Richard

It looks Research Gate is tuned to converge faster than academia. in a traditional thinking a critical mass is needed for any Bang, let alone Big bang. But this is not any good until have an answer to how to conclude that our universe(s) are tuned?

A fundamental logical element (FLE), may be necessary but not sufficient proof.

All: The question wrongly leads one to the desired answer. It should be recast. Our universe is not fine-tuned, and that has been reviewed many times over, including here at:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Natures_fundamental_eg_fine-structure_and_cosmological_constants_have_values_in_the_small_highly_improbable_range_that_allows_life_to_exist_Why

Hi Ed,

I am not a professional cosmologist, but the consensus of professional cosmologists, as I understand it, is that our universe IS apparently fine-tuned for the evolution of stable galaxies that would provide basic minimum conditions for the evolution of developed life and minds like ours (though how life and minds like ours evolved is still an open scientific question).

The main cosmological question is then how to account for this apparent fine-tuning of these various physical constants, compared to what they might have been based on universe modelling or particle-physics calculations You did not cite any sources for your statement that our universe is not fine-tuned. But please see the well-known book "Just Six Numbers" by Britain's astronomer royal Martin Rees. Leonard Susskind, author of "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" describes Rees (p.353) as "Europe's leading cosmologist and astrophysicist." Rees cites 6 numerical ways that our universe is apparently fine-tuned, and there are a number of other ways also. For example, Rees cites the observed nuclear efficiency value E=0.007. On page 51 of his book he summarizes: "..but what is remarkable is that no carbon-based biosphere could exist if this number had been 0.006 or 0.008 rather than 0.007" Similar or even much more stringent relations apply to the other five physical numbers he cites in his book.

According an often-quoted calculation in string theory, there may be about 10^500 different string-theory variations in the way universes could have started. Out of these 10^500 universe starting possibilities, at least 1 could have been our universe. But this is not a denial that our universe is apparently fine-tuned. It only explains our apparently fined-tuned universe (if this theoretical string theory calculation is correct) as having a 1 out of 10^500 statistical chance of being produced in each "trial" to generate a universe.

If you have a real interest in cosmology, I suggest that you read my last post.

You find it in my profile "The daon theory"

Hello Stellan,

Thank you for the link to your daon theory, which I took a look at. Can you explain how daon theory relates to cosmology, the Big Bang and the earliest state of the universe? The size of a daon particle seems to be much larger than the size of the very early universe before the early inflation period.

“…Could our fine-tuned universe have been created from a single fine-tuned quantum particle?……”

- yeah, Matter with a very non-zero probability have been created from a single fine-tuned “quantum” – but not a particle. That was some primary [at least 4D] fundamental logical element (FLE), which, after exponential doubling in first time instants after its creation – as, say, some bacterial colony makes – formed the dense 4D FLE lattice, which is placed in the Matter’s corresponding absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct).

Further, after pumping uniformly in the lattice of a huge portion of energy the primary particles were created as some disturbances of the lattice, which interacted gravitationally with creation of observed now particles, including without creation of antiparticles.

More see read two SS comments in the project

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory ,

the Sec. “Physicists Come Closer to Answering Question of Antimatter’s Scarcity”

and the papers that are linked in the comments.

Cheers

Richard

It looks Research Gate is tuned to converge faster than academia. in a traditional thinking a critical mass is needed for any Bang, let alone Big bang. But this is not any good until have an answer to how to conclude that our universe(s) are tuned?

A fundamental logical element (FLE), may be necessary but not sufficient proof.

Hello Sergey,

Thank you for your comment. I looked up your article on Absolute Information and Consciousness. It's important to relate consciousness to cosmology and information. You may be interested in my article

Conference Paper Superluminal Primordial Information Quanta (Sprinqs) Created...

Hello Joseph,

There is a lot of advanced thinking as well as strong critical thinking on Researchgate. One good way to develop the intellect is through the clash and cohesion of different ideas.

RG: You remark that no source was provided when an old RG question and answers were provided. There is no controversy.

A single fine tuned quantum particle is a micro entity. Our universe is not created from a fundamental building block such as a single fine tuned quantum particle. Rather it is created from a fundamental substance of the universe which is a singular field without a second. It is a limitless field without any boundary. It is indivisible infinite and perfectly motionless. It has all the properties of empty space because it is materially nothing like Spirit. It is perfectly frictionless and does not have any waves in it unlike the aether of the scientists. Aether can create a drag for the orbiting earth but Spirit does not interact with any created energies. At the same time it is creator of all the energies in the universe. Human intelligence and consciousness are only effects produced by the Spirit. Spirit does not need intelligence to create the universe. It is a creator of intelligence. There is no dividing line between Spirit and matter. It is the Spirit that becomes energy when it begins to move. Both Spirit and energy are indestructible. To give you an example, if you have a large volume of steam, during phase transformation it can become water and during another phase transformation it can become ice and the process is reversible. No one has to do any intelligent mathematical calculations to make water or ice from the steam. In another example, in past the surface of the earth was made up of magma (lava). But now we see multiplicity of objects on the surface of the earth. Creation of entire universe is like that. More details in following quantum gravity theory in which the first field created has the associated particle called Saviton. This quantum gravity theory is based on the unification of all fields associated with fundamental particles into a singular field.

Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology,

Chapter 1 by Vikram H. Zaveri in the book

"The wave equation: An overview"

Lionel S. Price (Editor)

https://novapublishers.com/shop/the-wave-equation-an-overview/

Hello Ed (and all),

Here is a video program "Closer to Truth" , which I highly recommend, with a series of interviews with scientists, philosophers and theologians, many well-known, where there are several sets of interviews about fine-tuning and the multiverse: https://www.closertotruth.com/series/the-universe-fine-tuned-life-and-mind . Many of these interviews are very insightful and informative . In the first interview in the above link, theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind describes how, with the cosmological constant, our universe is on an extremely sharp "knife edge" of apparent fine tuning. But he thinks that a huge multiverse can explain this apparent fine tuning in our universe in a scientific way.

Hello Vikram,

Welcome to the discussion! Your approach about fundamental consciousness and energy sounds extremely interesting. Is there a way to get a copy of the first chapter "Periodic Quantum Gravity and Cosmology", which you wrote, without buying the whole book?

Also can you tell us more about the Saviton particle, and why it is not a finely-tuned quantum particle that could produce a universe from a field of consciousness? Thanks!

"Every time that one has claimed to found the Universe upon the existence of a sole material or spiritual nature, and to make proceed from this sole nature the explanation of all phenomena, one has become exposed and always will be, to insurmountable difficulties." --Fabre d'Olivet (Commentary on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras)

Hello Richard,

If you are interested in purchasing only a chapter, please contact [email protected]. Please indicate the name of the chapter AND book. Regarding Saviton, it is the first particle that the equations of periodic quantum gravity theory can produce. It has a principal quantum number = 1, and has a maximum possible energy which is the Planck energy. It is a massless boson flying away at speed of light. What you call fine tuned is inherent to everything that is produced from the fundamental substance of the universe. Saviton appears as Saviton when looked through the human senses, otherwise there is no difference between the fundamental substance and the Saviton. Those who are knowers of Brahman (Spirit) have verified this. In Nirvikalp Samadhi the entire universe appears to them as one limitless ocean of consciousness (Spirit). When they come down to the level of sense perception, they see it as a universe.

Hello Vikram (and all),

This is good news. Is there any experimental evidence yet for the Saviton? How do you propose to detect it?

Yes, I wish there were more knowers of Brahma (Spirit) working in physical cosmology. (Brahma is the composite of Shiva and Shakti -- Consciousness and its Operative Principle.) This could really revolutionize the field of cosmology for the better.

My knowledge of nirvakalpa sama'dhi is only theoretical for now:

1. When the mahat (cosmic feeling of existence) merges into the A'tman (Self), it is called nirgun'a'sthiti (state of objectlessness) or nirvakalpa sama'dhi (the trance of indeterminate absorption, or total suspension, of the mind).

2. This state (of nirvakalpa sama'dhi) is beyond the mind.

3. The lingering bliss which follows this state of vacuity is the proof of that state, the means of firm belief in that state.

A'nanda Su'tram chapter 1 (22-24)

Hello Martin,

Thank you for these wise words. I checked and found that Fabre d'Olivet (Commentary on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras) is available at Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008NAHZYI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 .

