Given we have knowledge of only 5% of the Universe, can this and the 95% remainder of the Universe including Dark Energy and Dark Matter be understood with a single paradigm shift.
There is no mystery in the universe for human intellect, because for materialist dialectics, man is an integral part of the infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe and is capable of progressively knowing (being consciousness of) himself and the universe as a never-ending process. Man exists as a contradiction of the “unity of the opposites” with the universe. This contradiction is progressively resolved through the historically increasing consciousness of the subjectively thinking mind of man, without any end. So, there can be no mysteries, only yet unknown things and processes; but potentially knowable. For example, the quantum phenomena and the existence of antimatter was unknown to man for most of his history so far, until very recently.
Knowledge (consciousness) means the correct correspondence of the concepts (formed in thought of man) of himself and the external universe. Positive knowledge (consciousness) of objective reality is possible only through direct physical intercourse, social/historical (living) practice, technology etc., with which man changes himself (his being) and the external reality. But “it is not the consciousness of man that determines his being, (on the contrary) his social being that determines his consciousness”.
Historically, after the class division of human society; the interest of the dominant ruling class decided the nature and the content of knowledge (consciousness) and imposed its world-view or paradigm on society. This world-view based on causality and formal logic of good old commonsense of everyday life experience (the “view of understanding” for Hegel) and which prevails till today, is necessarily limited and defective. This world-view arising on the one hand out of ignorance, blind faith and limited thought is guided by two contradictory notions of the mystery of a “first cause” or “beginning” of a necessarily finite universe created by an omnipotent and omniscient “consciousness”, namely God; who is beyond man and the universe and rules both. And on the other hand, the foolish notion that the genius of perceptive men can know the “Mind of God” and hence the ultimate truth of the universe through thought alone, or a (mathematical) theory of everything. Both of these mutually exclusive notions, the later one now actively pursued by modern official theoretical physics and cosmology, in particular; are false. Only the world-view of materialist dialectics (the “view of reason” for Hegel) can lead humanity towards ever better consciousness and the positive knowledge of the universe!
"The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?" Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?
“The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science”: Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...
"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies", http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf
“The Dialectical Universe”:
https://www.amazon.ca/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445
The following quote from Frederick Engels may be of some interest in relation to the question of this forum:
“The perception that all the phenomena of Nature are systematically interconnected drives science to prove this interconnection throughout, both in general and in detail. But an adequate, exhaustive scientific statement of this interconnection, the formulation in thought of an exact picture of the world system in which we live, is impossible for us, and will always remain impossible. If at any time in the evolution of mankind such a final, conclusive system of the interconnections within the world - physical as well as mental and historical – were brought to completion, this would mean that human knowledge had reached its limit, and, from the moment when society had been brought into accord with that system, further historical evolution would be cut short – which would be an absurd idea, pure nonsense.
Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction; on the one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all in its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of man and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled. But this contradiction lies not only in the nature of the two factors – the world, and man – it is also the main lever of all intellectual advance, and finds its solution continuously, day by day, in the endless progressive evolution of humanity just as for example mathematical problems find their solution in an infinite series or continued fractionations. Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker. Anti-Dühring)
Stefan Bernhard Rüster
I was surprised to go to a lecture that proposed that energy was not conserved in so far as energy was lost in the expansion of the Universe.
What do you think?
Abdul Malek
If we had a solid handle on how the Universe works, then what
Andrew Worsley > "If we had a solid handle on how the Universe works, then what":
The only "solid handle" we have of the universe is what scant knowledge of the evolution of Matter in eternal Motion, Nature, Life, Society and thought brought us so far. Man can only "handle" progressively and historically enhanced relative knowledge (relative truth) of the universe. As Engels said, "Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker."
What causality-based official theoretical physics and cosmology; philosophy, theology etc., claim to know so far, is nothing but idle fantasy; because everything claimed is based on the mystery of a "first cause". Only the (consciously or unconsciously) gained tangible aspects of social/historical practice for sustaining life, technology etc. developed through the evolution of life on earth is positive knowledge. All else, claimed and preached by great men, Sages, theological and scientific priests and conceived through pure thought and/or ideal mathematics are just pure nonsense, used as ruling ideas for the subjugation and the exploitation of man by man.
