeeeeeeeees!

Okay. Space. You say it's caused by vibrating strings. What makes them vibrate?

Anyway, how about pair production — universeness

A real particle pair is just a time extended virtual particle. All particles in the universe eventually meet up with it's anti version to dive back into virtual existence. In agreement with my view on two constituent massless particle fields. There are equal amounts of these two basics and their anti's. So all particle-antiparticle pairs are just one particle that has gotten a direction in time. It's a broken up quantum bubble (which is just one, virtual particle still fluctuating in space and time).

Hey! Got my first follower on Quora! Entered a question and 16 answers yesterday. Thanks to you, brother Uni! :starstruck:

You repeatedly have made the mistake to see fields as disturbances of space — Hillary

Not what I suggested. Space IS one big field of potential. disturbances/excitations occur in space rather than space being separate from the excitations/perturbations which happen within it.

Creation means turning a virtual particle real and annihilation means turning real to virtual. — Hillary

Virtual particles are also a mathematical tool. It is mere projection to suggest that that which is virtual become real. I think I will call that 'the Pinocchio fallacy.' Explain the detail of how something 'virtual' can become 'real.' Energy turning into mass for example is not virtual becoming real as the energy involved was already real.

Two electrons interact by coupling to omnipresent virtual photons. There is no emission, no absorption. All particles are conserved. — Hillary

There is a great deal of info on quora and physics stack exchange regarding electron repulsion/collision/interaction. I was tempted to copy and paste some of it but it would have taken up too much space. Almost none of the examples agree with your claim that no emission or absorption of photons is involved. I have much more confidence in the experimental physicists who comment on such sites than I have in you.

Are you serious here — Hillary

Yes I am. Don't spout polytheism and expect everyone to not take account of that when you try to challenge currently established physics. Are YOU serious? :lol:

Okay. Space. You say it's caused by vibrating strings. What makes them vibrate? — Hillary

The existence of other dimensions I expect but perhaps you should ask a string theorist.

Hey! Got my first follower on Quora! Entered a question and 16 answers yesterday. Thanks to you, brother Uni! — Hillary

Your welcome, although I don't know why you are thanking me for your own postings on Quora.
I would like a link to your question and your 16 answers however. I would like to read that.

Doesn't worry me what people think about him. I think of him these days as a talented performance artist and his private life was bad. — Tom Storm

Of course you don't, and neither should you. My disdain of JK has not put my sister off him either.
She buys a calendar of his quotes every year! :roll: She even sends one to my mother and other sister :lol:

What I found was that the people involved were as wracked with anxiety, flaws and substance issues as any other group. So far from providing consolation or peace, most of the folk were ambitious, status obsessed and very poor advertisements for the contemplative life. Doesn't mean the beliefs are untrue, just that I see little point in them — Tom Storm

Still, such an experience would make you a wiser man, overall, I think.

How would talking with a mystic change your physics, and how do you know it's not for the good? I think Bohm learns more about physics from talking to the mystic than from talking to you and listen to your view on physics, which is rather shallow, if you don't mind me saying — Hillary

No, I don't at all mind you saying! If I advocate for humans to become an interplanetary species with increased lifespan options then I think it would be more progressive towards such goals to promote science and scientists that regress or hinder such goals by allowing BS from mystics to have airspace.

Not what I suggested. Space IS one big field of potential. disturbances/excitations — universeness

That's what I meant. But it's not like that. WOOWOOOOO! :lol:

Virtual particles are also a mathematical tool. It is mere projection to suggest that that which is virtual become real. I think I will call that 'the Pinocchio fallacy.' Explain the detail of how something 'virtual' can become 'real.' Energy turning into mass for example is not virtual becoming real as the energy involved was already real. — universeness

That's what they make you think. Virtual particles nor real particles are mathematical constructions, fluctuations or excitations of fields. That's what they tell you and you parrot it. Fields are just math constructions, not reality. Fields assign states in a Fock space. And these states correspond to free particle wavefunctions. And these describe particles! Hopping within the confines of the wavefunction. The wavefunctions in QM are cross sections of fields. A virtual particle is virtual in the sense that its not on mass shell. So energy and 3 momentum are independent. And a virtual particle wavers amongst all possible E's and p's. So when two electrons interact the can offer the right E and p.

If I advocate for humans to become an interplanetary species with increased lifespan options then I think it would be more progressive towards such goals to promote science and scientists that regress or hinder such goals by allowing BS from mystics to have airspace. — universeness

Of course you might promote whatever you like. But you nevef can forbid people to talk woowoo BS because it doesn't fit your, glorious" goal of immortal supermen. Jesus man! Are you so dissatisfied with yourself? :lol:

Your welcome, although I don't know why you are thanking me for your own postings on Quora. — universeness

Because if you didn't offer the posting I wouldn't have posted myself! M il Guercio. My pseudo on quora.