Is the quotation you gave that of Fabre d'Olivet or Pythagoras? I think that the effort to find ideas and activities that help unify our understanding of the spiritual and material worlds is a good thing. I think that Pythagoras considered numbers to be a link between the spiritual and material worlds.

I suggest to interested people to read the "Daon Theory: Gravitation and Cosmology" in my profile.

JES

Martin (and all),

Here is a modern statement of the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, at https://ba278b9d8106536501a2-57da1f3fe93ccf3a9828e6ce67c3d52c.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/04_golden_verses.pdf .

Richard Gauthier , the quote from the commentary on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras by Fabre d'Olivet is by Fabre d'Olivet, translated into English by N. L. Redfield; see page 155:

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.151725/page/n9/mode/2up

Are there other options?

We could consider an alternate model in which the universe

· geometrically is finite, homogeneous, isotropic, and does not have a centre or an outer rim.

· never started its existence and exists eternally. (No Big Bang, No Big Crunch)

· always keeps its shape. (No expansion or compression)

· is filled with an omnipresent gravitational field, the medium which carries gravitational waves and finally holds the energy of gravitational waves.

· is not subject of shape modifying pressure- or gravitational forces, because the isotropic symmetry cancels those forces.

· is cyclic in terms of energy recycling, an energy transformation between gravitational field energy, mass(E=mc²), kinetic energy, and electromagnetic energy.

In this model, a gravitational background slowly absorbs kinetic and electromagnetic energy and cyclically (with a cycle time of tens of billion years) drives black holes to explosion into neutron clouds as soon as the gravitational pressure has reached a certain level. The weak absorption of electromagnetic energy, caused by gravitational self-force, is responsible for the red shift.

A slow but global and final transformation of kinetic and electromagnetic energy into gravitational field energy, which finally triggers black hole conversion into neutron clouds, is the eternal motor, which drives the energy balance of the universe according to this model.

We should have enough theoretical and practical means to verify or falsify this alternate model of the universe. Key issue is a theoretical analysis of generation,- dissipation,- and absorption mechanisms of small amplitude gravitational waves. It must be theoretical because we cannot detect small amplitude gravitational waves.

Wolfgang Konle , is it possible for a sphere not to have a center, not to have a finite radius?

Martin Klvana

the geometrical structure of the universe in the model I have presented is the surface of a four dimensional sphere, topologically equivalent to a SU(3) group.

In this geometry every point is the center of gravity.

Take a look at the "Daon Theory-Gravitation and Cosmology" in my profile. That should give you some new ideas.

JES

Savitons are particles exisiting at Planck epoch with Planck energy. This kind of energy is not available in exisiting accelerators including LHC. In my theory I have proposed that electroweak force may not be able to transfer heat like the electromagnetic force. So prior to electroweak symmetry breaking there may not be any heat transfer at all during energy transfer. So it is likely that Saviton may not be very hot energy and it may be detectable with the evolution of the third eye in humans.

Hello Martin,

Thank you for introducing me to the work of Fabre d'Olivet, and for the link to his Pythagoras work on Archive.

Hello Wolfgang,

You've given a lot of thought to your "hobby project". I hope you can find a way for your cosmological proposal to be tested.

Hello Vikram,

What will be the benefit of the Saviton particle for humanity if it can be detected with the evolution of the third eye in humans?

Hello Richard,

you had started this challenging threat. Are you really interested in aswers to your question "Are there other options?"?

Currently this seems to be not the case, if your only comment to another option is "hobby project".

Hello Wolfgang,

My question "Are there other options?" was asked in the context of other options for explaining the apparent fine-tuning of our universe to produce galaxies, life and highly-developed minds. Your proposed eternal closed universe is apparently the one that we live in now, which is apparently fined-tuned for producing galaxies, life and minds. You did not propose, as far as I know, a huge number of similar eternal closed universes (which would constitute a multiverse) which are not fine-tuned for galaxies, life and mind, so I assume that in your model there is just one closed universe, that we live in now, which IS apparently fine-tuned and remains fine-tuned forever. Do you accept this apparent fine-tuning of your single eternal closed universe as a brute fact, or did this fine-tuning derive from a cosmic creative principle and/or intelligence (existing outside of time and space) that produced your closed universe that has no beginning in time, i.e. has existed, similar to like it is today, from past infinite time and will continue to exist for future infinite time. Also, where does entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) fit into your eternal universe model? Is its entropy always the same or always increasing?

Hello Richard,

with your question about entropy you address a very basic physical principle. The entropy comprises the microscopic degrees of freedom of all material things build from baryons and electrons. But this entropy is irresolvable linked to the existence of the microscopic components whose degrees of freedom are captured. If these microscopic ingredients loose their individuality, which is the case within black holes, the according entropy is no longer defined. A transformation of a black hole to a neutron cloud is not only a reset of energy, it is also a reset of entropy. But we must keep in mind, that it is not a complete reset of the whole universe. The reset only comprises the material collected in black holes.

Wolfgang Konle , what would be the tipping point at which the black hole (a massive drain with no spatial dimensions) becomes a faucet, i.e., how massive the black hole must be for the flow to be reversed?

Were the ancient Chinese onto something with their depiction of the Universe (bi disc)?

Martin Klvana

the black hole explosion becomes triggered by a high pressure level of the gravitational background and does not depend on the size of the black hole. As soon as the trigger level has been reached, all black holes explode about at the same time. (within a few million of years)

Hello Stellan,

How does your Daon Theory apply to the present question about how our apparently fine-tuned universe was produced -- from a multiverse or from a cosmic creative principle/cosmic intelligence, or by some other way?

Hello Wolfgang Konle ,

I suppose you are familiar with Bekenstein-Hawking entropy or black hole entropy -- "the amount of entropy that must be assigned to a black hole in order for it to comply with the laws of thermodynamics as they are interpreted by observers external to that black hole".

Richard

Hello, Richard Gauthier ,

the point is, that the entropy of a material entity quantizes the microscopic degrees of freedom of this material entity in respect to other properties like mass. If the constituent parts of the entity are destroyed or are subject of a transition, which alters the degrees of freedom, the entropy becomes undefined. A transition, which possibly pulverizes the constituent parts of our matter and allows regeneration using arbitrary grains of the powder, has an immense unknown impact on the entropy. The assumed regeneration process, which finally leads to neutron clouds of galactic dimensions, therefor resets the cloud entropy as far as we can know.

Of course, we can speculate what happens inside a black hole. But all speculations up to know did not take into account the possible transition of black holes into neutron clouds, driven by the positive energy of an omnipresent gravitational field.

The fine tuning, you are talking about, therefore comprises a currently unknown mechanism, which provides new star fuel for the whole universe in a giant burst with a high destruction potential. But then it lets the universe be for a myriad of time, until all the released fuel has been consumed.

Stellan Gustafsson,

In the introduction to your DAON theory you mention “photon” and “antenna” in the same context, and you try to draw conclusions about photons from the intensity profile of the antenna radiation. But every electrical engineer knows that an antenna has a near field depending on the shape of the antenna and a far field. It is also known that antenna radiation is a macroscopic process described by the Maxwell equations, not scalable to individual photons.

A theory based on such misconceptions in its introduction only can be refused. After reading this introduction every trained physicist will either stop reading or will try to find other fundamental errors in the further text.

Dear Wolfgang Konle ,

The idea behind the discussion on antenna and photon, is that the near field of an antenna can be described with the help of photons, while the antenna radiation can not. This means that the radiated field is not made up of photons.

The conclusion must be that the EM-field and the photon are different phenomena.

Maybe it's badly explained, or maybe you should read with more care.

JES

Dear Stellan Gustafsson ,

describing the near field of an antenna with photons, does not at all make sense because the EM radiation of any antenna is created by a macroscopic time varying current density in the antenna in which quantized charge does not play a role. The conclusion that photons and EM fields are different phenomena also makes no sense, because the Einstein-Planck-relation E=hf tells the opposite. An alternate theory may be worth consideration if it explains something in which the original theory fails. But your publication does not contain any according example.

Dear Wolfgang Konle ,

I agree with the first part of your answer, but the relation E=hf is valid for photons, not for EM-fields, as far as I know?