The highly touted and used as the most potent ruling idea of modern times - namely the theory of extra-terrestrial universal gravitational attraction of Isaac Newton and the absolute constancy of the velocity of light of Albert Einstein, and the related theories like "Big Bang" creation; on which much of modern cosmology is based; are patently false. Materialist dialectics can make this claim with confidence; specially after the recognition of the "Evil Quanta"! Please see the references cited above.
Einstein's theories of relativity, in particular are absolute fantasies that have no relevance to objective reality! So the boastful claim, "we have knowledge of only 5% of the Universe, can this and the 95% remainder of the Universe including Dark Energy and Dark Matter be understood with a single paradigm shift"; is simply ridiculous and can easily be dismissed: Please see the (dialectics-based) new claims, in (at least) the following three recent publications"
"New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativity The Real Phenomenology of Space-Time-Matter-Motion": Article New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativi...
“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754
"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas": Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...
Andrew Worsley > "...energy was not conserved in so far as energy was lost in the expansion of the Universe".
If the universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing as dialectics asserts, then the question of "the expansion of the universe" or the conservation of energy have no meaning. Please see the following RG discussion:
""Ex nihilo nihil fit“? Are You Certain Mr. Einstein and Mr. Heisenberg?": https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ex_nihilo_nihil_fit_Are_You_Certain_Mr_Einstein_and_Mr_Heisenberg2
Abdul Malek
Stefan Bernhard Rüster
Jean-Pierre Petit
Johan K. Fremerey
Do the fundamental elements of the Universe ever lose their energy?
Andrew Worsley> "Do the fundamental elements of the Universe ever lose their energy?"
Only a materialist dialectical view, incorporating quantum electrodynamics can give a reasonable answer to this question. The question of fundamental elements losing their energy is intimately related with the gain of their energy. This is a question of ontology, of how things (as they are), and specially how fundamental elements came to BE or came to EXIST.
Causality and formal logic-based world-view (the "view of understanding" or metaphysics for Hegel) of mythologies, theologies, philosophy, conventional natural science, including modern mainstream and official theoretical physics etc., attributes any existence to the mystery of a single act of creation by omnipotent and omniscient God; from "Nothing"; i.e. ex nihilo - all more or less perfect in themselves. But after the first act of creation, the conservation laws and the law of “ex nihilo nihil fit” comes into force. For this view things have only existence in space, but no change or evolution in time. God-created universe is also an ideological question fundamental to class rule, from the beginning of the class division of society that continues till today. In human history, fundamental positive knowledge and objective truth had to be subservient to class interest (as it is the case even today); expressed in the following words of a mighty thinker in history, Emmanuel Kant, “I found it necessary to deny knowledge to make room for faith”.
How tenaciously even in 1861 (after Kant's “Nebular Hypothesis” in 1755 and after Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in 1859) this view could be held by Mädler - a German astronomer, the man, whose scientific achievements had provided highly important material for abolishing this view, is shown by the following classic words: "All [the arrangements of our solar system, so far as we are capable of comprehending them, aim at preservation of what exists and at unchanging continuance. Just as since the most ancient times no animal and no plant on the earth
has become more perfect or in any way different, just as we find in all organisms only stages alongside of one another and not following one another, just as our own race has always remained the same in corporeal respects—so even the greatest diversity in the coexisting heavenly bodies does not justify us in assuming that these forms are merely different stages of development; it is rather that everything created is equally perfect] in itself." (Mädler, Populäre Astronomie, Berlin, 1861, 5th edition, p. 316).
The modern view of ontology of official science is not very different from that of Mädler. It allows two stages of creation; stage one the creation of the “fundamental elements” in a “Big Bang” and stage two, a period of evolution of other things from the “fundamental elements”; in a strict deterministic way, following the conservation laws.
