The concept of existence when assumed to be eternal, and therefore, there can't be a starting point for existence, nor an end to the universe.
However, it's crucial to consider what existence truly means, social or philosophical understanding doesn't align with how existence is interpreted in the realm of physical science.
Let's explore physical existence in terms of the Planck scale, specifically the Planck length. This scale marks the point where classical notions of gravity and space-time no longer apply, and quantum effects take over. Even before reaching the Planck length, our physical perception becomes ineffective, and we can never fully grasp anything beyond this threshold. The Planck length, approximately 1.616255×10^−35 meters, is defined by physical constants such as the speed of light, the Planck constant, and the gravitational constant. It serves as the limit of physical reality perception.
So, physical reality's inception occurs well before we reach the Planck length, and its end is when it reaches the Planck length. Our physical universe and existence are confined within this Planck threshold. We can't observe or measure anything beyond it, even with advanced technology in the distant future. The Planck length stands as our permanent perceptual limit.
While we may experience gravitational or antigravitational effects from existence beyond our physical perception, such existence holds no meaning within our physical domain because we can't perceive events and time from this imperceptible existence beyond our physical reality.
The notion of a beginning and an end is rooted in our limited perception. The Big Bang and Black Holes, for instance, hypothesize domains beyond our perceptual capabilities. The concept of a beginning and end of physical existence is mathematically possible beyond our perceptible reality.
Therefore, one cannot dismiss the idea of a beginning and an end to existence considering our physical limitations. Furthermore, eternal existence doesn't account for the effects of dark energy and the gravitational influences of black holes, which we can perceive as interactions from the non-existent reality.
It's important to note that the Planck length represents a fundamental limit to our current understanding of physical reality. However, claiming that our physical universe's existence begins and ends strictly at the Planck length might be an oversimplification. While it serves as a lower limit for our perception, it doesn't necessarily define the boundaries of the universe itself.
Furthermore, acknowledging the existence of phenomena beyond our perception, such as dark energy and the gravitational effects of black holes, is essential. These interactions may provide insights into regions of the universe that we can't directly observe.
So it is essential to recognize that scientific understanding of existence and the universe is a complex field that extends far beyond our current comprehension. While the Planck length is a crucial concept, defining the precise boundaries of the universe based solely on it remains a topic of ongoing research and debate. Additionally, accounting for phenomena like dark energy and black holes is crucial in our quest to comprehend the universe fully.
The idea that Gravitation fails at the Planck scale is purely hypothetical and not supported by any physical data whatsoever. There is this conception among convention that there exists this mystical magical line between the 'macroscopic' and 'quantum,' where the laws of Physics go out the window and fall into the realm of absurd hypotheses.
There can be no change in the Laws of Physics as a result of scale, save for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which places a lower resolution as 2-Planck lengths [or time intervals], not one. That is the 4pi in dxdt>h/4pi. Dirac assigned 4pui as the convention of two native wave cycles, which at the Planck limit is 2-Planck intervals of {Lp, tp}.
Gravitation, as a result of sign, takes effect at exactly 2-Planck intervals, as Bekenstein defined this as the limit at which one coalesces with a Black Hole Horizon. Gravitation thus is valid at greater than or equal to 2-Planck lengths. There is no magical nor mystical line other than the Bekenstein-Limit; which is the only sensible and Valid Theory on the subject.
The notion of the cosmos being infinite is an even more rarer hypothesis. The universe by convention is regarded as finite: from the 'Big Bang' [lower limit] to the present [upper limit]. There is nothing beyond the present, the future does not exist.
Just the very fact that the upper limit is the present absolutely defines the universe as finite, any system bound by a limit on either side is finite. There is nothing beyond the immediate present, which is a range of values throughout the cosmos, as perceived from our Preferential Frame of Reference here on Earth. Meaning, the upper limit of the present is and was a very different value in the galaxy Andromeda, 2-million lightyears away, or ago, what have you.