The Daon Theory, obtains the same equations as Maxwell but from the point of view of a space filled with free daons ( the "ethere" if you prefer). This is essential, not for EM-theory, but for the rest of the theory, which includes everything else!

JES

Hello Richard:

During every period of time, there are always few people with their third eye functional. Saviton particle is a state of excitation of the Saviton field. So you can say that it is a mode of vibration of the field. If anyone’s third eye or third ear is able to receive these frequencies (it may be called something other than Saviton, like nada or sabda Brahman or Om etc.) then they are able to have the extra sensory perceptions like the few examples recorded at the end of the following article. Such perceptions are indicators to the fact that the person is close to acquiring the knowledge of Brahman (Spirit) which is the goal of the human life. Knowing this there remains nothing further to be known.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281363282_Philosophy_and_physics

Dear Stellan Gustafsson ,

the confusion about electromagnetic waves, photons, near-, and far fields of antennae is not the only weak point in your publication. The postulation of independently existing fractions of elementary charges, which never could be observed, is another severe problem for accepting your theory.

E=hf is valid for electromagnetic radiation and for photons. Light-electric effects do not make a difference between streams of photons and electromagnetic radiation.

Dear Wolfgang Konle ,

I'm sorry to say that it doesn't seem that you have understood much of my theory.

I have probably not been very clear. I will try to improve my writing, if possible.

JES

Could our fine-tuned universe have been created from a single fine-tuned quantum particle?

This question has two parts to it. The first aspect of the question IMO is called a question with a false premise. Such a question in Logic could never have a correct answer, or the correct answer could not be understood in response to a false premise.

In this case IMO the false premise is that the Universe is fine-tuned. It just appears to be fine-tuned to mainstream physics because they do not understand the relationship between the parts to the whole, or the way these parts relate to a physical background field, with still no understanding of this field, what it is or how it functions.

All of the parts of the universe are related to all the other parts, often in ways yet undiscovered. There likely is just one universe and it can only exist in one way, the way it now exists.

There could be many versions of this hypothesis but the primary version that I propose can be seen at pantheory.org.

Hello Forrest,

Welcome, and congratulations on your Pan theory!

I would not call the first part of my question a false premise. It is generally acknowledged even by the opponents of a intelligent-creator universe that our universe's fundamental constants are "fine-tuned" or "apparently fine-tuned" to create stable galaxies with developed chemistry, which are prerequisites for our types of known life and advanced minds. Cosmologist Paul Davies calls this apparent fine-tuning the Goldilocks enigma. It is a genuine enigma, not currently explained. "Fine-tuned" does not imply a fine-tuner, as both proponents and opponents of an intelligent universe-creator hypothesis point out. It just means that the particular values of some fundamental constants in our universe lie with a very small range of values compared to the possible range (although it may be difficult to compute this larger range) of what the physical constant values might have been to form other universes that would generally lack stable galaxies and advanced chemistry. It is generally accepted, for example, that if the value of the cosmological constant in our universe had been only extremely minutely different from what it is measured to be, compared to what its range of possible values theoretically might have been, then our universe would not have been able to evolve stable galaxies which could evolve life and minds, so that we could not of course exist to observe this. The PROBLEM is how to explain this fine-tuning or apparent fine-tuning of our universe. It is not a non-problem, something can just be swept "under the rug".

As to the second part of my question: like you, I have proposed a single particle that produced our universe and all the fundamental particles in our universe. I call this particle a sprinq (superluminal primordial information quantum) while you call your corresponding particle a Pan. You can read about the sprinq and the univon (universe-creating particle) at the link below. One fundamental difference between our models is that you describe your Pan theory as purely mechanical and physical, while the univon model with its built-in fine-tuning for creating universes with stable galaxies, life and minds is proposed to be generated by a cosmic mind and is therefore spiritually-based. Still, our models seem to have a lot in common.

Richard

Yes, there is another option - an option which seems to be the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. Humans from the far distant future could use wormholes to "augment" space-time, the universe and life. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics says nothing can ever be created (or destroyed), so the following paragraphs will further explain augmentation which bypasses the creation attributed to the Big Bang.

In a science TV program 'Custom Universe – Finetuned For Us?', (Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s 'Catalyst', August 29 2013), Dr. Graham Phillips reported that "the physicist and writer Paul Davies thinks the universe is indeed fine-tuned for minds like ours. And who fine-tuned it? Not God but minds from the future, perhaps even our distant descendants, that have reached back through time ... and selected the very laws of physics that allow for the existence of minds in the first place. Sounds bizarre, but quantum physics actually allows that kind of thing."

And Carl Sagan writes, 'Many religions, from Hinduism to Gnostic Christianity to Mormon doctrine, teach that – as impious as it may sound – it is the goal of humans to become gods.' ('Pale Blue Dot – A Vision of the Human Future in Space', Headline Book (1995), p. 382)

In relation to Quantum Spin, Wolfgang Pauli in 1924 was the first to propose a doubling of electron states due to a two-valued non-classical "hidden rotation". (Goudsmit, S.A.; translated by van der Waals, J.H. "The discovery of the electron spin" - https://ilorentz.org/history/spin/goudsmit.html) Extending the ideas of “doubling”, “two-valued” and “hidden rotation” to the Mobius strip being a basic, fundamental unit of reality; it can be seen that Pauli’s proposal has an analogy to this comment. The 1’s and 0’s of electronics’ binary digit (or BIT, or base 2) system can be used to draw the two-dimensional (2D) image of a Mobius strip. Then 2 strips are combined into a 3D figure-8 Klein bottle, (Polthier, Konrad, "Imaging maths - Inside the Klein bottle", http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue26/features/mathart/index ) and the bottle given the 4 dimensions of space-time by incorporating adaptive Wick rotation - and thus a 4th dimension of time agreeing with Special Relativity's time dilation - into its component Mobius strips. The doubled Mobius strip produced by the two-valued binary-digit system creates the figure-8 Klein bottle (plus its hidden, now identified as Wick, rotation). This not only unites the Mobius strip with the figure-8 Klein bottle but also the photon with the graviton ie electromagnetism with gravitation^ if the photon is an assembly of trillions of Mobius strips while the graviton is an assembly of trillions of figure-8 Klein bottles). It also confirms Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde’s idea that gravity is an emergent property (emerging from mathematics). (E. P. Verlinde, “Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe”, 7 Nov 2016, arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269)

^ Unifying gravitation and electromagnetism has this consequence: A 2009 electrical-engineering experiment at America's Yale University, together with the ideas of Albert Einstein, tells us how we could travel to other stars and galaxies. An electrical engineering team at Yale demonstrated that, on silicon-chip and transistor scales, light can attract and repel itself like electric charges or magnets. (Mo Li, W. H. P. Pernice & H. X. Tang, “Tunable bipolar optical interactions between guided lightwaves”, Nature Photonics 3, 464 - 468 (2009)) This is the Optical Bonding Force. For 30 years until his death in 1955, Einstein worked on his Unified Field Theory with the aim of uniting electromagnetism (light is one form of this) and gravitation. Achievement of this means the quantum components or gravitons of gravity/spacetime-warps (Einstein’s General Relativity says gravity is the result of warps and curves in spacetime) between spaceships and stars could mimic the Optical Force and be attracted together, thereby eliminating distance. This is similar to traversing a wormhole, or shortcut between folds in space and time. If the gravitons are superposed and entangled, distances between both points in space and points in time are totally eliminated. So-called “time travel” would actually be space travel within the Block Universe where the past, present and future all exist — and are equally real — in a possibly infinite four-dimensional block. Past, present and future are relative, just as time is not absolute in Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Visualizing an infinite block universe might be helped by picturing it as a DVD that extends infinitely in every direction. Every event on a DVD always exists but their positions are relative to the location of the laser reading the disk (which corresponds to the location of a brain’s consciousness). Of course, this elimination of distance doesn't need to be reserved for trips to other stars, galaxies, and periods of time. It can also be used for a quick journey to Mars - saving you months in space and the attendant wasting of muscles and bones, as well as sparing you from the potentially deadly "sunburn" cosmic rays might give you.