That's what they tell you and you parrot it. — Hillary

That's because I am more convinced by my understanding of their physics than yours.
I dont care if you suggest that's because I dont understand your physics.
I think I understand enough to reject it in favour of those who suggest that phenomena such as photon absorption happens.

But you nevef can forbid people to talk woowoo BS — Hillary

I am glad you at least admit it's BS, but no, I don't mind if foolish people insist on remaining foolish.
Some people kill themselves and I can't stop that either.
I am human enough to feel pity/sadness for them.

That's because I am more convinced by my understanding of their physics than yours. — universeness

That's because you don't understand QFT properly and just parrot what the "expert" says. Can't you see what they do? Apparently not. I suggest you study QFT properly first, before continuing. You don't seem to get it! Woowoo! :lol:

I am glad you at least admit it's BS — universeness

Science is BS just the same. But you won't admit it.

I don't mind if foolish people insist on remaining foolish. — universeness

My dear mother of god...

Because if you didn't offer the posting I wouldn't have posted myself! M il Guercio. My pseudo on quora — Hillary

I thought you said you had been on these sites many times and had been banned many times!
I will search on quora for your pseudonym.

That's because you don't understand QFT properly and just parrot what the "expert" says. Can't you see what they do? Apparently not. I suggest you study QFT properly first, before continuing. You don't seem to get it! — Hillary

Yeah, says you! I would benefit from more study in physics but I predict that if I achieve such then my distance from your physics posits will increase not decrease.

Science is BS just the same. But you won't admit it — Hillary

Yeah, because your suggestion is incorrect.

My dear mother of god... — Hillary

If all your gods have mothers and they had mothers are you not back to infinite regress again.
Which god is your chosen first cause?
Do you have a name for it or do you just go with the generic lazy label g o d ? :brow:

I thought you said you had been on these sites many times and had been banned many times — universeness

Yes. On stack exchange, physics forum and one national here.

If all your gods have mothers and they had mothers are you not back to infinite regress again.
Which god is your chosen first cause? — universeness

Not one is a first cause cause. Jesus brother Uni I get a bit tired of having to defend myself. If your intention is to unmask the theist, go try it at someone else. You cant unmask me because I wear no mask!

Yes. On stack exchange, physics forum and one national here — Hillary

Searched for M il Guercio on quora and only got some matches with free books to read that had author names which were partly related to M il Guercio.
No matches when I searched under 'profile,' 'questions,' or 'threads.'
Posting a direct link would be easier if you have no reason not to.

My name is not M...

The question I asked is not give fiat yet... Yesterday asked. See what I mean?

Not one is a first cause cause. Jesus brother Uni I get a bit tired of having to defend myself. If your intention is to unmask the theist, go try it at someone else. You cant unmask me because I wear no mask! — Hillary

But you do state god is your first cause, yes?
I am not asking you to defend yourself, I am asking you to explain yourself.
You have tried to but I still see no rationale which you claim connects your physics to your polytheism.
I remain of the opinion that you insult your physics with your polytheism and that will stay with me as regards you.
Your claim that you don't wear masks is just ridiculous since you claimed to be an atheist on one occasion and did not correct another member who thought you were female.
I am trying to get you to focus on your science ability and not your polytheism.
It's okay for you to resist and utterly reject my attempts but I can be as tenacious as you!
I don't mind if I am unsuccessful, I have already posted to you the words 'Well, I tried.'
I will move on eventually but I will always dig you about it as long as we are communicating.

You have tried to but I still see no rationale which you claim connects your physics to your polytheism — universeness

The gods life eternally. No first reason necessary. Eternal intelligence itself is reason. My serial big bang is inspired by the divine longing to watch eternally to their creation. The torus vision I saw in that divine dream.

My name is not M... — Hillary

Can you still hear the wolfs cry?
Can you be sure my name is Stephen? Do I really paint? etc etc!
You believe what people tell you or you don't.
I have good radar and a good ability to smell subterfuge when it really matters so I am unconcerned.
Not immune, but unconcerned!
Remember this

The gods life eternally. No first reason necessary. Eternal intelligence itself is reason. My serial big bang is inspired by the divine longing to watch eternally to their creation. The torus vision I saw in that divine dream — Hillary

As I said, no rationale!

Jesus brother Uni! You know my name! M...?

As I said, no rationale! — universeness

Not one you understand!