For Hegel’s dialectical view, “existence” is a contradiction of the “unity of the opposites” of “Being – Nothing”; which means that one contains the other implicitly; such that “Being” has elements of “Nothing” in it and vice versa. A resolution of this contradiction, mediated by blind chance and an iron necessity inherent in chance itself; leads to the phenomenology of coming into being and passing out of existence of matter and motion as an eternal process. An "Aufhebung" or“Becoming”, a relatively higher level of existence with its own and newly emergent contradiction and so on leads to the manifestation of the universe. “Being-Nothing" is the first and also the last contradiction in this eternal coming into being and passing out of existence. The "virtual particles" of the quantum vacuum of modern quantum electrodynamics is a vindication of the dialectical ontology of Hegel. Please see:
"New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativity - The Real Phenomenology of Space-Time-Matter-Motion" Article New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativi...
"The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"? Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?
From my perspective the most important paradigm shift would be realization that all the phenomena are emergent. It means that neither electron or photon or neutrino are absolutely elementary particles - science not just found what they are consist from. Undoubtedly the experiments to discover such structure are of enormous cost and not feasible soon. As far as photon and dark energy - here is my most recent blog input:
Tipikin: Tired light hypothesis and "accelerated expansion of Universe" - no need for dark energy.
http://tipikin.blogspot.com/2024/05/tired-light-hypothesis-and-accelerated.html
I re-analyzed the discovery of "dark energy" - in reality it means that for z>~1 the supernova looks dimmer than they should be. Instead of quickly realize that something wrong with photons (they seem to scatter, which is completely forbidden by Big Bang approach) scientists decided that space-time itself is changing and thus we only observe 5% of energy (so huge amount of energy would be necessary to tinkering with fabric of space-time itself, and this seems to be correct - any manipulation with space time needs enormous efforts). On the contrary the idea of tired light introduces a very small force or a new undiscovered yet very light particle, which only interacts with photon once per year and this is enough to describe both "Big Bang" and "dark energy" - no need for super-impossible fluctuation to create Universe and super high amount of un-known energy. Tired light even easily explains the "time dilation" - see the publication on Vixra or ResearchGate:
2311.0060v1.pdf (vixra.org)
https://vixra.org/pdf/2311.0060v1.pdf
Preprint Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct o...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375517684...
(PDF) Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering (researchgate.net)
Indeed this would mean a paradigm shift - instead of looking for something enormously big like "Big Bang" or "dark energy" for the explanation, it would be necessary to look for something enormously small but not yet discovered - like why the photon is slowly braking because of very feeble billions and trillions of interactions thus showing something which looks like something wrong with space-time but in reality something happening with photon itself.
Yours sincerely,
Dmitriy Tipikin
Dmitriy Tipikin
Or what if it was simpler than that, based on Planck's constant. In that case the electron is stable cohesion of 1 .23 x 10^21 of such Planck units, which form the cloud we see in orbitals or a more solid cohesion of the same number of units when is a single electron.
“Can all the mysteries of the Universe be solved with one single paradigm shift?”
- the really scientific answer to this question is rather evident – all mysteries of the Universe can be solved only after the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Universe” will be non-mysterious,
- while really it [more correctly fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter”]– and all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, are now fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational;
- and so in physics really everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., completely logically inevitably are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational – “mysterious ” - as well.
Just therefore really all physical theories really are based in many cases on really transcendent/uncertain/irrational postulates, where some mysterious properties of objects/events/effects in Matter are postulated ; say that are mysterious properties and effects of/in Matter’s space/time/spacetime in SR/GR, containing mysterious energy fundamental Nature forces fields in “classic” macro physics, the Forces “virtual mediators ” , which mysteriously are also real particles in QFTs, say, photons in Standard Model and QCD, etc.