A model of the cosmos might be built that uses pi and imaginary time, and resides in Virtual Reality (artificial, computer-generated simulation). (If you believe in quantum mechanics' wave-particle duality, this model is sort of like a particle.) The entanglement (quantum-mechanics style) in the simulated universe is unable to remain separate from the entanglement existing in our perceived reality because computers using so-called "imaginary time" (which is defined by numbers with the property i² = −1) remove all boundaries between the two universes. This enables them to become one Augmented Reality (known now as technology that layers computer-generated enhancements onto an existing reality but seen here as the related layering of virtual reality onto other points in time and space). The poorly-named imaginary time of physics and mathematics unites with pi (both are necessary to generate a non-Big-Bang cosmos i.e. an infinite universe which, because space and time can never be separated, is eternal: alone, unbounded imaginary time is finite).

On the subject of the calculating, deterministic nature of computers - I think we rely too much on the idea of biological evolution. Obviously, evolution does exist - we see it all the time when we study how living things adapt. But that doesn't mean it can be extrapolated to explain everything about life (sorry, Mr. Darwin, but I can't see it explaining the origins of life). Perhaps life began when our far distant descendants travelled to a time before life existed, collected proteins and amino acids and water etc from meteorites and comets and dust etc, combined the molecules, and did some unimaginably sophisticated genetic engineering.

Hello Rodney,

Welcome! And thank you for proposing another possible explanation for our fine-tuned universe. It will be interesting to look for evidence of this possibility of fine-tuning from the future. Where do you propose to start looking?

As for the origin of life, this, as you suggest, might be explained by sophisticated genetic engineering from the future. Or it might be explained by something even more far out -- microvita, subtle sub-atomic living beings produced by the cosmic mind, that travel throughout the universe creating physical bodies and minds, and also participating in biological evolution using retroviruses in a non-Darwinian way, as I proposed in a book "Microvita: Cosmic Seeds of Life" in 1988. Please see microvita.org for the first lecture proposing this very deep and wide-ranging idea, given by a tantric guru in 1986. My proposal of a sprinq or superluminal primoridial information quantum composing a univon (universe-creating particle) was inspired by the concept of microvita. Sprinqs may even be composed of microvita.

Richard

Hello Vikram,

Thank you for the link to your very thoughtful and informative article "Philosophy and Physics" which will require deep study and reflection. The opening of the third eye would seem to be a vital part of spiritual progress and development. What are your recommendations for this? And which philosophical system do you consider the best and most practical?

Comparison of two alternate cosmological theories regarding different aspects

· Big Bang theory

· Static eternal universe with energy recycling

Topology

· The universe has a centre (the Big Bang explosion location) and an outer rim, but both currently cannot be localized

· The universe has the shape of a hypersphere, the surface of a four dimensional sphere

Geodetics

· Geodetics are straight lines from infinity to infinity. The volume of the universe is infinite but hosts a finite mass, corresponding to the mass involved in the Big Bang

· Geodetics are closed curves. The volume of the universe is finite.

Geometry

· The mass distribution is spherical. We cannot see the full extension because it exceeds the range of our current view.

· On large scale the mass distribution is homogeneous

Matter

· The asymmetry between matter and antimatter remains unexplainable

· The asymmetry is no issue at all.

Dynamics

· The universe started in an inflationary phase from a single point and currently expands with an accelerated rate.

· The universe has a static shape, which is not subject of expansional or compressional forces. In hypersphere geometry homogeneously distributed forces cancel out.

Universal life cycle

· After a contraction phase a new Big Bang is possible.

· Gravitational pressure causes an explosion of all black holes to giant clouds of neutrons. The neutrons decay to hydrogen which refuels new and old stars.

Red shift

· The red shift of electromagnetic radiation is caused by the accelerated expansion of the universe.

· The red shift is caused by a gravitational self-force, which corresponds to weak gravitational waves generated by travelling photons.

Energy recycling

· Electromagnetic radiation, fast particles, neutrinos, gravitational waves, all partly vanishes in infinity and is not available in the next Big Bang

· Kinetic and electromagnetic energy leads to gravitational waves and becomes transformed to gravitational energy. The topology of the universe does not allow any loss.

Long term development

· As soon as the star fuel has been consumed, an extremely long-lasting dark phase full of agony is expected, until eventually a new contraction phase begins. The final contraction affects and vaporizes everything.

· Soon after a large portion of the available star fuel has been consumed, gravitational wave absorption has provided a level of gravitational field energy density, enough to trigger a synchronized energy transfer to all black holes. The recycling mechanism has a large destructive potential but only affects the matter within black holes. Theoretically it could be survived far away from all black holes.

Weak points

· Matter/antimatter asymmetry, invisible outer rim, inflation phase, black matter, black energy,energy balance of expansion…

· The mechanisms of gravitational wave generation are not understood. The nature of positive and negative gravitational field energy is not understood.

“…Weak points

· Matter/antimatter asymmetry, invisible outer rim, inflation phase, black matter, black energy,energy balance of expansion…”

- really now practically for sure there is no problems with matter/antimatter asymmetry and inflation phase; and

- seems rather reasonably no problem with black matter.

More about these two points above see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model;

- for that see SS comments in the project https://www.researchgate.net/project/How-History-Moves-Mans-Role-in-history/update/5e5c97883843b0499feba60 and links in this comment, including SS comments in the project https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory/update/5e4e1cf6cfe4a74024816ee9

(Sec. “Physicists Come Closer to Answering Question of Antimatter’s Scarcity”), and the papers that are linked in the comments.

As well as and practically for sure there is no physical problems with black energy, energy balance of expansion

– because of all that practically for sure relates to actions of Matter’s practically for sure existent Creator, and so is outside humans’ physics, more see the short RG thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_the_notion_of_Big_Bang_convenient_appropriate_for_you_question_for_physicists_chemists_and_researchers_working_in_related_sciences#view=5d18d3b2f8ea526b830f8940 , first of all SS posts:

- the hypothesis that Matter was created by some conscious and very smart Creator is the unique scientific hypothesis now.

Including, though, inflation is the Creator’s action as well, but in this case seems it is possible rationally to understand “divine design”, see above.

“…. The mechanisms of gravitational wave generation are not understood. The nature of positive and negative gravitational field energy is not understood.……”

- here aren’t principal problems as well, if somebody understands, that Gravity isn’t fantastic postulated in the GR interactions “mass-spacetime-mass”. Gravity is “simply” the fundamental Nature Force, which is in a few traits similar to the fundamental EM Force; and, say, “gravitational wave generation” practically for sure is something like EM waves generation. See also SS post in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/An_old_question_that_is_still_fresh_Is_gravity_a_Newtonian_force_or_Einstein_space-time_curvature#view=5e5d4046f8ea52dfd70bea2e

Cheers

No fine-tuning. No quantum particle (at all/as the source of the whole). No traveling photons. No time-traveling. No infinitely long lines.

Sergey, the weak points mentioned, are weak points of both theories. How you defend the weak points of Big Bang, shows that you are a great fan of this theory. Postulating capabilities of a creator to defend details of a theory, however, seems being rather inappropriate. May be the creation of the universe has not foreseen a cruel end as proposed by the Big Bang theory.

The weak points of the alternate theory (without a cruel end) are related to the energy density of gravitational fields. At least the possible interaction of a high positive gravitational field energy with the negative gravitational field energy density around black holes is not yet understood. The essential question is about a gradient threshold, which triggers an equation process leading to a gravitational energy flow into the black hole.

The comparison of the alternate cosmological theories above provides two comments to every aspect. The first comment applies to the Big Bang theory and the second comment applies to the alternate theory. (Sorry if that has not been clear)

Martin, your "No-" list seems comprehensible, except "traveling photons".

Wolfgang Konle , light, i.e., the source of illumination, perturbs the medium; it is the perturbation of the medium, not the light itself, which propagates: light is like a man in the middle of a pond, flapping his arms . . . the waves of water in the perturbed pond reach the shore, not the man's arms.

Hello Richard:

My recommendations and the philosophical system I suggest could be found in my answer to following question on quora.com

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-your-third-eye-opens/answer/Vikram-Zaveri-1

Martin Klvana ,

a fine differentiation. Most physicists, however, deny the existence of a medium for electromagnetic waves. The energy of the wave is contained in the electric and magnetic field and this field is propagating. But this is only a marginal problem, essential is what you think about the alternate cosmological model without the prophecy of a cruel end.

Richard Gauthier

Richard, your suggestion of microvita or the sprinq (Superluminal PRimoridial INformation Quantum) being the origin of life prompted me to approach the "sophisticated genetic engineering from the future" in my first post from a different angle.