Exploring the limits of existence and the unknown in the universe is an interesting topic in theoretical physics and astronomy. There are several theoretical concepts and models that discuss the limits of existence and attempt to explain phenomena that go beyond our current ability to understand and observe. Let's discuss some of these concepts:
1. Planck length: The Planck length is considered one of the smallest possible lengths in the universe according to theoretical physics. It is symbolized by "l_P" and is estimated at approximately 1.6 x 10^-35 metres. It is assumed that nothing with dimensions smaller than this size can be measured or seen. The Planck length may have an important role in studying phenomena intertwined between gravity and quantum physics.
2. The unknown gap: These terms refer to the limited knowledge we have about the universe and its mysterious phenomena. Despite great advances in our understanding of the universe, there are many things we do not yet know, such as the true nature of dark energy and dark matter, the origin and evolution of the universe, and the universe's past before the Big Bang.
3. New physics models: There is a continuous development in theoretical physics to try to explore the limits of existence and understand mysterious phenomena. Among these models, string theory and quantum theory of gravity (black holes) are famous examples. These models seek to unify the fundamental forces of nature and provide a comprehensive description of the universe.
With the development of technology and scientific research, our understanding of the limits of existence and the unknown in the universe may be expanded. This requires continuous improvements in instruments, observations and experiments, as well as continuous interaction between scientists and researchers in different fields.
Besides the Planck length, lP, there exist two other ultimate Matter’s constants– Planck time, tP, and Planck constant, h, though really more fundamental is the fundamental elementary physical action/angular momentum ћ=h/2π. From these constants really the system of “Planck units” is composed.
Really, as that is rigorously scientifically shown 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/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force,
- the ultimate base of Matter is 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], which is placed in the corresponding 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), FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, and Planck time;
- while everything in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the lattice.
The utmost fundamental constants above reveal themselves as the mainstream physics “fundamental constants” – standard speed of light, c, and Gravitational constant, G, and the Planck constants above are “derived” in the mainstream as some combinations of the mainstream constants; while really the mainstream constants are combinations of the Planck constants, say, c=lP/tP, i.e. since the disturbances in the lattice are some specific sequences of FLE-by-FLE flips, all disturbances so always move in then lattice, and so in the at least utmost universal 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), only with the speed of light. Photons move only in the 3DXYZ space, and so this fact is directly observable.
Etc., more see the linked above papers, where more 30 fundamental physical, including cosmological, problems are either solved or essentially, i.e. when possible rational ways are pointed, clarified; here only a few notes to what is in the thread now:
- Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force; and - as that at all other, known now Weak, Electric and Strong/Nuclear Forces actions, there are no problems with the Forces’ actions quantization – at quantization of Gravity action really there is no fundamental problems as well;
- including the “quantization” happens/observed now on the QM scale, which is on at least a couple of orders by magnitude is “larger” then Planck scale; including in this case Gravity again doesn’t differ from other Forces; and
- there is no “principal” limitations besides that, again, everything in Matter ultimately exists and happens in the FLE lattice, including, say, the Planck mass particles have “radius”/Compton length be equal to one Planck length, and that are only particles that interact only gravitationally; and by no means that are the GR “black holes”, i.e. some “holes in the spacetime”.
Cheers
William Bray William, with respect to „There is this conception among convention that there exists this mystical magical line between the 'macroscopic' and 'quantum,' where the laws of Physics go out the window and fall into the realm of absurd hypotheses.“ i can tell you there is absolutely nothing „ mystical“ going on down there!
While agreeing it’s not widely known yet, the mathematics of iSpace theory - able to derive constants of nature from simple, exact, first order multiplicative integer geometric base entities - shows exactly what happens down there - geometrically!
And it’s - for sure - not what anyone mainstream is currently expecting (yet universe doesn’t carey) based on very much faulty (if not outright evil) contiuum mathematics based human brain invention of zero and consequential error of infinity. Such simply do not exists in any actual physical system, whatever the model or theory (but is treated wrongly as if it would!).