The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- and more concretely in physics in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force , which is based on the conception
Model really principally changes the regrettably quite really existent, and really main, paradigm in mainstream physics, which states, that physics answers the questions “How some objects/events/effects in Matter exist and happen?”, i.e. really only describes that; and so for this it is quite unnecessary to answer the question – “Whythat in Matter is as it is?”:
- the model in more 30 fundamental cases rigorously scientifically answers the last question, and is the real base for unique possible real physics development on its way “classical” macrophysics → QM→ Planck scale physics.
More see the links above. .
Cheers
Quite a few of the mysteries of the universe can be solved with a single paradigm shift - the full switch to curved-spacetime logic.
At this point, a lot of folk will say, "Huh? Didn't Einstein already do that in 1916?"
But he didn't do it properly. Einstein's GR project was always designed as a way of extending special relativity, and it built the "flat-spacetime" equations of special relativity right into the general theory, where their appearance is quite, quite wrong, and violates pretty much every principle that the theory is supposed to be based on.
Einstein's attempt at a general theory is a disaster, because it tries to incorporate two different incompatible sets of principles. Special relativity is relativistic matter-physics in flat spacetime. GR tells us that there is no such thing as relativistic matter-physics in flat spacetime - matter is always associated with curvature, and moving matter is always associated with gravitomagnetic curvature. So the default geometry and equations for inertial physics, in the context of a valid general theory, cannot be those of SR. GR1916 is missing the whole subject of of how gravitomagnetics appears within inertial physics.
GR doesn't work unless all moving masses always warp spacetime, and SR doesn't work unless no moving masses ever warp spacetime. These conditions describe two different universes. One theory cannot be a subset of the other.
As a result of trying to accommodate the SR equations, GR1916 manages to violate the general principle of relativity. (!!!)
What we need is a REAL general theory of relativity that puts the GPoR first, over and above all other principles and beliefs. Once you start working on that, all sorts of other problems start solving themselves automatically.
Andrew Worsley : "Do the fundamental elements of the Universe ever lose their energy? "
----
Yes. Hubble redshift. in a modern expanding universe, energy is constantly being lost through Hubble expansion. This is not just an increase in entropy and a dilution of useable energy-differentials ... energy is actually disappearing. And since energy can be converted back and forth into matter, by constantly bleeding energy out of the system we are preventing the system from reaching equilibrium, and creating a thermodynamic bias favouring matter-to-energy conversion. So Hubble redshift also means that we are also losing matter.
With fewer "parts" available to represent information, information is also not being conserved, and is being lost in forward time.
This is why time runs forwards rather than backwards. The present contains all the information necessary to extrapolate the future, but cannot be used to extrapolate the past, because some of the information present in the past is no longer available. The system can advance to a future state, but cannot retreat to a past state.
----
Yes. Gravitational waves. Every time a system changes its mass-energy distribution (say, one atom emits a photon, and another receives it), the shape of the system's mass-field changes slightly. That field-change propagates at a finite rate, the speed of gravity cg, and the propagating change carries information and energy out of the system. So there has to be an "energy-tax" on all energy transactions, in order to pay for the generation of microgravitational signals that communicate the state-change to the outside universe.
Preprint On Microgravitational Waves
The microgravitaitonal flux appears to play the same role as Wheeler's quantum foam, except that it carries state information, so the emergent fluctuations, while individually unpredictable, are not random. This gives us a classical handle on some aspects of quantum mechanics.
----
Yes. Gravitomagnetism. If the universe supports universal laws, then these must apply universally, including to the experiences of accelerated and rotating observer-masses. So we need a general theory of relativity. A generla theory cannto be implemented without accelerative and rotational gravitomagnetism, and a-GM asnd r-GM cannot exist unless we also have velocity-dependent GM. v-GM effects mean that the shape of spacetime changes according to how matter moves through a region, makign inertial phsycus a dynamic curved-spacetime problem, rather than a problem in absolute fixed flat Minkowski spacetime. Since the goemetry then can;t be minkowskian, and Minkowski spacetime is the geomatrical synonym of the Sr equations, ther basic equations of inertial phsycus cannot be those of special relativity.
Just because of pure geometry.