To start with, consider the electronic binary digits of 1 and 0 which I proposed to be the most fundamental composition of all space-time and the whole universe. Just as the 1's and 0's give AI to a sufficiently advanced computer, robot etc; these would give the universe an Artificial Intelligence (a cosmic mind). Human intelligence would be part of this cosmic mind* and would actually be a form of AI (though our human egos would like to believe we're somehow more special).

* In “What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell” (his 1944 science book written for the lay reader), physicist Erwin Schrödinger a) believed that consciousness is highly dependent on the body, and b) was sympathetic to the Hindu concept of Brahman, by which each individual's consciousness is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe.

The microvita produced by the cosmic mind, and creating physical bodies and minds, might be the augmentation produced by my "model of the cosmos that uses pi and imaginary time, and resides in Virtual Reality (artificial, computer-generated simulation)". The computer model could simulate lifeforms and layer their virtual-reality presence onto other points in time and space i.e. augment reality, or in your words "create physical bodies and minds".

If this is how we came to be here, you and I (and everyone who ever lived or will live) would not be separated from insights into that life- and cosmos-generating far distant future. The place to look for evidence of this possibility of fine-tuning from the future would be in the Block Universe where the past, present and future all exist - spoken of in my 1st reply. The brain's consciousness is and always has been capable of accessing any point in this Block-Universe unification even though our searching of the Block with spaceships may have to await another century of technological progress.

Rodney

Rodney, with all respect, but reading your post gives the impression that you have discovered artifical intelligence as a new mumbo-jumbo.

Wolfgang,

“…Postulating capabilities of a creator to defend details of a theory, however, seems being rather inappropriate.…”

- after somebody understands how smartly, i.e. basing on simple reverse binary logics, and, at that resulting in so rationally constructed, the informational system “Matter” is made, for this somebody there is no any rational hypothesis, besides Matter’s creation by some conscious informational system “Creator”,

- at least comparing with evidently absurd numerous attempts to “solve” the Beginning problem postulating bluntly unphysical – because of physics knows nothing about Beginning – physical “causes”, parameters, etc.; again more see the short RG thread linked in the SS yesterday post above.

About the rational SS&VT hypothesis see the rest in this post. The hypothesis indeed has the weak point – from where Creator found/obtained indeed unbelievable portion of energy?; and the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Energy” is indeed till now, including in the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904,

- where practically all other fundamental, including Meta-physical, phenomena/notions are properly defined, remains as only partially understandable.

“…The weak points of the alternate theory (without a cruel end) are related to the energy density of gravitational fields. At least the possible interaction of a high positive gravitational field energy with the negative gravitational field energy density …..”

- to state such things is necessary before to understand – what is the “energy density of gravitational fields”. If that is some analogue of the EM fields, W, [W=(E2+H2)/8π], than it can be only positive scalar, if that something is else, say, in rather popular statement that total energy in Matter is equal to zero – see again the short thread linked in the yesterday SS post above. This thread contains much more information comparing with, say, its sister https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_the_notion_of_Big_Bang_inconvenient_inappropriate_for_you_question_for_physicists_chemists_and_researchers_working_in_related_sciences , however the last thread often appears in the RG threads option “Similar questions and discussions”, when the linked thread doesn’t...

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko,

The energy density of the gravitational field is exactly defined by two conditions:

1. It is proportional to the square of the gravitational field strength.

2. The integral over the modification of the energy density equals the work done by the move of the mass(es), which cause the modification.

Wolfgang Konle , may i ask, is my understanding correct that (1) gravitational field is the attractive, centripetal component of the magnetic field, and (2) the stronger the field (of any kind), the smaller its spatial footprint? If so, are these characteristics relevant to your model?

Hello Rodney (and all),

The word "artificial" as in "artificial intelligence" (AI) implies something un-natural i.e. human-made rather than intelligence made by "nature", or "natural" intelligence. But we may need to expand the meaning of the terms "nature" and "natural" to include all the activities of a cosmic mind that is itself a creation of natural principles or powers of a supreme consciousness, "nature" being merely the style of operation of that supreme consciousness using its inherent creative power to give qualities and attributes to itself. Then "artificial intelligence" or "human-created" intelligence is also seen as natural intelligence (NI) since humankind is also part of the natural flow and creation within a cosmic creative process. Science explores these natural processes to the best of its capacities. These capacities increase on average as humanity evolves.

Martin Klvana

Magnetic and gravitational fields are not directly related. Your assumption (1) therefore is not correct. But there are important analogies between electrical and gravitational fields.

1. Both fields contain energy. The change of electrical field energy corresponds to the mechanical work done by moving the charges which cause the electrical field. This is the same with gravitational field energy. The modification of the gravitational field energy corresponds to the mechanical energy resulting from moving the according masses against or with the gravitational force.

2. The energy density is proportional to the square of the field strength. The field strength is proportional to the force on a unit charge or a unit mass.

There are also important differences between electric and magnetic fields and gravitational fields

1. The energy density of electric or magnetic fields is positive. The energy density of the gravitational field around a mass is negative.

2. Electromagnetic waves oscillate between the electric and the magnetic appearance. Gravitational waves only oscillate within the gravitational appearance.

The fascinating point is, that the existence of gravitational waves with a positive energy contents requires the existence of a gravitational field with a positive energy density. The existence of a gravitational field with a positive energy density is basically relevant for my model.

Wolfgang,

“…The energy density of the gravitational field is exactly defined by two conditions:

1. It is proportional to the square of the gravitational field strength.….”

- if that is so [and seems very possibly that is so], than such thing as “the negative gravitational field energy density” doesn’t exist; and so that “the possible interaction of a high positive gravitational field energy with the negative gravitational field energy density” doesn’t exist as well.

What happens in the reality – see at least two SS posts above and links in the posts.

Though that aren’t complete solution of the problem “what is the fundamental Nature Force “Gravity””, including, say, there is no solution of the problem: if a Gravity field has the energy density, than – produces this field some “own”, i.e. additional to the produced by gravitational charges “gravitational masses”, Gravity field?, etc.

But that - and a number of other problems, of course, must be solved at developing of the indeed Gravity theory instead of the rather strange GR; what is one of utmost fundamental problems in physics.

Now only seems as practically for sure, that this theory will be development of the SS&VT initial “microscopic” model of Gravity in framework of the SS&VT informational physical model, again see the links.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

The proportionality constant of the square of the gravitational field strength and the energy density of the gravitational field is negative!

You see it in the case of two attracting masses. If the masses come closer, both, their kinetic energy and the field strength increases. Energy conservation therefore requires a negative proportionality constant.

Wolfgang Konle

“…The proportionality constant of the square of the gravitational field strength and the energy density of the gravitational field is negative!…..”

- the energy density of the gravitational field is, of course, always positive; as that is, say, the positive energy density of the EM field, independently on – a field is created be positive or negative electric charges.

When that

“…You see it in the case of two attracting masses. If the masses come closer, both, their kinetic energy and the field strength increases. ….”, etc.

- is about the potential energy of [gravitational] masses in some system of masses;

- what has relation to the field density only in that when masses aren’t on infinite distance and so gravitationally interact, then because of the indeed negative – but which never can be by absolute value more than the sum of free masses – gravitational mass defect the field of the system is lesser, and so the field energy density is lesser, comparing with the case when masses are free; but in any case the density remains be positive.

More see the SS post above and links in the post.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,

Sorry, but the energy density of the gravitational field around a mass is indeed negative. This isn’t my perception. This is known since 1920. You can find several well-founded articles, which describe this fact in detail. But you also easily can see it with the following think experiment:

Imagine two equal spheres with a mass of let’s say 1 million tons, separated by 100m in free space far from any relevant gravitational impact. Now let us further assume, that both spheres are equally charged with a charge that the electrical repulsive force exactly compensates the gravitational force.

Now we can put the two spheres from the original 100m separation to any other separation and we will see that the electrical repulsive force always exactly compensates the gravitational attractive force. If we compare the electric and the gravitational field, we see that both fields exactly have the same spatial structure and that also their strength equally depends on the distance.

We know that modifying the distance of the spheres is possible without mechanical work. Energy conservation now requires, that both fields, the gravitational and the electrical field at any distance exactly contain the same amount of energy but with opposite sign. We know that the energy density of the electrical field is positive. The energy contents of the gravitational field therefore must be negative.