Thsts all. Follow the KISS principle - keep it simple, stupid! Plain LEGO style integer geometric entities based in do called „changed distance definition„ based circle concepts, effectively squaring the circle with Pi4=4 (8 cells around 1 cell), and quantum physically required Pi3=3 (or 6 cells around 1 cell) base geometry enabling exact derivation of most but all constants of nature (incl. FSC alpha, e, h, me, R, a0, re, …, G and all Planck units in lab compatible iSpace-SI units and first of its kind fully human artefact free iSpace-IQ units (as well as any other unit system, for that matter).
Checkout the papers and preprints on my RG home for details, or the 2h+ TEGS YouTube video „Introductions to iSpace theory“.
christian g. wolf
that was the least supported and least coherent response i have read on rg.
please try and make sense, and limit your response to terminolgy appropriate to physics, please.
What to do else than create new appropriate terminology (you are just unwilling or even to lazy to learn!) when all of physics has gone nuts (or even corrupt but in the best case just outright stubborn as you reply just proofed!
William Bray Be sure of the following - I did - and intensly so - talk over the last 25+ years to a multitude of extremely intelligent highly experienced physicists (having no time in their live to join RG discussion threads like we all do - with few surely even on Nobel level) about all this (constants of nature in general, QM, QED. SR and even a bit if GR) but especially so new novel yet simple - near trivial first order multiplicative - iSpace geometric model - and guess what - they understood instantly and without any relation to wether they agreed to iSpace model or to what extent or some not at all.
But in any case without any stubborn unscientific reflex style reply of your spine like yours given above - I suggest to use the help of your brain first before doing such RG public replies for the world to see …).
The key points in this discussion include:
William Bray
The universe began as a singularity, a point with zero volume and infinite density containing all the energy of the universe. Then the big bang occurred, rapidly expanding all that energy with enough ferocity to overpower the inward pull of gravity so we can tell that gravity was present during those early moments,
The concept of Gravitation failing at the Planck scale, as suggested by your counterargument, appears to be invalidated by the well-established understanding of the universe's early moments, particularly the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory posits the universe's origin as a singularity, which was a point of infinite density and zero volume. This singularity represents a state where the gravitational force was active, and the known laws of physics couldn't be firmly established due to the extreme conditions prevailing at that point.. As the universe rapidly expanded during the Big Bang, it overcame gravitational forces due to an immense outward force, allowing the universe to evolve.
Given that gravity played a role during the universe's initial moments, suggesting its presence and influence at a stage far beyond the Planck scale, challenges the notion of Gravitation failing at that scale. Since the big bang, gravity has countered the force exerted by the inflation, slowing the velocities of the universes' expanding energy.
Therefore, Bray's contention regarding the failure of gravitation at the Planck scale might not hold true when considering the universe's early moments.
Regards,
S N Thakur
Dear Mr. Ahmed M.Elsayed ,
I trust this message finds you well. I wanted to extend my gratitude for your insightful contribution to the discussion on exploring the limits of existence within the universe. Your elucidation of the Planck Length and its significance in theoretical physics was both comprehensive and rational. It provided a profound understanding of the critical role this fundamental scale plays in shaping our comprehension of the universe.
Your discussion on the "Unknown Gap" greatly resonates with my perspective. The mysteries surrounding dark energy and dark matter indeed constitute significant enigmas within our current understanding. Your insight into their potential existence beyond the Planck scale highlights a crucial aspect—that without technological advancements, our ability to observe or measure these phenomena might remain elusive.
The suggestion that the scales for measuring dark energy and dark matter might extend beyond the Planck scale raises the possibility that we may never observe or measure these entities physically, unless substantial technological advancements enable such measurements.
Your emphasis on new physics models, including string theory and the quantum theory of gravity, is encouraging. While these models are pivotal in advancing our comprehension of the universe, it's equally imperative to explore the theoretical landscape pre-Big Bang. Understanding the pre-Big Bang state can significantly enhance our insights into post-Big Bang phenomena, such as the models you mentioned.