Now, it turns out that within relativity theory, the only Doppler equations that support full time-reversibility and full traditional energy-conservation are those of SR. Since the SR equations cannot be exactly correct in a GPoR-compatible universe, the requirement for universal law is a requirement that the energetics of the Doppler relationships be different in forward and reversed time. We can then define forward time as being the direction in which ΔE is negative.
----
Einstein's whole system is predicated on the assumption that the laws of physics look exactly the same in both forward and reversed time. Einstein's 1905 theory can be redefined as "relativity plus time-symmetry"
Preprint Shift-symmetry in Einstein’s universe: Einstein’s quest for ...
While this is very mathematically tidy and puts a strong restriction on the allowable equations (which is good), it does not correspond to the universe that we see around us, in which we all age forwards in the same direction, and nobody has ever been known to age backwards. Time-symmetry is also incompatible with the stronger condition of Universal Law and the GPoR.
Since time-asymmetry is implemented in the basic laws of inertial physics as an energy-asymmetry with respect to time, universality requires energy-loss (in the direction we consider to be forward time).
Overall, we have at least three separate routes here, that all lead to the same paradigm of asymmetrical time: Hubble shift, gravitational waves, and gravitomagnetism. None of these are compatible with the SR equations, and all require a new "non-SR" curved-spacetime "take" on relativity theory.
It seems sensible to try to tie all three together: the energy that gravitomagnetism requires to be constantly lost (without saying where it's going to) is probably the same energy that g-wave theories says must be constantly emitted by thermal systems (without saying where it's coming from). The tendency of a g-wave flux to straighten out with time can be connected to the tendency of the universe to expand. the energy-loss and information loss can be related to the increase in space, and perhaps we can write a new conservation law for massenergyinformation-space
Preprint Shift Symmetry in Einstein's Universe: A: Doppler Symmetry
Preprint Shift Symmetry in Einstein's Universe: B: Gravity
Preprint Shift Symmetry in Einstein's Universe: C: Time-symmetry
Preprint Shift Symmetry in Einstein's Universe: D: Cosmology
So it seems that we may be teetering on the edge of a new paradigm, and from here we can see fairly clearly what that new system has to be. What's holding us back is mainly our community's commitment to special relativity.
, Abdul Malek , Stefan Bernhard Rüster , @Jean-Pierre Petit
@Johan K. Fremerey
Stefan Bernhard Rüster : "Matter-energy, energy of the gravitational field and total energy are and must be conserved quantities."
Only if we assign an energy-equivalence to space. Because in a Hubble universe, radiant energy is disappearing, mass is being lost (through conversion to radiant energy, which is then Hubble-shifted and can't be used to recreate all the original matter), curvature (which has an implied associated energy) is being lost, and the quantity of space is increasing.
The universe is like a watchspring, tangled up in a massive messy knot, losing energy as it straightens out, and increasing in radius.
Eric Baird " Thanks for directing your comment to me. I completely agree with your statement, but from a radically different world-view from hitherto all official and mainstream physics, both on the question of origin and on the conservation of mass/energy - the subject under consideration.
I totally and unequivocally reject the “Big Bang” or similar “creation” theories of a finite but closed universe; implying a beginning in the finite past. I subscribe to and have personally advanced the materialist dialectical perspective since Epicurus; that the universe is Infinite, Eternal and Ever-changing, where matter in elementary form and motion/energy come into being and pass out of existence, mandated and mediated by quantum and dialectical chance and necessity. This view of a dialectical universe as opposed to the (currently accepted) “Big Bang” created one; was first proposed in a published work back in 2005, supported and praised by the famous astronomer/astrophysicist Halton (Chip) Arp; “Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies : http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf
A quantum-dialectical refutation of Einstein’s theories of relativity and in particular, Special Relativity; have been published very recent for the perusal of anybody interested on this issue. Please see:
Malek, A. (2024). New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594
You wrote: "So it seems that we may be teetering on the edge of a new paradigm, and from here we can see fairly clearly what that new system has to be. What's holding us back is mainly our community's commitment to special relativity."
Dear All,
I don't know if it is a single paradigm! but it must contain this main key: All things (space, time, matter, motion,..) are discontinuous!
If the supposed paradigm shift is about the foundations of reality (physics), the answer is no. Because all the different viewpoints to examine physical reality are known. However that doesn't mean that important scientists, who influence the scientific community, are aware of the existence of this all-inclusive framework of viewpoints.
For example, time seems to be a problem for some theorists (like Carlo Rovelli) and nearly every theorist is convinced that time is relative, although it violates QFT. Anyway, the correct "answers" are not waiting for their "discovery". These answers exist and some even over a period of thousands of years.
So maybe it is more realistic to ask if it is possible that the elimination of one "barricade of ignorance" can solve most of the present problems in physics. Because nowadays important scientific institutes like the Perimeter institute, Rotman institute, ISOQ society, QISS consortium, etc., etc. give us some insight in their research (YouTube videos and publications). In my opinion the general impression is that there are a lot of words but not a lot of progress.
We cannot argue that mathematics can solve the problems because in physics we use mathematics as a tool (applied mathematics) instead of a conceptual framework. Actually, a lot of theorists use mathematics for cherry picking to prove their hypotheses. There is no mathematical theory or couple of theories that can describe the evolution of a whole universe out of an initial singularity. But some physicists got a Noble prize because they descibed the first seconds of the evolution of our universe.
With kind regards, Sydney
The thread question is scientifically answered in the SS post on page 2 June 2.
Including, say, that
“…I don't know if it is a single paradigm! but it must contain this main key: All things (space, time, matter, motion,..) are discontinuous! …”
- is fundamentally incorrect in that “all things” are discontinuous – really physically “quantized”. Space and time in Matter compose Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct),
- where at least 4 cτ,X,Y,Z space dimensions and the time ct-dimension, besides that are continuous, are also fundamentally infinite; and so, say, in the spacetime above infinite “number” of other “Matters”, i.e. informational systems that have identical with Matter design, i.e. have the same as Matter’s one ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], can be placed on infinite distances.
Really fundamentally obligatorily – because of the logical self-inconsistence of the fundamental and completely universal phenomenon/notion “Change” – “discontinuous” only all/every changes of/in everything, including changes of position in space, are.
More see the pointed SS post and links in the post.
Cheers
Idea of solving all the mysteries of the Universe with a single paradigm shift is a compelling and romantic notion, but it is unlikely to be the case. Here are several reasons why:
Complexity and Diversity of Mysteries
Nature of Paradigm Shifts
Unknown Unknowns
Historical Perspective
Theoretical and Practical Limitations
Example: Unified Theory in Physics
Andrew Worsley Sergey Shevchenko Sydney Ernest Grimm Mazen Khoder Sagar Nanaso Salunkhe
In light of my recent research, detailed in the paper "Dark Matter is Just Gravity, Only Normal Matter is the Truth," published in the Indian Journal of Advanced Physics, I argue that what we refer to as dark matter can be explained through normal gravitational effects of ordinary matter. This perspective suggests that our current understanding of dark matter might be incomplete and that gravitational interactions could account for phenomena attributed to dark matter.
Furthermore, my forthcoming research extends this idea to dark energy, proposing that it too might be explained through phenomena we already understand but have not yet fully integrated into our models. By re-evaluating these cosmic forces through familiar physical principles, we might achieve a more unified understanding of the universe.
The idea of a single paradigm shift encompassing both dark matter and dark energy is intriguing. Such a shift could involve integrating these revised concepts into a broader framework that accommodates both gravitational effects and the expansive forces currently labeled as dark energy. This approach would not only address the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy but also potentially reshape our fundamental understanding of the universe.
I invite the ResearchGate community to discuss the potential for such a paradigm shift. Could integrating new findings on dark matter and dark energy lead to a more comprehensive model of the universe? What would such a unified framework look like, and how might it impact our current theories?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India