We can imagine in this example that the energy content of the fields is extremely tiny in comparison to E=mc² according to the mass of the spheres.

Dear Wolfgang Konle,

“…the energy density of the gravitational field around a mass is indeed negative.…”, etc.

- you next time mix different physical properties/parameters of the gravitational field

– the gravity potential,

- the gravitational potential energy in systems of coupled gravitationally gravitational masses, and

- the field’s energy density, which is proportional to square of the gradient of the gravity potential, which is always positive.

Again – more see the SS posts above and links in the posts, first of all papers and SS posts in the short RG thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_the_notion_of_Big_Bang_convenient_appropriate_for_you_question_for_physicists_chemists_and_researchers_working_in_related_sciences#view=5d18d3b2f8ea526b830f8940 .

Cheers

Answer to research gate Cosmological explanations for our apparently fine-tuned universe are basically divided between a) a vastly huge multiverse of universes with varying fundamental force and mass constants, including the cosmological constant (where our apparently fine-tuned universe is just one universe in this multiverse), or b) a cosmic intelligence that fine-tuned our universe at its beginning to evolve stable galaxies, life and developed minds. In scientific terms, which explanation is preferable? Are there other options? Is a cosmic mind a viable scientific hypothesis for explaining our universe's origin? … This question is rather a philosophical than a physical problem. Universe means an incomparable and endless entity (there are no multiverses regardless that some theorists believe in this totally unsupported idea, if there would be some, then they would be located in the one and non-dividable UNIVERS). I quote you with respect the cosmological constant (where our apparently fine-tuned universe is just one universe in this multiverse) The problem is, we humans will never be able to comprehend the fact that nature is blind force and not our care taker. And still many believes it was apparently fine-tuned only for us? It is an Anthropomorphically infused belief, indicating the religious impact on our brain, that somebody created the universe such to give it to humans to have the chance to exist. Among many religions on Earth there are some which spreads the idea of creation (Lemaitre the Belgian priest and physicist for one) who came up with the idea following the biblical teaching that the UNIVERS has been created, while some others accept the idea of the endless and ever present universe in which we happen to live, thanks to the blind natural selection. Is a cosmic mind a viable scientific hypothesis for explaining our universe's origin? The timeless and endless UNIVERS were not created, it is here, and brainless. It is natural that we are afraid of the term of INFINITE since we are well aver that it is beyond the reach of human understanding. The biggest problem however, that we tend do believe in an unsupportable idea of creation of something from nothing. We intend to project our well proven experience of birth and the inevitable death of plants, animals an humans. Even more misleading is our observation about the Sun, that comes up in the morning and dies at the evening. In the twenty-first century billions of people believes their eyes, bcause they see it. It took many millions of years before in the fifteen-hundreds Giordano Bruno was brave to say that is not the Sun that circles the Earth, it is a falls impression created by the rotation of the Earth. They burned him alive, and it took more than 300 years after his terrible death, when finally science acknowledged his truth, and more than 500 years before a religious establishment exonerated him...?

Hello Karoly,

Thank you for your extended answer. I agree that there is currently no known multiverse composed of many universes. But this is the proposed cosmological explanation given (which is apparently consistent with the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis proposed by Andrei Linde), to try to explain the apparently fine-tuned physical constants in our own universe that allow for the evolution of stable galaxies and complex chemistry consistent with known forms of biological life and developed minds.

It may be a mistake to say that nature is a force. What physical law says this? What is the scientific definition of nature anyway? This is a very loose and unclear way of talking, to cover up our ignorance. "Nature" may be merely the style or mode of action of an infinite creative consciousness. That infinite consciousness may have the power to create a universe or universes that follow "natural laws" also put in place by expressed cosmic consciousness.

Sergey Shevchenko

It seems that you are mixing things.

The gravitational potential is a good approximation, which describes the interaction of a small and a very large mass.

The simple think experiment with evenly charged and equally massive spheres, with electric and gravitational forces, which exactly compensate each other, obviously proves the negative energy density of the gravitational field.

How else could it be possible that all the energy sums of strong electric and gravitational fields at shorter distances and smaller fields at larger distances are the same?

If both, the electric and the gravitational field energies would be positive, energy conservation would not be plossible in this think experiment. The field energy is the only thing, which is modified with the distance of the spheres. The distance can be modified without providing or getting mechanical energy.

Wolfgang Konle ,

- sorry, but I don’t see a necessity to add something to what is written already a few times in the SS posts above, including that

- the [electric, gravitational] field’s energy density is proportional to square of the gradient of the gravity potential, which cannot be imaginary [mathematically] and so the field’s energy density is always positive, and only in some space points can be [really - never] equal to zero ; etc.

Cheers

Wolfgang Konle, if "electric and gravitational forces exactly compensate each other," aren't the two phenomena essentially conjugate, and therefore fundamentally not two phenomena but one?

Martin Klvana ,

in the think experiment, we have an electric and a gravitational field. The forces are just equal, because we have selected the charge according to the mass. For probing the electric field, we use a charge and for probing the gravitational field we use a mass. We therefore consider electric fields and gravitational fields as separate phenomena.

Sergey Shevchenko , you correctly write that the energy density is proportional to the square of the gradient of something you call the potential. The gradient is a vector, the square of this vector is a positve number, and the proportionality constant, only applicable to the square, is a negative number.

We do not need something imaginary to describe the negative energy density of the gravitational field.

Wolfgang Konle ,

“…We do not need something imaginary to describe the negative energy density of the gravitational field.….”

Again, - the [electric, gravitational] field’s energy density is proportional to square of the gradient of a field’s potential potential, which cannot be imaginary [mathematically] and so the field’s energy density is always positive,

- in any cases; when EM field is created by positive, negative electric charges, when is created by systems of one sign charges, and when that is, say a field of some electric dipole, etc., and the gravity field energy density by no means differs in this point from EM field,

- and “to describe the negative energy density” in all cases above there is no any physical reasons. More see the SS posts above and links in the posts.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

“proportional to square of the gradient” is correct, but means:

(1) Calculate the square of the gradient vector to get a scalar

(2) Multiply this scalar with the negative proportionality constant to get the energy density.

A proportionality of a vector (gradient) to a scalar(energy density), which then indeed would require an imaginary proportionality constant, is mathematically impossible and therefore does not make sense physically.

Wolfgang Konle,

- all what is necessary to understand about the fields energy density’s sign is written already in the SS posts above, and so for me there is no necessity to add something more.

Cheers

Sorry SS, but claiming absolute knowledge, even after partial wrong assumptions in the publicized papers have been proved, is inappropriate and blocks every progress.

A short and comprehensive proof that the energy density of the gravitational field is negative:

We consider two about equal masses at rest with kinetic energy L0=0 and their common gravitational field with the unknown energy content U0, within an otherwise empty space. After a short time, due to the gravitational force, the two masses are closer. Now we have a stronger gravitational field with energy U1 and the kinetic energy L1>0.

From energy conservation we get: U0+L0=U1+L1.

From field strength consideration we get: |U1|>|U0|.

Simple mathematics now leads to: U1-U0=-L1.

With L1>0 and with |U1|>|U0| we finally get U1

Creation from nothing? Andrei Linde and Alan Guth - both are believers of creation from nothing - came up with a expansion scenario after the “Big Bang” trying to explain of how the Universe [further marked as U] from point-like volume grow to 93 million light-year large Universe in 10-32 second? To find the energy needed to accelerate the known mass of the observable part of the universe seem to show a serious problem. Reasons for the doubt: The mass of the observable U as we know today is 11.8*10^53 kg, which represent the weight of approximately 10^80, or 10^81 protons. (Eddington's number, but astrophysicists seem to agree with it) The energy needed to accelerate this mass from zero to the velocity to travel R observable U=4.3516 10 ^26 m in 10 -34 second is 2.8*10^173 Joule. [3/8 as the Centroid or center of gravity for a half sphere was included in the figure above]. The available energy represented by the visible protons that are forming the galaxies are only 10^53 kg mass* c^2 = approximately 10^69 J

Since there are claims that the visible components of U is only 5%, then the theoretical invisible part's contribution to the energy-balance is uncertain, and calculating the figures of jet unproven dark energy and dark mater [also called axions] can only be educated guesses. Just recently Cosmos [https://cosmosmagazine.com] shed light of the problem of the mass of the yet unproved axions. This makes it questionable of how much is their contribution to the sum of the missing energy.

Regardless, we use the present, but yet unproven estimates. Also, there is a serious debate about the rate of the expansion: How quickly is the Universe expanding? It’s a question that’s causing a crisis in astrophysics.** [https://cosmosmagazine.com] Dark energy, which is responsible for the hotly debated “expansion” of the U still may be added to the sum of total energy.

The result that the contributions of the “dark matter's” is only 2.3*10^71 and the contribution of dark energy is about 6.3*10^71. J

**Well, everybody has to take those figures with a grain of salt, because they they are not yet proven, they could be right or could be wrong, and therefore the values are still moving targets. Regardless of certain in-sureness, if one adds up these numbers, they only give the very small fractions of the energy needed for the 1.632*10^ 94 m/s2 acceleration. Actually 10^ 101 Joule is missing. [173 vs. 70 = 101].

From where this energy had came from?

Note: I did have some discussion with Dr. Linde. He is one of the leading theoretical scientists, and a respectable professor at Stanford, and I have to admit that I do respect his work. But there was no answer to the question of where the missing energy came from.

The old debate between steady state U (used to be advocated by Fred Hoyle) and the discovery the expanding universe by Hubble tilted the way toward the creationist view, advocated by Lemaitre, that is, he said that the world had been created from a “cosmic egg”. It means that the UNIVERSE was created from NOTHING, since the theoretical scientists have further shrank this “cosmic egg” to zero volume?

Respectfully Dr. Karoly Kehrer

Karoly Kehrer, mass is not weight; black hole per se occupies no space; the center of a magnet also does not occupy any space; the center of the Chinese bi disc is empty; for a phenomenon to manifest, a certain potentiality must be actualized; and that which is potential, and not yet actual, does not occupy any space; cosmic egg is a metaphor (which, in one sense, expresses the golden ratio).

Hello all,

Thank you all for your thoughtful and informative comments and discussion. Does anyone here besides me think that the universe or even a multiverse may exist within a cosmic mind? My proposed univon or universe-creating particle would then have been produced within a cosmic mind also, from a cosmic quantum field existing within this cosmic mind.

Hello Richard,

The idea of a cosmic mind is nothing else as the idea of a miracle which created the universe.

The idea of a hypersphere geometry and eternal existence of the universe with an energy recycling mechanism does not need miracles.

Wolfgang Konle, Nature itself is a miracle, a marvelous phenomenon which cannot have been brought about by the operation of any natural agency; nothing can set itself in motion . . .

Martin, you are right, of course. But within our moderate trials finding rational explanations for phenomena in nature, we should exclude miracles.

Wolfgang Konle, i agree, everything in Nature is explainable (without introducing phantom particles and other such things). Porphyry wrote: "You must therefore first understand the law of nature, and then proceed to the divine law, by which also the natural law has been prescribed." (emphasis mine)

Wolfgang,

I think that the appearance of consciousness from pure inert "matter" would be the real miracle. Consciousness needs to be built into matter from the beginning, and then express itself later, perhaps first through quantum phenomena. Please see, for example "Is Matter Conscious?" at http://nautil.us/issue/82/panpsychism/is-matter-conscious-rp .

Life and its high point, consciousness, is the most remarkable phenomenon, which indeed needs those fine-tuned properties of the universe.

The essential point, or at least the point which I think is essential, is the answer to the following question:

Are we living in a universe, which had an adverse start and finally goes to an unavoidable adverse end, or are we living in an eternal universe with comparably moderate phases, with a chance of eternal existence of life?

Richard Gauthier, could it be that [every] material body is like a radio, not having but tuning to a signal (Intellect)?

“…Creation from nothing? Andrei Linde and Alan Guth - both are believers of creation from nothing - came up with a expansion scenario after the “Big Bang” trying to explain of how the Universe [further marked as U] from point-like volume grow to 93 million light-year large Universe in 10-32 second? …The energy needed to accelerate this mass from zero to the velocity to travel R observable U=4.3516 10 ^26 m in 10 -34 second is 2.8*10^173 Joule. ..”, etc.

- yeah, all that in mainstream theories, above, and further in full post, seems as something that is unbelievably unphysical, including about a “cosmic egg”.

Though in the mainstream theories next, and seems even more important, puzzled point that evidently hasn’t any physical answer, even isn’t mentioned – how from such unbelievable “Big Bang”, which physically seems evidently cannot result in something besides in some complete chaos, so smartly logically organized system “Matter” could appear?

Now there exist only one at most adequate to the reality model of Matter’s Creation – the Creation hypothesis in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494, see at least Sec. 3.3 “Planck mass particles and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 , see at least Sec. 6.1.3. “The problem of Beginning and evolution of Universe”;

- which – the physical model [the first link] - is based on the indeed philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception [the second link], where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.

So it seems as quite natural to suggest that the indeed very smartly

– which is based on simple binary reverse logics and a few additional logical “marks” “fundamental Nature Forces”, and, at that, is practically infinitely diverse system of material objects, which doesn’t lose energy outside in the Set, dynamical informational system/sub-Set “Matter”

- organized informational system was created by some conscious and smart informational system “Creator”.

In the conception most of the Meta-physical phenomena/notions, including, “Matter”, “Space”, “Time”, “Inertia”, etc., are well scientifically clarified. The Meta-physical phenomenon/notion Energy remains be essentially mysterious. However it is clear – for what this phenomenon/notion is necessary: Energy is necessary to overcome the logical self-inconsistence of the [“absolutely”, i.e. that exist and acts in whole Set; “Space”, “Time”, “Inertia” are absolutely fundamental also, though] fundamental phenomenon/notion “Change” [more see last couple of SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_modern_approach_to_cosmology_fundamentally_flawed#view=5e677fbcee2c135e7b15abf9 ]

So the question – where Creator found indeed a huge portion of energy – remains as having no rational suggestions; but in the rest the hypothesis is in many aspects consistent with experimental data and rational points in existent cosmology, including

- in the hypothesis it is suggested that Creation was made in a two steps:

- on the first step the dense lattice of 4D fundamental logical elements (FLE), indeed exponentially , rather possibly as programmed sequence of divisions on 2, of a “primary FLE”, was created and filled corresponding region in the absolute Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), – the “inflation epoch”, for what rather small energy was spent;

- on the 2-th step uniformly in the lattice was next – and the main - portion of energy was pumped, what resulted in appearance of the lattice disturbances - close-loop algorithms “primary T-particles”, rather possibly Planck mass particles.

So - here is no the “…Actually 10^ 101 Joule is missing.….” problem; though, of course, 6.3*10^71J is also extremely large value.

Since the primary particles were completely symmetrical algorithms, which interacted only by also completely symmetrical Gravity Force, yet at Creation Matter didn’t contain antimatter, and further at interactions of these primary particles only “usual” FLE lattice disturbances have appeared – “usual” observable now particles; at that

- it seems as rater reasonable to suggest, that not 100% of primary particles interacted, and now indeed 70% of Matter’s mass are these relicts;

- etc.

More see the links above and links in these links, first of all https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory/update/5e4e1cf6cfe4a74024816ee9 .

To read the short thread, first of all SS posts, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_the_notion_of_Big_Bang_convenient_appropriate_for_you_question_for_physicists_chemists_and_researchers_working_in_related_sciences#view=5d18d3b2f8ea526b830f8940 is useful also

Cheers

Hello all,

Wolfgang wrote: "Are we living in a universe, which had an adverse start and finally goes to an unavoidable adverse end, or are we living in an eternal universe with comparably moderate phases, with a chance of eternal existence of life?"

This is an excellent question. People have free will to choose the answer they wish to believe, but this should be based on logic, rationality and intuition. Here is my proposed model, based on yoga and tantra philosophy, of the levels of the Cosmic Mind, which would put the physical universe into the objective level of the Cosmic Mind. The first three aspects of Consciousness below are actually above the Cosmic Mind but lead to the Cosmic Mind as the creative power of Consciousness is more fully expressed..

Absolute Unexpressed Consciousness

Bridging Consciousness – relates both to the macrocosm and to individual microcosms—the Guru or spiritual preceptor, supreme love personified

Relative Expressed Consciousness – witness of the cosmic mind

First Subjective Level of the Cosmic Mind – cosmic “I exist” feeling, or sense of cosmic existence

Second Subjective Level of The Cosmic Mind – cosmic “I do” feeling or sense of cosmic action and creation

Objective Level of the Cosmic Mind – cosmic “done-I” feeling, containing all cosmic objectivities (univon quantum field, universe or multiverse of universes existing within the cosmic mind)

Longing in a complex world for simplicity is human. The Q is rather philosophical since we have no proof of multiverses Our yearning to find simple answers of the working of nature is driven by our recognition that it may be beyond our brain capacity to comprehend it. If time and space are infinite so are the probabilities, a sobering thought about our capacity to comprehend the workings of the universe. Some scholar recognizes the limit of his comprehension but only a few admits it. Nothing is more frightening than infinity, for in our limited lifespan it cannot be conquered. To think the world ends at the limit of the reach of our telescopes is unproven. If one thinks the world is finite, one has to explain what lies beyond that imaginary limit. If our understanding of nuclear physics is correct, the world cannot face thermal death, rather some limitless cycles, where the ashes of the spectacular fusion furnaces will be compressed by gravity, and broken down under incomprehensible pressure into the base constituents of matter, and at some point, a new explosion will give a chance to new birth, to form new atoms of hydrogen that can be burn again … and again. Who are we? Accidental products of timeless events played on a limitless stage, both beyond our control. Since the chances that nature allows for life to arise is non zero - we know of at least one example – there must be endless others in an infinite universe over infinite time and, hopefully, some of those forms are gentler than the one we know of. Human is the only known species that exploit other living creatures in other ways than just killing them The biological process creates the cruelest system of laws: life to survive has to prey on life. So why are we so proud of sitting on the top of this rotting biomass? After all at the end our rotting body will be the part of it. The demand for self-preservation and reproduction is in a constant conflict with the demands of social life and the longing of the human soul for the irrational world of aesthetic pleasure. Knowledge cannot transcend experience but can affect the way we interpret it. Add to this riddle that what and how we experience thing is defined by the brain, a product of chance biological events, and it become awful hard to say which of the experiences are the real one. Our understanding of force is based upon our sensing of muscle power in direct contact with other object. No wonder, we cannot comprehend nature’s forces acting over seemingly empty space. There are two things that are infinite: the universe and human fight against the fact of incomprehensible infinity. Science may not recognize its limits, but never admits it. I

Hello Karoly,

Thank you for this explanation of your views. You are assuming the universe is infinite, while it is not proved that this is the case, is it? If life preying on life was all the universe was about, this would be a grim picture indeed, and I think that many scientists share your view. But some others don't. Is there any way to know or find out who is right?

Richard

Karoly Kehrer, if the space is finite, the question 'what lies beyond that imaginary limit?' is absurd.

A thought experiment: What will happen if i get to the very boundary of the finite universe? My material body will expand the universe. So i will never truly reach the boundary of the finite, expandable universe . . . And this is because empty space does not exist; all space is due to something filling it. So if everything vanishes from the phenomenal realm, the space vanishes as well.

“…Longing in a complex world for simplicity is human….”

- that isn’t so. Human is the composition of fundamentally non-material informational system “consciousness” [now is highest level of development of the non-material informational system “consciousness on Earth”] and practically material body, where the consciousness is the “host”, and uses the body as a stable residence and the energy source in the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, where

- Matter is another informational system in the Set, which, just because of that is rigorously organized logical system, where informational exchange between informational patterns/systems [particles, fields, bodies, etc.] proceeds by exchange by exclusively true and certain information, is a close and stable element of the Set, which exists and changes in the absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime;

- the consciousness is able to obtain and to process any, including, uncertain, information, and so exists and operates in own spacetime, which only partially intersects with Matter’s spacetime, and in principle have any number of dimensions - i.e., again, is able to process any information [in any dimension], including without principal limitations on the complexity.

More see at least two SS comments Dec 9, 2019 and Dec 10, 2019 in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness/comments?focusedCommentId=5ded35bacfe4a777d4f8a648&sldffc=0 , and, of course, the whole paper is useful.

“…The Q is rather philosophical since we have no proof of multiverses…”

- the notion “multiverse” was introduced in physics in Everett’s interpretation of what the Ψ-function in QM is – that really there exist the multiverse, where there exist infinite number of universes [Matters] and humans at next experiment measure some accidental actualizations of experiments and themselves of any of universes’ state. The interpretation is, of course, some fantastic unphysical mental construction, at least by energetic reason – even to create known universe some unbelievable portion of energy was spend, to create the multiverse is necessary to spend infinitely unbelievable portion of energy.

Though after the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception was developed and the existence of the “Information” Set, etc., was proven, in a number of publications the authors claim that they discovered some “informational multiverses” – something like the Set; that is a popular practice in some scientific community. But, since the main properties of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” and of the Set are given already in the conception, when to repeat corresponding inferences in the conception, till the authors are alive, isn’t convenient, so such publications don’t contain till now some scientific information.

But what is the Set is rather clear, the Set isn’t some transcendent phenomenon – because of the phenomenon “Information” isn’t transcendent, is principally cognizable – and any informational pattern/system is so principally cognizable.

Including, again, in the conception most of Meta-scientific phenomena/notions are scientifically defined, including “Space” and “Time”, and so that

“…If time and space are infinite so are the probabilities, a sobering thought about our capacity to comprehend the workings of the universe. ….”

- isn’t correct. Space and Time aren’t “probabilities”, they are possibilities for placing of changing states of some informational patterns/systems at actualizing of the patterns’/systems’ degrees of freedom [in Matter 4 degrees of freedom at “flipping” 4D FLE] in space; and all dynamical patterns/systems in the Set are changing absolutely fundamentally in one universal Time dimension – the “true time”.

These possibilities are logical, and so unlimited, and, say, Matter’s [and any consciousness’s] spacetime’s dimensions are principally infinite, however in these infinite “empty containers” concrete patterns/systems can occupy limited volumes.

If tribal informational system “Matter” is some “typical project”, it is possible, that in the same one spacetime above any number of Matter’s sisters exist now – and possibly on “practically infinite distances between”. If this project is unique, Matter is unique.

“…If our understanding of nuclear physics is correct, the world cannot face thermal death, rather some limitless cycles, where the ashes of the spectacular fusion furnaces will be compressed by gravity, and broken down under incomprehensible pressure into the base constituents of matter, and at some point, a new explosion will give a chance to new birth,….”

- such scenario isn’t principally impossible, however seems a next “new birth” will not repeat the version “actual Matter”, which was created in rigorous logical steps [ see the SS post above, 5 days ago now; and, say, the SS comment in the project https://www.researchgate.net/project/How-History-Moves-Mans-Role-in-history/update/5e6dbcf8cfe4a7bbe56620ec ],

- and seems just to prevent such “Global Compression” at Matter’s evolution [to solve the “gravitational paradox”, as that https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vsevolod_Lozitsky?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=ja0t8wNUrNX4Z9Xvlgx3vc99&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=projectUpdatesLog&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=projectViewCollaboratorProfile quite correctly pointed in some post on the RG,

- seems rather convincingly the “space expansion” is observed, which is caused by “dark energy”. The “space expansion”, if exists, is really seems constant modification of the 4D FLE lattice, which – as, say, the first one in the inflation epoch, is governed by Creator, and in this case corresponding energy has no relation to physics – and to physical energy.

“…Who are we?….”

- see the first link above.

More see the SS posts above and links in the posts.

Cheers

A hypersphere geometry is finite and does not have a boundary. Any geodesic line is a closed loop with a length of about 20 billion light years.

Universal coordinates can be described by the exponential function of unit quaternions.

Wolfgang Konle, the hypersphere geometry is an eye-opener for me; one question, do you think the space is permanent or impermanent, and if permanent then does it have an existence independent on all phenomena or is it eternally propped up (like a hot-air balloon but with an inexhaustible source of fuel)?

Hello all,

I have just uploaded to Academia.edu the Powerpoint for my article: "Superluminal Primordial Information Quanta (Sprinqs) Created and Compose a Multiverse of Equally Fine-Tuned Universes Evolving Life and Highly-Developed Minds". It can be downloaded at Presentation Superluminal Primordial Information Quanta (Sprinqs) Created...