I wholeheartedly agree with your view that advancements in technology, scientific research, and interdisciplinary collaboration hold immense promise in expanding our knowledge of the universe's unknown aspects and its existence limits. It's through continuous dedication, exploration, and collaboration that we move closer to unravelling the mysteries that have intrigued humanity for centuries.
Best regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
Dear Mr. Sergey Shevchenko ,
Thank you immensely for your thought-provoking insights into the fundamental structure of the universe and the Planck scale. Your detailed description of the informational physical model offers a unique perspective on the foundational elements underlying the cosmos.
I find your concept of a dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures intriguing. However, I am pondering whether the building blocks of these structures within the lattice might be frequency-based. My understanding aligns with the idea that oscillatory or vibrational frequencies serve as the essence of existence, constituting energy and the fundamental forces of the universe. Therefore, ascertaining whether frequency is the fundamental element within these structures is a pivotal question.
Regarding disturbances within this lattice representing everything in matter, I am eager to delve deeper into this notion. Understanding what these disturbances entail is crucial to grasp how they translate into observable phenomena within the framework of the universe's formation.
Your emphasis on fundamental constants deriving from more foundational Planck constants resonates deeply with the concept of the Planck scale, which acts as a nexus point intertwining gravity, quantum mechanics etc. It's fascinating to consider how these constants are interconnected and contribute to our understanding of the universe.
I agree with your viewpoint on gravity and the notion that particles with a mass equal to the Planck mass might offer a different perspective than the conventional idea of "black holes" as distortions in spacetime. The concept of mass and its correlation to spacetime distortions needs further exploration, and your perspective sheds light on alternative interpretations.
Your informational conception presents a compelling framework, and I am eager to explore its implications further. Your contributions undoubtedly open new avenues for understanding the universe's intricacies and its fundamental elements.
Warm regards,
Dear Soumendra Nath Thakur,
There is scant evidence that the singularity model of the Big Bang is correct. In fact, if I managed to attach the file correctly, the Hubble Parameter, despite having a near religious following, is a null hypothesis. The attached image shows 500 'raw data points' of the collective history of the peer reviewed literature of 'measuring' the Hubble Parameter. There is zero-correlation in those 500 data points. Typically, authors cherry-pick those data points that support their hypothesis and disregard all else.
Second note is that the Planck limit is a Conformally Scale Invariant value, that is by convention. Meaning, on the AdS Horizon Surface, regarded as the Ryu-Takayanagi value epsilon, changes with time, as equated to the Planck length, changes scale.
If you look into Conformal Field Theory, you will see that the Conformally Scale Invariant value epsilon, which is the Planck value, changes, it is not fixed. That is by convention.
In simpler terms, the Planck length and Planck time are set according to the constants c, G, and most of all, h. Since Planck's constant is fixed and regarded as the lower limit, violating this Planck limit would mean violating every law of thermodynamics, both conventional delta-S entropy, Shannon entropy, and the -1 Law of thermodynamics which states that Information cannot be created, destroyed, or 'borrowed.'
Conformal Scale Invariance supersedes any notion of a 'singularity,' which by convention is a violation of all three of the above mentioned laws of preservation.
A 'black hole' does not exist, because the approach to the horizon is asymptotic, there is no Preferential Frame of Reference issue that resolves this. A 'black hole' is forever forming, but never achieved. Thus, by convention, the singularity model was abandoned half of a century ago when Alan Guth put forth the 'Inflation' model, which is now accepted over any notions of a 'singularity.'
Dear Dr. William Bray,
I thank you for your detailed response. I read your comments and will respond as soon as possible. In the meantime I am sharing the following.
For a 360° phase shift or one cycle of the Planck frequency, the energy involved is about 6.67×10⁻³⁵ Joules. Therefore, for a 1° phase shift of the Planck frequency, the energy involved is about 1.852 × 10⁻³⁷ Joules. This aligns with the idea that at the Planck scale, where frequencies and energies are incredibly high, the energy associated with even a single cycle or phase shift is remarkably small according to our current understanding of physics.
In terms of the Planck frequency, the energy associated with a 1° phase shift represents an incredibly minute and fundamental unit. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider a 1° phase shift as one of the smallest meaningful mathematical expressions, at the Planck scale, indicating a discrete and fundamental change in the structure of quantum mechanics. This scale is where our current physical understanding meets the limitations of our measurements and observations due to the complexity of quantum physics.
Dear William Bray,
I am sincerely grateful for the depth and insight embedded in your discourse surrounding the singularity model regarding the Big Bang, the intricacies encapsulated within the Hubble Parameter, and the profound implications of the Planck limit within conformal scale invariance.
Your presentation of the array of raw data points concerning the Hubble Parameter brings to the fore a critical facet: the inherent complexities and variations pervasive within peer-reviewed literature. This mosaic of data representation underscores the necessity for a more nuanced approach, shedding light on potential limitations when solely relying on specific data points to fortify scientific hypotheses.
Your intriguing portrayal of the Planck limit as a conformally scale invariant value challenges the traditional, fixed interpretation of the Planck length and Planck time. This notion of variability, notably concerning the AdS Horizon Surface, instigates profound questions about our comprehension of these fundamental limits and the crucial role played by constants such as c, G, and h - particularly Planck's constant - in upholding foundational laws like thermodynamics.
Furthermore, your unconventional stance opposing the conventional concept of 'black holes' rooted in an asymptotic approach to the horizon provides a compelling viewpoint, emphasizing the unresolved aspects within this enigmatic cosmic phenomenon. Your advocacy for Alan Guth's 'Inflation' model as a viable alternative to the singularity model represents a significant paradigmatic shift in our comprehension of cosmic genesis.
Your perspectives have spurred a thorough re-evaluation of established cosmological paradigms, urging a fresh appraisal of current theories in light of evolving scientific observations.
Your challenges to established scientific perspectives provoke pertinent questions about the reliability of the singularity model, the nature of fundamental limits, and the existence of black hole singularities. However, they don't provide definitive empirical evidence to comprehensively overturn established theories.
I am sincerely appreciative of your invaluable contributions to this ongoing discourse, and I eagerly anticipate further exploration and the exchange of ideas within this intricate and captivating field of study.
Warm regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
Dear Soumendra Nath Thakur,
Thank you for your gracious response. As for empirical evidence, I am afraid we simply do not possess the level of technology necessary to validate most of anything we hypothesize about. Our physics is plagues with unobservable, 'higher' dimensionalities, dark this and dark that, all of which provide a playground for the imagination but have afforded us nothing.
Physics has accomplished very little in the past century, referring to 'widget in hand' useful science. Our science is still the wheel [mechanics], fire, and electricity, nothing more.
I have written at length on all of these things you mention above, albeit, is is admittedly a lot to read: Quantum Physics, Philosophy, Theological Anthropology, Commerce, and Extinction; a Seven Volume Set. Vol IV: Quantum Information Dynamics.
We need to step aside from convention, because convention has not provided us with 'widget in hand' empirical evidence, but continues hypothesizing endlessly of that which is unobservable, deferring any sense of real science or accountability in favor of writing 7,000 papers per day [a real number] of science fiction, safely unobservable.
As a result, no new science has come about since the early 20th century. Our technology is simply applications of fire, electricity, and radio, nothing more. Even particle physics has given us nothing that is actually usable. There is no evidence that anything that goes on inside the accelerator actually represents anything that does or ever did exist outside of the accelerator. That is just a common mantra.
I really think that, contrary to popular 'opinion,' this age in science will be regarded in the same exact fashion as we regard bloodletting and leaches.
This era in science will be mocked.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation