The answer is Yes and that was the content of the work for which Heamish and Ryle received the Nobel Prize in 1974. There were alternative descriptions, such as the steady state theory of Hoyle. What mattered was that the theoretical descriptions could provide sufficiently sharp predictions, that could be distinguished by experiment.

The Big Bang theory takes the reverse of expansion too far back. At the beginning of time, our universe was a flat field.

I recently posted "The Calculation Rules of the Universe" and "Advanced Hilbert Space Technology" at https://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen

In these papers, I claim that the coverages of space with number systems determine the structure and behavior of our universe. This is not a straightforward conclusion that you would expect. However, Dirac's bra-ket combination shows that a small extension of a vector space generates a powerful self-management tool for a vector space. In the form of a system of Hilbert spaces that all apply the same vector space, this self-management capability enables the enormous diversity of objects that humans can observe in space.

The answer, in my opinion is no; at the present sociopolitical established order under regressive monopoly capitalism and theology, where the “Big Bang” theory serves as the ruling idea. More so because it is not a scientific theory; it is merely mathematical idealism-based metaphysics. The established order has overwhelming political, financial etc., might, which it has used and/or are using to get this theory “proved” by “scientists” lured by the promise of fame, fortune, funds and career prospects. Any contrary efforts are either impossible and/or would be rejected as invalid.

However; long, tedious and dedicated efforts by many; to progressively expose the metaphysical and unscientific nature of this theory may discredit it enough to be a viable ruling idea. In my opinion, the following steps are necessary. Some efforts in this direction have already been undertaken as shown in the links:

1. To show scientifically and mathematically that the primary theories of physics of extraterrestrial gravitation (of Newton and Einstein) have no basis in objective reality and hence unscientific and are wrong. These are the roots of all fantastic speculations in cosmology.

"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology"

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas"

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR ‘FREE FALL’: A DIALECTICAL REASSESSMENT OF KEPLER’S LAWS":

Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...

2. To show that “continuous fields (spacetime, quantum etc.) as the primary constituents of objective reality are false and particulate matter (from the quantum to the cosmic) and motion, mediated by chance and necessity is the basis of the manifestation of the universe.

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?

3. To demonstrate that Quantum electrodynamics (QED) freed from the mathematical idealism and metaphysics of its official form can serve as the basis of the microcosm of objective reality: The following RG question and the references therein:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_You_Certain_Mr_Heisenberg

"Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter! A Qualitative Graviton-Orbital-Band Theory"

Article Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter! A Qualitative Gra...

4. To validate the discovery of the astronomer/astrophysicisist Halton (Chip) Arp that high red-shifted Quasars are nearby objects, ejected from low red-shifted galaxies:

Article QUASARS – RETROSPECT, PROSPECT AND A POINT of DEPARTURE

"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies"

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

The comments seem to suggest that people are not happy with the Big Bang idea as a valid scientific theory. I was just suggesting a way we could PROVE using scientific methodology that the Big Bang idea is false. Richard

Several scientific results are based on politics. For example, the Higgs is certainly a particle with no electric charge and a well-defined spin but nobody has ever shown experimentally that this particle or its field offers mass to other particles.

Nobody has ever shown that the universe started at a singularity and nobody has ever shown via experiments that black holes have a singularity at their geometric center. Nobody has ever shown that a photon is a wave or a wave package. As far as I know, the length of a photon is never measured.

Hans van Leunen > "Several scientific results are based on politics."

Very much so! The "Big Bang" Theory itself was adopted as a scientific theory in a conference in the Vatican that excluded many prominent astronomers and astrophysicists; who did not accept this theory. This would be clear from what the astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, a leading astrophysicist of the time had to say: “By 1982, when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F. Hoyle, V. Ambartsuminan and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents.

In fact in the introduction to the published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers” : G Burbidge, In “The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology.

The idea of "Big Bang" creation after all, originated from the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître The Vatican and other religious groups like the Templeton Foundation of USA and Wilton Park group of UK play very significant roles behind the mega scientific projects like the LHC and the "discovery" of the Higgs boson, i.e., The God Particle. Please see the following RG question:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Influence_of_Big_Money_and_Theology_on_Big_Science_Worrisome

The Big Bang theory is one of the possible variants explaining the world we observe. Many series of far galaxies spectra show the spectral lines shifted to the red end f the spectrum. It is obvious that it is necessary to consider differenrt causes of this phenomena, for example, Doppler effect caused by gravitational forces in the Universe. But the majority of the cosmologists choose just one cause of the phenomena --- the receding of galaxies as a result of Big Bang. This conclusion comes to the theory of expanding Universe. This theory is a result of the exact solution of the Einstein equation (field equation). The mathematician Alexander Friedmann obtained a class of the equation describing the Universe using the proposition that the space of the Universe is isotropic and homogeneous. The 3-spaces of the obtained solutions can be: compressing, spreading and static 3-spaces. The Big Bang is the result (one of many another) of the exact solution of the field equtions of GR. Is this right? No, because this choice rejects the other variants. So, Big Bang corresponds to the field equations of GR, but it closes the other ways of explanation of the redshift phenomena. There is another cause to consider different models as the Universe and its parts. We know that all bodies moving correspond to lows of gravitation. But the proposition that the space of the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic do not exist in a 4-space (space-time), where gravittion and rotation absent and only deformtion takes a pllace.

Larissa Borissova The expansion of space is an important conclusion from observations but what is the cause of this expansion? I maintain that the universe is finite with a space boundary which explains the cause of this steady expansion.

Furthermore in this model the cosmological principle does not apply so the Friedmann equations cannot be used.

Another assumption of the Big Bang model is that all matter formed very early in the life of the universe. A better explanation is that galaxies formed progressively over time starting close to the centre and forming progressively further from the centre.

With this model we can explain dark matter, dark energy with GR equations without a cosmological term.

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Richard

Larissa Borissova

It is false to interpret our universe as a simple space that can be covered by a coordinate system. Instead, our universe is a complicated system of extensions of a common vector space that each can act as an archive for sets of numbers that are taken from a version of a number system. Please read "Advanced Hilbert space Technology"; in https://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen or start with the concise version "The Calculation Rules of the Universe"

Calculation rules determine how numbers can cover space. However, these rules do not fix all selection freedom. Apart from the calculation rules of the real numbers exist the calculation rules for spatial numbers (also called imaginary numbers) These two number types can mix in the two-dimensional complex numbers and in the four-dimensional quaternions. Space is usually seen as a three-dimensional container. Thus, the three-dimensional spatial numbers fit the three-dimensional space. Since the intervention by Einstein space is also considered as a four-dimensional container. However, spacetime is not a Cartesian four-dimensional coordinate system. The Lorentz transform is a hyperbolic coordinate conversion. Einstein also discovered that the spatial continuum can deform. The combination of the hyperbolic transform and the deformation of the spatial continuum confuses most physicists. Space contains more than three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate. It can be covered with a huge number of versions of the quaternionic number system. These versions all take a role in what we call our universe. A mathematical structure exists that brings order in this mash. That structure is a system of Hilbert spaces that all apply the same underlying infinite-dimensional vector space. Scientists still do not use a good interpretation of what our universe comprises. It is a complicated structure and not a simple space.

Every theory is falsifiable, when they fails to explaines at leaset one possible observation !!. With single or new few new observations can change the faith of the theory and can be construct new theory. Meaning of falsifiablity is depend number of unexplainable observations using the theory it self.

Manoj Sithara I agree that the number of unexplainable observations tends to build up a weight of evidence against a theory. What I am identifying is that although it is sometimes impossible to prove a theory to be correct it is possible to prove a theory to be incorrect with just one observation.

This is why I am considering the Cosmic Microwave Background explanation because if the Big Bang explanation for the CMB fails in the laboratory, the whole theory fails.

Richard

Dear Richard, dear All,

I am not sure, but if it could be solidly demonstrated that in "retrocasting" the current state of the observable universe back to the very moment of the singularity that is said to have constituted the "Big Bang", there is just one "flaw" or misconception that results in NOT arriving at this singularity, but at some other state, then this would mean that the Big Bang theory in its current form has been falsified, wouldn't it?

Best,

Julius

It is easier to explain the emergence of the universe from empty space than to explain the emergence of the universe from a singularity.

Preprint The calculation rules of the universe

Hans van Leunen I agree with your statement regarding the emergence of the universe from empty space. However, i disagree with the statement in the paper:

"Space contains more than three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate."

The important difference in my model of the evolution of the universe is that the empty space is finite with a space boundary. This then explains the cause of the expansion of space. Also in this expanding spherical region of empty space the space curvature is radial towards the boundary and curved parallel to the boundary. This means that when this finite region of empty space expands there is a surplus of energy. The conservation of energy law must be changed in line with GR so that it is mass + energy + spacetime curvature which is conserved. This provides the energy source for matter formation which takes place in galaxy formation events starting closest to the centre of the universe. This is a brief summary of the model explained in detail here:

Preprint The Evolution of the Universe

Richard

Richard Lewis

A boundary is always part of the content of space. Empty space has no boundary because nothing exists that can be bounded. It has no measures and no center.

Space itself does not expand. Only its content expands.

If space contains a continuum and that continuum deforms, then removing the deformation can expand the continuum when the deformation is moved in all directions away from the actuator that caused the deformation. Space can contain several continuums and several types of continuums. An infinite-dimensional vector space has infinite dimensions because it contains infinitely many independent vectors. Continuums consisting of positions have less than four dimensions. In an empty space, energy and change are not defined.

In empty space, real numbers and spatial numbers do not exist. If they exist then real numbers implement time and spatial numbers implement the spatial dimensions.

There are two parts to that question. First, is it physically possible to falsify the BB? Second, is it psychologically/politically possible to falsify the BB? If one is not allowed to research a falsification, then a falsification will never be found.

I fear there may be those who believe that there is no political obstruction to going against ideas that have been institutionalized. However, the cognitive bias in the science community focuses on the winners, not the losers. So, one may have never studied all the people like Halton Arp who were not allowed to explore the idea of falsifying the BB.

For example, everyone knows time on observatory telescopes is precious. As Professor Arp tried to develop his ideas that would falsify the BB, his time in the observatory was taken away by management, who said he was wasting observatory time pursuing these ideas.

It doesn't matter if Halton Arp was right or wrong in his thoughts. It's the fact that he was not allowed the tools to pursue them; that is the issue. Of course, if there is some political or religious agenda behind a theory, then it should be carefully assessed. However, when a well-respected scientist tries to go against the general beliefs, it should be allowed to continue until they can prove or falsify their theory.

Maya Sedgwick Very naive of me not to consider the psychological or political aspect of the problem. I had thought that the truth of the matter will eventually come out.

I agree with you about the case of Halton Arp and I think he should have been given the time to investigate and present his case. However, I am quite relaxed about the situation because I think it is only a matter of time before the evidence becomes overwhelming. Maybe some astronomical observation which puts the age of the universe much greater than 13.8 billion years. I have alluded to this in the solution to the angular momentum problem.

Things do eventually come out into the open. The history of the investigation into dark matter is a case in point. Fritz Zwicky it appears was not taken seriously for decades.

I think one way out would be to conduct the experiment proposed in the paper:

Preprint Space Rest Frame (Dec 2021)

In the paper an experiment is proposed involving time dilation measurements which potentially could be taken from existing GPS satellites so that the cost of the experiment might just be the researcher time to process the data.

Anyway, I will continue the Open World project trying to get the message across. I am confident that it will be the younger generation that see the truth in these underlying proposals to resolve all the problems of physics and cosmology:

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Your post is very well received to alert me to the obstacles and difficulties beyond the technical merit of the ideas.

Richard

Hi all,

according to the Daon theory, the Universe is oscillating between maximum size and minimum size. The minimum size can be calculated to somewhere around a radius of 1000 ly. It's the action accelerating the expansion that is responsible together with the gravitational force (plus a secondary force which will be presented soon.

JES

Yes. Big bang is false. Matter came in to existence continuously. Even still it is a continuous creation. It maintains its mass energy density constant.

Dear Maya Sedwick,

In physics there is no such thing like political or psychological.

It is a straight question.

Bang occurred or not (continuous creation)?

2.7k MBR can be explained by continuous creation also. So Bang is denied.

I like your sentence "However, when a well respected scientist tries to go against the general beliefs, it should be allowed to continue until he or she can prove or falsify their theory".

The Big Bang theory is one of propositions made for explanation of the observed effect redshift lintes in spectra of distant galaxies. Cosmologists consider this phenomena as the reason proved that the 3-space of the Universe spreads with the acseleration This conclusion follows from the theory of homogeneous isotropic Universe built by Friiedman. We can obtain analogical result if we cccccccccconsider the Universe as gravitating object. Note that the Friedmanian models dot gravitate --- they deform only. If we will create model where gravitation takes a place we will obtain also that redshift takes a place. This effect can be obtained as the solution of null geodesic lines obtained We can calculate the difference between radiated and observed frequeces.

?

Maya Sedgwick> "However, the cognitive bias in the science community focuses on the winners, not the losers. So, one may have never studied all the people like Halton Arp who were not allowed to explore the idea of falsifying the BB".

Chip Arp may be no more, but his cosmology is not silenced; on the contrary, lives on and like Galileo will have the last laugh. Please see the following RG Project and the related logs:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/QUASARS-RETROSPECT-PROSPECT-AND-AS-A-POINT-OF-DEPARTURE

Larissa Borissova I agree with your chain of logic. A homogeneous isotropic universe leads to the Friedmann equations. The measurement of the redshift of distant galaxies suggests that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

But this chain of logic all depends on the initial assumptions of the Big Bang theory that the universe is either infinite or finite with no boundary. Once you go to the third option that the universe is finite with a boundary, everything changes.

The existence of a boundary implies a centre of the universe and a frame of reference for stationary space. The expansion of space is caused by expansion at the boundary. The unexpected recession velocity of distant galaxies is caused by gravitational acceleration towards the centre of the universe. So there is no dark energy and the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. The formation of matter in the form of galaxy formation events takes place over an extended period of time and these galaxies have a negligible effect on the expansion of space.

So I would not consider the universe itself as a gravitating object, rather that the galaxies within the universe affect each other gravitationally.

Richard

Richard Lewis

You keep forgetting that Friedmann's equations describe curvature and divergence and gradient of a medium but do not provide the reason for the existence of the deviation from a flat medium. Without something that causes the deviation, a continuum stays flat and existing deviations fade out. Different continuums do not interact directly. For example, the continuum of the real numbers does not interact with the continuum of the spatial numbers. Discrete actuators can implement the interaction between different continuums. The early set theorists forgot to investigate these interactions. They only discovered the existence of the real number continuum. Investigating change of a continuum was the target of differential calculus. It existed long before set theory started.

Abdul Malek Thank you for the excellent reference to the work of Halton Arp and I watched the YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EckBfKPAGNM

I thought that the first 45 minutes of the video were excellent as a presentation of the observational findings of galaxies related to quasars. The last 15 minutes of the video were devoted to the cosmology theory that he has developed and I don't agree with this part at all.

What I think needs to be done now is to take his observational data which strongly suggests a relationship between galaxies and quasars and interpret the data in the context of a new cosmology.

Firstly to say that I take the physics of general relativity as invariant throughout the universe. Secondly, the red shift and recession velocities should be taken as correct with the recession velocity being made up of the expansion of space and the velocity of the source object.

Considering the way in which spiral galaxies form:

Presentation The Formation of Spiral Galaxies

Data Black Holes

These rotating black holes might comprise one thousandth of the total mass of the galaxy which would correspond to around a billion solar masses in some cases. These black holes enclose a rotating neutron star of the same mass. Because of the rotation, the event horizon is not closed at the axis of rotation allowing jets of material to be ejected at high speed. The red shift measurements suggests velocities of up to 1/10 of the speed of light.

The time limitation associated with the Big Bang theory of 13.8 billion years is removed since it is estimated that the first galaxy formed 126 billion years ago. You can estimate the time of formation of the matter in a galaxy by counting the number of galaxies starting from the centre of the universe.

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

If the galaxy is closest to the centre it formed 126 billion years ago

If the galaxy is one of the 20 galaxies closest to the centre it formed around 112 billion years ago

If the galaxy (e.g. the Milky Way) is one of the 400 galaxies closest to the centre it formed around 98 billion years ago

If the galaxy is one of the 8000 galaxies closest to the centre it formed around 84 billion years ago

If the galaxy is one of the 160,000 galaxies closest to the centre it formed around 70 billion years ago

If the galaxy s one of the 3,200,000 galaxies closest to the centre it formed around 56 billion years ago

This estimation then gives more time for galaxy evolution both in terms of galaxy mergers and the development of adjacent objects.

It is a pity that the excellent observational work by Halton Arp has been sidelined because of his cosmological theories used to explain the observations.

Richard

Hans van Leunen In a universe which is finite with a spherical space boundary we can expect that space will be flat in the radial direction and curved parallel to the spherical boundary. This is the cause of the curvature.

Richard

Richard Lewis: Thanks for taking the trouble to peruse the reference I cited. As someone who have been a close friend and known Halton (Chip) Arp for many years (until he became incapacitated with an incurable illness and passed away in December 28, 2013), I can narrate some definitive facts about the works and the views of this noble man and model scientist. He has 338 galaxies named after him and his “Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies” is a masterpiece that opened new vision of the cosmos! It is common knowledge that he was more or less kicked out of Palomar and found some refuse in the Max-Planck Institute at Garching, near Munich, where his astrophysicist wife was employed at that time. Even in the Max-Planck Institute, Chip told me (over a dinner at his home in 2008) that other people in the Institute would keep their distance away from him, and he would only meet some of them while playing tennis!

The reason for this extreme treatment of Chip Arp and the persistent and conscious effort to kill his legacy (more effectively than violent fate of the past heretics of cosmology, through just denial and ignoring him); is that his work threatened not only official cosmology since Isaac Newton, but also the present established order under world monopoly capitalism, because the theories of Newton and Einstein has more or less replaced theology as the ruling ideas!

I came in contact with Chip around 2000, when I started a project on a dialectical approach to natural science, particularly cosmology; inspired by the works of Frederick Engels on these issues. I tried to fit Chip Arp’s discovery of the quasars (with discordant redshifts but ejected from nearby galaxies with a trail of faint links with the mother galaxies); in a dialectical perspective of the evolution of the universe. Like you I rejected the “variable mass” cosmological model of Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar, that Chip subscribed to, at that time. This he later told me was to explain both the anomalous redshift and also to avoid the problem of enormous energy necessary for ejection at such high velocities. Narlikar and his associates came up with a solution of GR, assuming mass (m) of particles as variable, hence the peculiar idea of “baby mass” (with high redshift) of the ejected quasars; eventually growing to adult hood with low redshifts!

A vigorous e-mail exchange followed over our mutual strange ideas, my dialectics and Chips “variable mass” idea. But eventually this great mind was convinced of my dialectical approach in explaining the quasars redshifts in particular and my dialectical views of the evolution of the universe in general, which is the exact opposite of the “Big Bang” theory. Chip, was the lead editor of the journal “Apeiron”, an organ where his anti “Big Bang” group and supporters used to publish their views and works. Chip helped me to publish the following two very controversial (even to his students and supports) articles, in Apeiron:

“Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies”

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

“The Cosmic Gamma-Ray Halo – New Imperative for a Dialectical Perspective of the Universe”

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO2PDF/V10N2MAL.pdf

In our Munich meeting at the end of 2008, Chip promised to write (somewhat of) a Foreword or an Introduction for my book “The dialectical Universe”, which I presented to him in the form of a manuscript. But to my great misfortune Chip became incapacitated soon after our meeting; and before he had time to bless my book. It was later published and now distributed through Amazon.

https://www.amazon.ca/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445

Chip’s incredibly rich and profound works and his discoveries of the quasars, form the fundamental basis of my dialectical view of an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe. I unequivocally reject the so-called “Big Bang” theory as a single act of creation. I have published journal articles, proving scientifically, mathematically and philosophically that Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of extra-terrestrial gravitation have no basis in objective reality, and is the very reason for the continuing and centuries-long scholastic debates and why the Fairy Tales of Big/Dark/Black cosmic monsters adorn modern cosmology. I wish Chip Arp was alive today to see my recent publications, that conclusively vindicate his profound discoveries:

"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology"

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas" :

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"QUASARS – RETROSPECT, PROSPECT AND A POINT of DEPARTURE"

Article QUASARS – RETROSPECT, PROSPECT AND A POINT of DEPARTURE

I have commented on these issues extensively in RG forums and elsewhere. I see that someone unknown to me has posted a collage of my views in the internet, which roughly (but not exactly) reflects my views on the gravitational theories of Newton and Einstein.

"Physics cooked up in ones brain":

https://www.muzsik.org/

Best regards, Abdul

Abdul Malek Thank you for that very interesting first hand story about Halton Arp. I hold his observational work in very high regard.

I took a look at the first link about breeding galaxies. I have to say that I completely agree with you that the Big Bang model of galaxy formation must be wrong but I also don't agree with the idea of breeding galaxies as the fundamental process for general galaxy formation.

What is missing from both of these theories is the idea that matter can form from empty space gradually over an extended period of time in a series of galaxy formation events. Whereas Fred Hoyle thought that galaxies formed in an infinite universe in the spaces between galaxies I am instead saying that galaxies formed in a finite universe with a boundary with the galaxy formation starting from the centre of the universe and moving outwards.

The number of galaxies increases by a factor of 20 every 14 billion years and the new galaxies form outside the existing galaxy field. By now galaxy formation has moved to beyond our observation horizon so we do not observe much new galaxy formation going on.

The important point is that the Einstein equations of General Relativity show that our conservation of energy law must be mass+energy+spacetime curvature. Hence an expanding spherical region of space which is flat in the radial direction but curved parallel to the boundary will release energy due to the change in spacetime curvature forced by the expansion.

Richard

Abdul Malek I had a look at the paper on the Cosmic Gamma-Ray halo observed around the Milky Way galaxy:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO2PDF/V10N2MAL.pdf

My guess is that it is related to dark matter which represents around 85% of the total matter in the Milky Way galaxy. As mentioned in my papers and presentations the proposed dark matter candidate is the dineutron which is formed in the galaxy formation event.

Initially neutrons form in the galaxy formation event but ~85% pair up to form dark matter. The single neutrons left decay to protons and electrons. This process produces dark matter, hydrogen and helium in an expanding spherical cloud.

The dark matter moves under gravity to form the central black hole of the galaxy which contains a neutron star of the corresponding mass. The dark matter halo would also experience gradual accretion of the dark matter into larger groups of neutrons and eventually forming neutron stars. It is proposed that most neutron stars form in this way and if the neutron star is greater than 3.4 solar masses it would form an event horizon and become a black hole.

This process of bonding together neutrons must have an energy effect and I would expect any surplus energy from a bonding neutron to be emitted as a gamma ray.

This would be my hypothesis for the cause of the cosmic gamma-ray halo.

Richard

Abdul Malek I took a look at the paper on the mystery of the Lorentz transform:

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

I agree with you that there is something wrong with Special Relativity. The postulates which ASSUME that the speed of light is the same in all moving frames of reference seems to be at odds with the idea of light as a wave propagation in a medium.

In my paper on the space rest frame:

Preprint Space Rest Frame (Dec 2021)

I suggest that there is a stationary (but expanding) frame of reference (K0) in which light actually travels and that the length contraction and time dilation proposed by Fitzgerald and Lorentz is dependent on the velocity v relative to K0.

When the length contraction hypothesis was proposed it was dismissed as an "ad hoc" assumption just to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, when you understand that electrons, neutrons and protons are looped waves in spacetime with the wave occurring in K0, then it provides an explanation for the length contraction and time dilation that was previously missing.

Preprint The Unification of Physics (June 2021)

So you can see from this approach that the speed of light will be measured to be the same in any moving frame K' because the light is actually travelling in K0 and length contraction and time dilation ensures that it will be measured to have the same speed when measured in K'.

This changes Special Relativity in a subtle way but without affecting General Relativity.

Richard

Nothing is wrong with the Lorentz transform. Wrong is its interpretation via reference frames.

Richard Lewis : Dear Prof. Lewis: Thanks again for your kind and positive interest in my works and views and for agreeing with parts of my works. I must say that aside from Chip Arp; Professor Emeritus Ragnar Larsson of Lund University, Sweden; and Prof. Eric Lord in RG; you are the only other significant person who has given a patient and kind consideration to my works. So far in RG and elsewhere I mostly faced scorn and profanity for my science that is greatly at odd with the mainstream!

I respect your views on astrophysics/cosmology presented in your comments above, there is coherence in them. I also looked through the references you cited. But unfortunately, I must say that we differ in some (at least three) fundamental ways and I do not accept your main perspective of “spacetime” as valid. In my opinion, it can at best be a scholastic perspective; without much relevance to objective reality.

1. Epistemology or the world view (Weltanschauung):

I would say that your world view or that of any established science since at least Newton; is based on causality and formal (Aristotelian) logic with the principle 'Unity, Opposition and excluded Middle'; which Hegel called the the "view of understanding“ or "metaphysics“ in contrast to his "view of reason“ or dialectics. These two conflicting views originated with the early Greeks and have undergone development and refinement in subsequent history. Causality (of immediate cause and effect) is the legacy of our evolutionary heritage starting from the most primitive life forms; which attained highest development in man. But the dialectical mode of thought could only be attributed to the thinking brain of man; because it requires the capability for abstraction, introspection, reflection, speculation etc. Causality works in a satisfactory manner for man‘s everyday life experience (good old commonsense) gained progressively and historically in terrestrial Nature, for simple and classical mechanics etc., where a particular cause and its effect can be clearly identified. But beyond this, in complex physical, biological etc. systems it does not work well and as we now see in quantum mechanics, causality breaks down completely. What is more, causality, in an iterative way leads to a "first cause“ – the effect of a cause that is unknown or unknowable and hence a mystery – God in theology, Big Bang in physics.

For dialectics, the principle is the "Unity-Opposition“ (no excluded Middle) or "the unity of the opposites“; which is a logical contradiction (the root of all change, motion, evolution development etc.). An eternal and successive resolution of contradictions (because of rational necessity) and mediated by chance and necessity, is behind the manifestation of the infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe. Being-Nothing“ of Hegel is the first and also the last contradiction in the ascending or descending order of things. For dialectics any tangible existence is a contradiction, because single element without its opposite cannot exist; leading to its instability and change.

From the discussion above, it follows that dialectics is a better and more powerful epistemology than causality. Hegel justified it in the following way: "But it is one of the fundamental prejudices of logic as hitherto understood and of ordinary thinking that contradiction is not so characteristically essential and immanent a determination as identity; but in fact, if it were a question of grading the two determinations and they had to be kept separate, then contradiction would have to be taken as the profounder determination and more characteristic of essence. For, as against contradiction, identity is merely the determination of the simple immediate, of dead being; but contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality; it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity”.

I am sorry for this rather long dissertation on this issue, but I wanted to emphasize that the difference in the two world views makes it the most important factor why my view on cosmology would be so different from that of you in particular and of the established physics in general. As I stated above, causality/formal logic, beyond a certain limit become unworkable, and epistemology has to take resort to subjective idealism (as Kant did) relying on some thought derived logical/mathematical categories, axioms, "first principles“ etc. as a sort of a Torch-Light to navigate the dark realms of complex reality and, to make some sense of it. This limitation of causality based epistemology is what led Hegel to term it metaphysics. Causality-based natural science suffers from this limitation and as is the case; beyond the ordinary realms of direct life experience and specially in the realms of the macrocosm and microcosm, this epistemology, necessarily becomes metaphysics and hence your or official epistemology on cosmology, unfortunately, in my view would be no different. I will discuss this difference in more details in a separate post.

2. The fundamental difference on the view on Space and Time:

Causality-based epistemology regard space and time either as absolute entities, independent of each other (as in Newtonian physics) or a unity of "spacetime“ in Malinowski-Einstein ontology. For causality, the origin of matter and motion is a mystery and has to come from the act of an omnipotent and omniscient entity or God. For dialectics on the contrary, the abstract space and time are related in a contradiction; which revolves to the (quasi-real) matter/antimatter virtual particle pairs of the quantum vacuum and which in turn resolves to real matter/antimatter particles with absolute sovereign motion. So, for dialectics, matter in eternal motion is the basis of objective reality. I have shown in my following article (and in the extended form of a booklet) that Hegel anticipated the quantum phenomena even if in a very obscure and highly speculative way, long before its discovery by physics!

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?

3. Finite or Infinite universe:

The epistemology of causality is incapable of conceiving the infinite universe, because it has to have a beginning in time (and space) from a "First Cause“. So all cosmology in the world view of causality must necessarily be finite – a case that both you and Einstein make! Only dialectics can conceive the infinite in a rational way through a contradiction of the finite and the infinite; Please see my following article on this issue. Many people including Prof. Eric Lord of RG praised this article:

"The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science": Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

There are other differences between the two world views, but I think these three are the main ones for your consideration. Einstein described his position on 2 and 3 in the following way: “Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.

Regards, Abdul

Richard Lewis : Please note: Dear Prof. Lewis, The following copy of my comment in another forum gives reason (as I understand it) why Hegel termed causality and formal logic-based epistemology as "metaphysics". This was written in a terse and polemical manner, which is not fit for a respectful discussion. I wanted to polish it before presenting it to you, but due to lack of time I am posting it as it is. Please do not mind if it sounds rude, disrespectful and impolite, Thanks.

[Christian Baumgarten> “Can we explain and/or derive it from "first principles"? And what might be these first principles?”

This is pure metaphysics – an abject poverty of theoretical physics starting from Isaac Newton. This is contrary to classical mechanics (classical materialism), which saw continued development through practice, since primitive men; out of sheer necessity of life and also new quantum mechanics!. This poverty (of ‘thinking thought’ as Hegel would say) has plagued theoretical physics until now and counting. And also, the reason why “the physicists do not want to understand quantum mechanics”!

So, the idea is that you can cook up in thought some axioms, “first principles”, “logical/mathematical” categories, or even take some apparent or spurious physical truth; which forms the basis of your deliberation in explaining away the sense perceptions (either direct human or through subjectively contrived instruments) of phenomenology; while the objective reality remains forever a Kantian “unknowable thing-in-itself”. The rule is that the explaining away of the sense perceptions must follow in a consistent and deterministic way from the axioms, “first principle”, premises etc. Anything more than that is “Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Philosophy in Natural Science”, courtesy of Steven Weinberg. But this metaphysics amounts to insisting on the arbitrary and random approach of dealing with sensual perceptions and taking a mathematical approach that is considered as the most “economical”, “quantitative” and “exact” determination of Nature! This is what Hegel called the “view of understanding” or metaphysics, because this is unscientific. “For science and for materialist dialectics, there could be no question of building the cooked-up laws into nature, but of discovering them in it and evolving them from it!”.

The Newtonian metaphysics can be discerned from the very first sentence of the Foreword of his ‘Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica’, “Now that (since Bacon) the substantial forms (of the Aristotelians) have been abandoned from natural philosophy, mathematics should replace them to the maximum possible extent.” The first application of this mathematical metaphysics of Newton was not in terrestrial sciences, which could easily be proved wrong, through experience, but was in the mystical realm of the planetary system of the heavenly bodies, with perfectly circular orbits and with a "first impulse" from God.

From another trend of the "logical categories" of “Pure Reason”, Immanuel Kant brought metaphysics to its epitome in philosophy. Albert Einstein, following Kant, brought Newtonian mathematical metaphysics to theoretical physics with a vengeance! Because, while for Kant his metaphysics could deal only with the “phenomena” (the “smile” of the Cheshire Cat, not the “noumena”, i.e., not the “unknowable Cat itself”); Newtonian and Einsteinian mathematical metaphysics claim to represent the “objective reality” or the Cat itself!

But this defiance of the master (the mighty thinker Kant) by Einstein “has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties"!; and has brought centuries-long metaphysics in modern theoretical physics and cosmology that has condemned modern physicists to endless scholasticism. Following Einstein, now every Tom, Dick, Harry and Mary can form and/or modify their own logical/mathematical categories to make “first principles” or premises and use those to explain away the phenomenology of objective reality; making theoretical physics a breeding ground of fantasies and Fairy Tales! The recognition of the quantum phenomena by the turn of the 20th century has only made the misery worse, as this forum shows!

This farce of “Love’s Labour’s Lost” for the past few centuries of theoretical physics started with Newton himself, who ironically warned: “Physics Beware of Metaphysics”! But shocking and incredible as it may sound (I know epitaphs of insult would soon follow this comment); the essence of this farce would be palpable, when it is realized that all these few centuries-long metaphysics of Newton and Einstein, also known as the cosmology of modern times; had already been shown to be scientifically, mathematically and philosophically WRONG, by Kepler and Leibniz and later by Hegel! Newton and later his compatriot Arthur Eddington, with the help from the State and the Church imposed this metaphysics on theoretical physics and cosmology by the fiat of political authority and deception in the case of Eddington!]

Abdul Malek We have strayed a little bit off topic and I can see that we are into physics and metaphysics so I will do my best to answer the point. I do think that it is important to lay the foundations of physics first. The starting point for the Open World project is to understand the evolution of the universe and to unify physics at the fundamental level.

Then armed with this knowledge we can tackle the difficult question of how the brain works:

Preprint The Conscious Brain

It turns out that understanding how the brain works has been blocked in the past by a lack of understanding of fundamental physics. Once you understand the Spacetime Wave theory you can then understand how the neurons in the brain develop connections and the focus of attention emerges to provide consciousness.

So we use fundamental physics to explain understanding and reason and perception and correct some of the misunderstandings of the philosophers of the past. Metaphysics and philosophy is a useful tool to challenge scientific ideas but it is dangerous to draw too many conclusions from philosophy and metaphysics without understanding fundamental physics.

Richard

Although - as Richard points out - the debate has somewhat veered off its starting point, I welcome this fruitful exchange between fundamental physics, cosmology, epistemology, "metaphysics" and philosophy - there ought to be more such exchanges across the great physics-philosophy divide!

Best wishes & thank you,

Julius

Julius Riese > “I welcome this fruitful exchange between fundamental physics, cosmology, epistemology, "metaphysics" and philosophy - there ought to be more such exchanges across the great physics-philosophy divide”!

I could not agree more with you! Theoretical physics with and after Einstein became so much confident of its mathematical idealism and determinism that prominent physicists now disparage philosophy at every opportunity. Richard Feynman reportedly said, “Philosophy is to physics, what ornithology is to the birds”. Steven Weinberg in his book “Dream of a Final Theory” said as a parody of a book title on mathematics, “The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Philosophy in Natural Science”. But I must say in retort to Prof. Weinberg or any physicist at all, that dialectical philosophy abolishes any question of finality forever and Prof. Weinberg et al., will never have a “Final Theory” or “A theory of Everything” that they are foolishly pursuing!

I would compare the view of Feynman and Weinberg with the following quote from Frederick Engels, “It is however precisely the polar antagonisms put forward as irreconcilable and insoluble, the forcibly fixed lines of demarcation and class distinctions, which have given modern theoretical natural science its restricted, metaphysical character. The recognition that these antagonisms and distinctions, are in fact to be found in nature, but only with relative validity, and that on the other hand their imagined rigidity and absolute validity have been introduced into nature only by our reflective minds — this recognition is the kernel of the dialectical conception of nature…. In any case natural science has now advanced so far that it can no longer escape dialectical synthesis. But it will make this process easier for itself if it does not lose sight of the fact that the results in which its experiences are summarised are concepts, but that the art of working with concepts is not inborn and also is not given with ordinary everyday consciousness, but requires real thought, and that this thought similarly has a long empirical history, not more and not less than empirical natural science. Only by learning to assimilate the results of the development of philosophy during the past two and a half thousand years will it rid itself on the one hand of any natural philosophy standing apart from it, outside it and above it, and on the other hand also of its own limited method of thought, which is its inheritance from English empiricism”. “Anti-Dühring”

As I said in my comment above, Hegel’s philosophy of space and time anticipated the quantum phenomena, even if in a very obscure and highly speculative way. Based on materialist dialectics and recent developments in quantum physics, I have proposed a dialectical interpretation of quantum electrodynamics (QED); where the mainstream physicists, with their epistemology of causality, is out of their depth for more than a century and is still struggling. Please see my last comment (few days ago) in the following RG forum and also the references cited.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-it-true-that-physicists-do-not-want-to-understand-quantum-mechanics

Best regards, Abdul

Although it is probably out of topic, I am posting a copy of my comment cited above, for the convenience of anybody in this forum, who might be interested:

[Very well said and you are right; “Physicists don’t understand their own theory any better than a typical smartphone user understands what’s going on inside the device.”

They will never understand the quantum phenomena with their epistemology based on causality and formal logic, which Hegel called metaphysics. Please refer to my comment above. Our theoretical physicists with their sense of infallibility of their mathematics even seem to take pride of their ignorance of the quantum phenomena on the one hand assuming how ridiculous mother Nature could be and on the other hand throwing arms in the air with despair like Einstein, “Many physicists maintain - and there are weighty arguments in their favour – that in the face of these facts (quantum mechanical), not merely the differential law, but the law of causation itself - hitherto the ultimate basic postulate of all natural science – has collapsed”.A. Einstein, “Essays in Science”, p. 38-39 (1934)

Physics needs a revolutionary change of its epistemology - from traditional causality to dialectical materialism; to deal with this new revolutionary aspect of objective reality! Is the Uncertainty Principle of QED just a measurement problem or a fundamental aspect of the sub-structure of objective reality? These are both scientific, philosophical and practical questions brought to focus through some recent publications:

Scientific: "Are you certain Mr. Heisenberg"? https://phys.org/news/2012-01-heisenberg-deepen-quantum-uncertainty.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2194

Article Experimental demonstration of a universally valid error-dist...

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Philosophical: The quantum phenomena are a revolutionary aspect of objective reality that no one could even think of, even in wild imagination; before its discovery. Only Hegel’s dialectical philosophy, even if in a very obscure and highly speculative way could anticipate this revolutionary phenomenon. The quantum vacuum, the "virtual particles" and their transformation to "real particles" may be understood in terms of the "Being-Nothing-Becoming" of Hegel's ontological triad: Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?

Practical: The conservation laws (of energy/mass) in physics and thermodynamics, including "Ex nihilo nihil fit" of philosophy are assumed a priori truths, but these are only valid at macroscopic scale. Nature at quantum level is fundamentally uncertain – it is not a statistical aberration – but a fact and a phenomenon ascertained by Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED). The law of the conservation of mass/energy of thermodynamics and physics breaks down at quantum level and creation “ex nihilo” is practically feasible! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

https://www.accessscience.com/content/electron-positron-pair-production-and-annihilation/224710

The "virtual particles" can become "real particles" if sufficient energy equivalent to compensate for their mass is available. There is also a finite probability that a "virtual particle" can become "real" (even without sufficient energy for mass equivalence) through a phenomenon known as "quantum tunnelling". The "Lamb Shift" and the Lande factor of magnetic moment of electrons relies on the concept of "virtual particles" of QED and can be very accurately (most precise known in physics) measured. This effect can also be measured as the Casimir force with much less efficiency. The permittivity and the permeability of the classical vacuum can be attributed to collective effect of the momentary existence of infinite number of virtual particles of the quantum vacuum.

In fact, it is possible that this spontaneous creation (ex nihilo) of fundamental particles from the quantum vacuum (and not through the Big Bang) is how the galaxies (along with all other things) evolve, “come into being and pass out of existence” and maintained throughout this infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe as asserted by dialectics:

"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies"

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

"The Cosmic Gamma-Ray Halo - New Imperative for a Dialectical..."

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO2PDF/V10N2MAL.pdf

It has been made abundantly clear in these publications that the uncertainty principle is not just a simple measurement or statistical problem as is commonly assumed. Uncertainty and the breakdown of the conservation laws at the substructure of quantum level is a fundamental aspect of objective reality. At macroscopic (human) scale the objective reality is just a gross, averaged-out, summed-up and apparently stable superstructure of micro-level quantum uncertainty.]

Dear Abdul @AbdulMalek,

thank you very much for your comment! I greatly appreciate the thoughtfulness and care you put into your posts. As I said before, I am very symapthetic to and interested in a truly TRANS-disciplinary collaboration between physics (fundamental physics, quantum mechanics, empirical and theoretical cosmology etc.) on one side and philosophy (e.g., epistemology, ontology, philosophy of science etc.) on the other side. I see that you are passionately advocating an - if I understand correctly - dialectical cosmology/ontology emplyoing the early works of Hegel and other scholars. I have looked at some of your posts and papers, but confess that I need more time to fully grasp what you're proposing. However, as far as I can see, you appear to be employing dialectics and/or a dialectic (perhaps even materialistic?) methodology to argue for an infinite universe, right? I have already shared this thread with my esteemed colleague Salvador Escobdeo (here on RG) who is both a trained physicist as well as a philosopher. He might actually have more to contribute here. In the meantime, I'd be very interested to know whether you perhaps have a condensed, concise version of your Hegelian dialectic fundamental physics/cosmology which would be accessible and easy to read for "both sides of the aisle", so to speak?

Thank you & stay well!

Julius

Julius Riese

Dear Julius, Thanks for the kind words about me. As I said above, Prof. Lewis was the fourth significant person who gave some serious consideration to my works. You are the fifth person to have some favourable view of my works on modern theoretical physics and cosmology, which is greatly at odd, nay the exact opposite of the mainstream views. I also owe to Prof Lewis the opportunity he gave to express my ideas in this forum. In the very title of the forum, Prof. Lewis opens the possibility of criticism of the Big Bang theory, which more or less forms the ruling idea of modern times and as his subsequent comments indicates that he himself doubts its validity.

I faced lots of abuse and hostility against me, since I started writing on these issues inspired by Chip Arp around 2000, and for the last few years in RG and also elsewhere. A forum initiated by me on Einstein’s theories of relativity; which attracted many prominent physicists, mathematicians and other thinkers from around the world and ran for about two years, was ultimately closed to further comments by an unprecedented RG ruling. One person unknown to me, who made a collage (link below) of my views in that forum and posted in the Internet was also blocked from view for a long time and there were a number of fake websites ostensively, discussing my works, but were in fact traps for Cyber attacks on computers searching for my works. Recently, (thankfully) Google seems to have taken steps to remove these threats and the collage of that person is now available to general view : https://www.muzsik.org/blog/2021/04/physics-cooked-up-in-ones-brain/

Yes, indeed. I passionately and unequivocally reject the contentions of modern official theoretical physics and cosmology (also the interpretations of quantum physics), which are based on causality/formal logic and the mathematical idealism of the early Greeks. I have shown through my works that neither Newton’s nor Einstein’ extra-terrestrial gravitational theories have any basis in the objective reality of the cosmos. Either theory influenced (and biased) observations; and/or correct observation trying to fit in wrong theories are the reasons for the Fairy Tales of Big/Dark/Black cosmic Monsters of modern cosmology! Ideology driven politics and scientists corrupted with the lure of fame, fortune, position and funds; are behind the untruths of modern astrophysics/cosmology.

Inspired by Frederick Engels’ materialist dialectical approach to natural science (who in fact is my mentor and whom I closely follow) and Hegel’s philosophy, I not only criticize modern official physics, but have proposed some (tentative) alternative theories, both in the realms of the microcosm of the quantum world and the macrocosm of the galaxies; in some published books, journal articles, and also through comments in social media like RG. I am trying to extend materialist dialectics in these new realms; which were mostly and/or completely unknown to Hegel, Marx or Engels. And even Lenin, who came to know about the quantum phenomena and wrote the book, “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism"; mostly criticized the idealistic and theistic orientation of the theoretical physicists of his time; but gave more emphasis on classical materialism. Lenin (in his "Philosophical Notes") even denounced Hegel’s ontological contradiction “Being-Nothing” as idealist fantasy!

I do indeed, insist on the dialectical assertion (at least) since Epicurus that the universe is Infinite, Eternal and Ever-Changing. Unfortunately, I do not (as you suggest), “have a condensed, concise version of your Hegelian dialectic fundamental physics/cosmology which would be accessible and easy to read”. So far, I have three booklets distributed through Amazon, which are in fact a collection of my individually published articles. The one closest to your liking might be the booklet, “The Dialectical Universe”. The following three articles on “The Infinite…”, “Kepler-Newton-Leibniz-Hegel…” and “...The Breeding Galaxies) may be the least technical and the closest entry points to my dialectical views on “fundamental physics/cosmology”.

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies"

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

Best regards, Abdul

Abdul Malek I do recall a similar problem when I tried to join a mainstream physics forum. When I announced that I thought that the Big Bang theory and the standard model of particle physics were both wrong I was not allowed to join. This is was about 10 years ago.

More recently I recall Sean Carroll saying that if you don’t believe in the Big Bang theory there is no place for you at this discussion.

Going back a bit there was a lovely video by Fred Hoyle which is available on YouTube where he says that if you are a researcher and you find something opposed to current theory, then give up and work on something else!

I can understand why there is a need for a scientific consensus otherwise there would be complete chaos and the universities wouldn’t know what to teach. Also for researchers working in the field a sudden change or paradigm shift could be quite traumatic. I think we should be very tolerant when our ideas seem to be ignored.

Honestly, I don’t think the evolution of the universe matters that much in terms of the human condition. I also think that the same might be said of fundamental physics except that I do have a concern. I am convinced that it is the lack of a proper understanding of fundamental physics that is preventing a proper understanding of the operation of the brain. The brain requires an understanding of biology, chemistry and physics and it is the physics that is holding us back.

With the current crisis in mental health, understanding how the brain works is of urgent importance.

Having said all that which is broadly in agreement with your post I have to say that I prefer a scientific approach to solving problems rather than a philosophical approach.

Best regards

Richard

Richard Lewis Dear Prof. Lewis, Thanks for your very thoughtful comment, It is useful for me. And also reporting on your personal experience regarding the “Big Bang” theory and SM. I think that the Big Bang theory is not a scientific theory at all and stands in the same relation to modern times as Newton’s theory was in the past. Both were "booster shots" to keep theology and the prevailing established order in good shape; in the face of revolutionary threats – Copernican revolution in case of Newton and revolutionary quantum phenomena in case of GR and Big Bang theory.

As I have shown in my two articles, Newton’s theory of extra-terrestrial gravitation was more or less imposed on physics defying the gross scientific (Kepler), mathematical (Leibniz), and philosophical (Hegel) defects. In the case of GR and Big Bang, these are based on purely geometrical/mathematical idealism and have absolutely no basis in objective reality; in spite of the forceful attempts to “prove” these theories! “Big Bang” was the idea of the Belgian priest and mathematician Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître and it was adopted as a theory of physics at a conference at the Vatican. The following quote from Geoffrey Burbidge will make things more clear: “By 1982, when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F. Hoyle, V. Ambartsuminan and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents.

In fact in the introduction to the published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers” : G Burbidge, In “The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology.

Unfortunately, I do not agree with Prof Hoyle (I learnt a lot about him from Chip Arp) and your position on paradigm shift. The reasoning that paradigm shift will lead to chaos and will disrupt the established order; would bar any change and further development from an alienated state! It is precisely through paradigm shifts that natural science developed as a historical process. Without the Copernican revolution in cosmology that led to the mighty Bourgeois Democratic revolution in Europe; we would have been still in medieval despondency!

For Hegel, negation is the very root of creation (“The portentous power of the negative”. All evolutionary processes attest to this truth. Hegel reversed Spinoza’s principle, “All determination is negation”; to "All negation is determination" as a much more powerful principle! In fact this constitutes one of the three laws of dialectics, namely, “The negation of the negation” – a process for the eternal manifestation (change, motion, evolution etc.), of the universe, Nature, Life, Society and Thought!

I also firmly disagree with your contention, “I prefer a scientific approach to solving problems rather than a philosophical approach”. This is the general raisons d'être, most physicists use to reject materialist dialectics. But this is a wrong reasoning. Because for materialist dialectics (Engels), philosophy in the conventional meaning of the term, came to an end with Hegel! In my next post, I will provide a copy of my writing (elsewhere) on this issue. Unfortunately, because I face much hostility to my views, I usually have to take a militant stance and use strong expressions and forceful words in my writings. Please excuse me if (like the copy of my other comment above) this seems somewhat strongly worded!

Best regards, Abdul

Richard Lewis : Please note; The following is the copy, mentioned above:

[Philosophy in the conventional meaning of the term, comes to an end with Hegel’s dialectics. Because, if the aim of all philosophies were to find the final, absolute truth of the world, Hegel’s dialectics shows that such an aim of philosophy can never be fulfilled. Philosophy and science are destined to deal only with relative truths, in a progressively iterative (but never ending) way! Dialectics then becomes a part of the positive sciences, summarizing, intuiting and guiding the empirical search for objective truths of the world.

But what’s of post-Hegelian philosophy? If natural science, in spite of its phenomenal achievements still finds itself begging at the door of theology, it has the satisfaction of seeing philosophy sink lower still. Modern philosophy maintains (as Engels put it) a pseudo existence in the state appointed academia, where, position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-crackers occupy the chairs of philosophy. Instead of looking for profound truths in the wide world of nature and human society like their predecessors, these namesakes either work openly as the apologists of monopoly capitalism or look inwards to “self” (existentialism) or to language (linguistic philosophy) etc. ad nauseam to hunt for absolute truth.

Stephen Hawking is absolutely right when he says: “In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: Did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, ‘The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.’ What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!”. ("A Brief History of Time").

But it is modern natural science that is hiding its bankruptcy and confusion under the mystery of mathematics and like an ostrich is burying its head in the sand of causality and determinism. The philosophy of Heraclitus, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hegel, Marx and Engels means nothing to it. Modern natural science, has come under total subjugation of monopoly capital, and has dishonoured the great tradition set by Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin. A natural science, which was once inspired by the revolutionary bourgeoisie and created these giants of science, has now become a lap dog of reactionary monopoly capital. Modern natural science wants to bring back the absolutist and obscurantist science of feudalism to serve the interest of moribund monopoly capital. It is churning up a “complete theory” of exquisite mathematical beauty and of absolute validity for all eternity, a theory, which is not empirically verifiable. Like modern philosophy, present day natural science has reduced its scope to mere application of the absolute truth it has attained in the realm of nature. Only those facts that conform to this truth are of interest to science, those that do not, remains in the realms of the Creator or at best are Kantian “thing in itself”. Thus, we have not only a “comedown from the great tradition of philosophy” but a comedown from the great tradition of science too.]

Dear All,

I'd be interested to learn whether readers and contributors to this thread see potential in either string theroy (for instance, M-theory) and/or in loop quantum gravity (LQG) in its different incarnations such as loop quantum cosmology (LQC) to solve some of the remaining riddles surrounding Big Bang theory? Are M-theroy and LQG/LQC capable of describing the origin and characteristics of the Big Bang as well as the subsquent evolution of the universe adequately?

Thanks,

Julius

Julius Riese I think it is unlikely that any of the theories you reference will resolve the key problems of the Big Bang theory which are: Dark matter, dark energy, conservation of mass/energy, the angular momentum problem, the formation of spiral galaxies, objects older than 13.8 billion years, the cause of the CMB, the conflicting measurements of the expansion of space.

The theories that you reference are trying to resolve the conflict between General Relativity and Quantum theory and this conflict has to be resolved in a different way:

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Richard

A complicated mathematical structure like a system of Hilbert spaces that share the same underlying vector space makes more chance to explain the contents and the essence of our universe. This structure has many features in common with the Standard Model of experimental particle physicists and can explain many cosmological problems.

Dear Richard,

I am having difficulties opening your MP4 files, but I thank you very much for your input. I greatly appreciate it.

Best wishes,

Julius

"The Inner Universe Theory of Dark Energy Interpretation"

..

We suppose that there is a relationship between the center of the universe that lies in the fifth dimension and the acceleration of the universe expansion. The center of the universe has limited energy that leaks with time. The center of the universe is responsible for accelerating the expansion of the universe according to a certain mechanism. Universe is not created as a result of the Big Bang, but as a result of a leakage of energy from the inner universe, (the center), that led to the emergence of a new external universe, which is our current universe. This inner universe is currently the center of the universe and causing the acceleration of the universe expansion. This can be explained in details as follows:

First of all, the leakage of the energy from the center, (inner universe), has created the current universe. Due to this leakage, the speed of the center's rotation is increasing at a fixed point with time as a result of the decrease of its energy and mass, and due to the lack of the friction and resistance. Increasing rotation leads to increasing the leakage of the dark energy as a wave that forms acceleration, causing an increment in its outer perimeter, which leads to an increase in the universe expansion. The decreased energy from the center causes a reduction in the mass, which leads to more rotation and so on. This rotation causes expansion in space-time, which leads to a direct proportional relationship between the expansion acceleration of the outer universe and the increased rotation of the center of the universe around itself in a fixed point.

Julius Riese If you have difficulty with accessing the video presentations here are the original conference papers:

Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)

Conference Paper The Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Richard

Oh, thank you very much, Richard! That is great. I managed to download the two papers and will look at them over the coming weekend. Extremely busy teaching right now... Thanks & I'll be in touch again soon, Julius

Yes. For example, if the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation had been inconsistent with nearly isotropic black body thermal radiation at (approximately) 3 degrees Kelvin, the Big Bang theory would have been disproved.

https://www.quora.com › Is-the-Big-...

Is the Big Bang ('umph') theory falsifiable? - Quora

Here are the most (and least) realistic. The Big Bang Theory took pride in how fairly accurate its "science talk" was. ... The show even used real science to come up with its own theories. For the most part, the storylines, both scientific and those related to the character's personal lives, were resounding successes.Dec 11, 2020

https://screenrant.com › big-bang-th...

The Big Bang Theory: The 5 Most (& 5 Least) Realistic Storylines

Two major scientific discoveries provide strong support for the Big Bang theory: • Hubble's discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy's distance from Earth and its speed; and • the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation.

https://www.uwa.edu.au › Docs › E...

Evidence for the Big Bang - University of Western Australia

Three key pieces of observational evidence lend support to the Big Bang theory: the measured abundances of elements, the observed expansion of space, and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB).

https://www.pbslearningmedia.org › ...

Evidence for the Big Bang Theory | PBS LearningMedia

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/isu72/what_evidence_could_falsify_the_big_bang_model/,kindly check this link.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/what-happened-big-bang,u can follow this link.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can-Popperian-falsifiability-be-applied-to-cosmology-science,this link may be helpful.

The CMB could alternately indicate that the firmament is toroidal; further laying credence to the idea that earth is fixed (& hence the aether is real (no motion = no drag)) and the universe is geocentric.

Preprint Dynamic Theory of the Aether [DRAFT] - Unifying Gravity, Lig...

Chapter 6 is on CMB multipole analysis anisotropy and the implications regarding the ΛCDM model.

Physics tends to avoid singularities. Why didn't it avoid the big bang?

One thing I was wondering regarding The Big Bang - please correct me if I wrong: there are parts of observable universe ( simply saying if look very far into opposite directions or even in relation to our postion) that are beyond light cone to each other but might be in principle to some degree quantum entangled since early stage of inflation. So proving that such entanglement (so far - no idea if it can be done or how it can be done) exist would be a very strong argument...

The big bang theory already is falsified because many assumptions of the theory are falsified:

Matter/antimatter asymmetry, dark matter/energy, existence of ultralarge objects, unclear finite/infinite topology, inflation scenario, too intense gravitational waves, contradictions in redshift observations, isotropy of the CMB (after assuming an absolute movement of our solar system in the universe), isotropic large scale matter distribution, isotropic statistics in the distribution of all special celestial objects,...

Nikolay Pavlov That's an interesting idea but it assumes the Big Bang theory and inflation and that entangled states can persist for around 14 billion years. In other models without inflation there could still be entanglement but it would not stretch beyond the horizon of observation so it would be a good indicator of the presence of inflation. However, I am sceptical that it will be found because I think the Big Bang theory is wrong and inflation is not applicable:

Preprint The Evolution of the Universe

Richard

Wolfgang Konle I agree with your list of reasons to take the Big Bang theory as false. I would welcome your assessment of this alternative theory:

Preprint The Evolution of the Universe

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Richard

Faraed Salman The three pieces of evidence that you cite are:

1) The observed abundance of elements

2) The expansion of the universe

3) The cosmic microwave background

I will respond to each point:

1) The observed abundance of elements is referenced in Wikipedia and the correlation is not perfect and there is the cosmological lithium problem. The conclusions are drawn based on assumptions from the CMB (see point 3). When the correct theory of the evolution of the universe is analysed the correlation should be perfect.

2) The expansion of the universe is not very well explained by the Big Bang theory as it depends on fine tuning of the factors supposedly causing expansion. Moreover if you trace the supposed expansion history of the universe you get an initial expansion rate, then inflation, then inflation stops and expansion slows, then it accelerates again. This is not very plausible and the cause of this variation in expansion rate is not given. There is a better explanation that the universe is finite with a space boundary and the expansion at the boundary is the cause of the general expansion of space. This expansion is constant over time and distance:

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

3) This is the worst piece of evidence because, as explained in the original posting, the concept of recombination conveniently happening at 3000 degrees Kelvin to match the prediction of the Big Bang theory has not been verified in the laboratory.

Richard

Richard Lewis Conclusion: There was no Big Bang and the age of the universe is greater than 300 billion years. Galaxies then formed over time due to the energy released by the expansion of space throughout the universe. The nature of Dark Matter is explained as the dineutron. This is two neutrons bonded together. There is no dark energy and the expansion of the universe is not accelerating"

One question to your conclusion:

How could star fuel survive such a long time?

Are you interested in another hypothesis, which also denies big bang and proposes an eternal existence of the universe with a star fuel recycling process?

Wolfgang Konle That is an excellent question. To answer the point I will describe the estimated history of the Milky Way galaxy. About 100 billion years ago a number of galaxy formation events occurred with a typical separation of around 2 million light years. Two of these spherical regions of hydrogen and dark matter interacted under the expansion of space and gravitational attraction. The result after around 20 billion years was a spiral galaxy and the pressure of the merger led to star formation. These would be single stars not binaries.

It took the next merger around 20 billion years later for the creation of a galaxy with a significant number of binary stars as the merging stars interact in pairs to create the angular momentum. The stars might explode in a super nova but the angular momentum is retained.

Stella evolution creates stars of various ages. There is always plenty of residual hydrogen and dark matter for more star formation triggered by the next merger. Dark matter is comprised of neutrons and so contributes mass to star formation. Neutron stars can form directly from dark matter and if the neutron star mass exceeds 3.4 solar masses it forms an event horizon and we call it a black hole.

Richard

Richard Lewis "There is always plenty of residual hydrogen and dark matter for more star formation triggered by the next merger."

What do you mean by merger? Is it something like the collision of the milky way galaxy with the andromeda nebulae?

I think you are not interested in alternate theories. Is this correct?

Wolfgang Konle Yes, the future merger of the Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy is an example of a galaxy merger. Mergers are really important in the evolution of the universe because they trigger star formation.

You might also be interested in the calculation of the past history of the relative motion of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. Starting from the assumption that these galaxies formed at around the same time and were at rest in the space rest frame Preprint Space Rest Frame (Dec 2021)

Presentation A calculation of the past motion of the galaxy Andromeda

This is a very significant calculation because it shows that they started off around 53.9 billion years ago. The model also illustrates the combined effect of gravity and expansion and how it would have the effect of causing the remote sides of the spherical clouds of gas and dark matter to trail and form the spiral arms of the merged galaxy.

I am always interested in alternate theories and I will do my best to give you my opinion.

Richard

Richard Lewis "I am always interested in alternate theories and I will do my best to give you my opinion."

I will give you an outline of an alternate theory:

The theory begins with the assumption that an absolute negative energy density is not allowed and physically impossible. If we apply this assumption to the negative energy density of gravitational fields around matter, we see that a cosmic gravitational field with a positive energy density must exist, which overcompensates the negative energy density of gravitational fields.

If you consider that field energy density is proportional to field strength squared and if you also consider that amplifying the gravitational field provides energy, you see that the negative energy density of the gravitational field is fact.

The existence of such a cosmic gravitational field with positive energy density leads to a paradigm change in cosmology. The new paradigm is an eternal existence of the cosmos with an uninterrupted support of the existence of life.

The reason for this paradigm change is given by the properties of that cosmic field.

(1) Gravitation.

Gravitational fields around matter are depressions of the cosmic field. This does not change anything about gravitational impact if the cosmic gravitational field is homogenous.

The energy density E of a gravitational field is now given by: E = Ecosmic - g²/(8πG); g is the gravitational acceleration; G is the gravitational constant. E is always positive or zero. It is zero around black hole matter because the gravity of this matter otherwise would exceed the compensation capability of the cosmic field

(2) Space topology.

The cosmic field bends space to a S³ structure. An S³ structure has a finite volume and no outer rim. Homogenously filled with matter it does not show any tendency to collapse. Only local collapses are possible.

(3) Red shift.

The space geometry has circular geodesics. The increased length of the geodesics and gravitational absorption mechanisms (c.f. (6)) cause the Hubble red shift.

(4) Gravitational waves.

The cosmic field provides a medium-based wave excitation and propagation mechanism which is much more efficient as the vacuum-based quadrupole radiation mechanism currently assumed for gravitational waves.

(5) Dark energy and dark matter

With the medium based wave excitation mechanism, stars become volume-emitters of those excitations. The flow of those excitations is an amplification of the cosmic field. The amplification has the opposite impact as the field depression caused by gravity. This amplification partly shields the gravitational impact of star matter. The shielding ends if the excitation level has reached the background level. The excitation energy is dark energy, and the shielded matter is dark matter.

(6) Energy absorption

The cosmic field swallows a tiny fraction of the energy contained in all mechanical and electrodynamical activities in the universe.

(7) Accessibility of black hole matter

Black hole matter is the only energy form which allows an interaction with the cosmic field excitations. But black hole matter is shielded by the zero-gravity zone (c.f.(1))

(8) Energy recycling

If the cosmic field has swallowed enough excitation energy, it penetrates the zero-gravity zone around black hole matter. With other words, the width of the zero-gravity zone shrinks to zero. The cosmic field then transfers the excitation energy to black hole matter. The black hole matter loses its confinement and evaporates within a few million years to neutron clouds. The neutron clouds decay to hydrogen and provide new star fuel for the next about 20 billion years.

(9) Matter/antimatter asymmetry

This asymmetry has been and is forever.

Dear Richard et al.,

I continue to follow this thread with great interest. Thanks to all for the time and effort you put into this. However, it appears to me that contributors tend to put forward and explain their own personal theories (largely alternate theories to the standard Big Bang ensemble of theories), but that there is relatively little exchange on how such different theories could be reconciled with each other in order to jointly work on a common theoretical edifice. So I was just wondering whether anybody knows of fora specifically dedicated to discussing and jointly working on such alternate theoretical proposals, by which I mean not just presentations of stand-alone proposals, but really to tackle these questions in an open-ended collaborative process?

One other thing: Some contributions have mentioned time frames far besond the 13.6 or so billion years usually cited for the Big Bang. I'd be interested to learn from these contributors: Are you proposing a universe that is infinite/endless in time or do you think that there has been an absolute beginning and that there will be an absolute end to the universe(/reality?) we are capable of observing? In other words: Has time existed forever? Will it exist forever?

Many thanks & best wishes to all,

Julius

Julius Riese "Has time existed forever? Will it exist forever?"

Citation from the previous post:

The new paradigm is an eternal existence of the cosmos with an uninterrupted support of the existence of life.

Julius Riese

If you look at theories that are proposed by humans, then you better first consider the restrictions that humans have with thinking about these subjects and with communicating these subjects. Humans must give these subjects a name or other kind of identification and that identification must go together with a concise description of the subject. These prerequisites can easily go wrong. The result will be confusing communication or reasoning that takes off in the wrong way. Please read how this has affected physics in a serious way.

Preprint Confusing constructions

Julius Riese

According to the Daon Theory, The Universe is oscillating with a period of around 100 billion years. We are now around 14.3 billion years into the phase of expansion. In the phase of contraction, the gravitation change sign i.e., the stars emit all their masse. Even more important the enormous "Black holes" become enormous "white holes" these will produce enormous bubbles of expanding plasma, which will be the beginning of the "seeds" for the next period of expansion.

During the period of contraction, no life is possible!

Several "constants" are not constant but vary depending on the size of the Universe. More details can be found in "https://daontheory.com" but that version will be updated later on.

JES

Wolfgang Konle The way that your description is different from my world view is the introduction of something called the cosmic field to which you.have given a real physical existence.

This is not unlike the approach of the standard model of particle physics where fields are considered to be real fundamental physical entities.

What I am trying to do is to start only with the assumption of the existence of Spacetime as the fundamental starting point.

So I start with the Einstein equations of GR which equate the mass/energy tensor to the curved Spacetime tensor. You can rearrange this equation so that the mass/energy tensor minus the curved Spacetime tensor equals zero. Now we know as you have said that mass and energy must be positive so we have to include a curved Spacetime component in our conservation of energy law.

So I do think that we can progress just using the properties of Spacetime without the need to introduce a cosmic field.

Richard

Julius Riese I think the most satisfactory forum for discussing these ideas is this ResearchGate web site.

The problem with trying to reconcile ideas through debate is that each person has their own world view which is detailed and comprehensive and discussion of detailed points out of context does not result in progress.

There does not seem to be an international committee to decide on fundamental issues in physics and cosmology. In the early 1900s the Solvay conferences had considerable influence. More recently the Nobel prize committee has had considerable influence. They have endorsed the existence of the Higgs field and singularities in black holes both of which I think are wrong.

Things move very slowly but I am optimistic that the James Webb telescope will find something that contradicts the Big Bang theory and then mainstream cosmology will start to look for alternatives.

in answer to your question regarding an end to the universe, in the model that I propose the universe is finite with a space boundary and expansion continues at the same rate forever. As regards a beginning this is more difficult and the model start with a spherical region of empty space of radius one light year. In theory you could go further back in time with the radius shrinking by a factor of e (2.71) every 14 billion years so that there was no beginning. This is not totally satisfactory so I have left this point unresolved. I am quite confident about the evolution story going forward so that the universe expands for around 200 billion years before the first galaxy formed around 126 billion years ago.

Richard

Richard Lewis "So I do think that we can progress just using the properties of Spacetime without the need to introduce a cosmic field."

However, without a cosmic field we have a negative energy density in the gravitational fields around matter, and there is no chance of recycling star fuel.

Theoretical physicists and mathematicians regularly create huge disagreements. Still, math lectures and physics lectures are presented by many universities worldwide. It is remarkable that no standard mathematics or standard physics is established. Still, particle experimental physicists have their Standard Model. The problem is that this model is already spoiled by theoretical physicists that adhere QFT, QED, and QCD, and by the irresponsible proponents of the Higgs particle.

We can learn from the lesson that the history of the quaternions teaches. Read

Preprint Confusing constructions

My advice, try to disprove, improve, or extend the calculation rules, differential equations. and integral equations that are contained in Preprint Advanced Hilbert space technology

Julius Riese > “Are you proposing a universe that is infinite/endless in time or do you think that there has been an absolute beginning and that there will be an absolute end to the universe(/reality?) we are capable of observing?”

This is the most fundamental ontological and epistemological question for philosophy, physics and cosmology since antiquity. This was also the issue of the most fundamental contention between the world view based on causality and formal logic; which answered this question in the negative and the world view of dialectics that asserted an affirmative view. Epicurus (341- 270 B.C.), following the dialectics of Heraclitus (544 – 483 B.C.) for the first time unequivocally posited that the universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing.

The reason for the conflict of view on this question is that a causality-based epistemology cannot comprehend infinity. Causality is an iterative way always leads to a “First Cause” (or a beginning), i.e., the “Effect" of a “Cause” that is unknown or unknowable, hence a mystery. For Christian theology, since God created the universe in the finite past; it must have a beginning and hence a finite past in time and also a finite extension. This doctrine of theology was strictly enforced. Giordano Bruno for example, was burnt alive on the Stake for insisting that the universe is infinite!

Causality and formal logic-based epistemology of philosophy, physics and mathematics; suffered from the same limitation as that of theology in comprehending the infinite and never, in real sense, dealt with ontology, because for it (and like theology), ontology was the preserve and the act of God alone. In more recent history, the recognition of the failure of causality in philosophy since David Hume; led Emmanuel Kant to declare the objective reality as an “unknowable thing-in-itself”, so Kant took recourse to subjective idealism (logical categories) to deal with only the phenomena (epistemology) but not the noumena (ontology).

In physics, Isaac Newton (1642–1727 A.D.) and Albert Einstein(1879–1955 A.D.) faced the same conceptual problems of the infinite universe in formulating their theories of gravity. Einstein declared, “Only the closed-ness of the universe can get rid of this dilemma” [Qouted by Kragh H., Cosmology & Controversy. Princeton Univ. Press, 1996, p. 7.]. Einstein then set himself to develop a theory of gravity based on geometry, because geometry deals with closed space! In mathematics, Georg Cantor who passionately wanted to know the infinite (and led himself to insanity to comprehend the infinite); was forced to truncate infinity by putting an arbitrary limit and called the rest the “absolute infinite” that is known only to God. Following the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, G.W.F. Hegel for the first time gave a rational view of the infinite; reinforcing the dialectical view of Epicurus. Please see:

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

The question of ontology also, for the first time in history, was properly dealt with by Hegel with his dialectical philosophy of space and time and with his principal contradiction “Being-Nothing-Becoming”. The development of quantum electrodynamics (QED); which Hegel’s ontology very vaguely and in a highly obscure and speculative way, anticipated; now makes is possible for physics to extend Hegel’s dialectics and his ontology from the microcosm of the quantum reality to the macrocosm of the universe. Please see: Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

But lots of confusion has arisen in modern theoretical physics and cosmology; since Einstein adopted Kant’s subjective idealism; but with his (Einstein’s) own “mathematical categories” and subjective idealism, Einstein eliminated the strict distinction and difference between the phenomena (epistemology) and the noumena (ontology) of Kant! So, for official cosmology (like that of early Greek idealism and now also of the Vatican) the universe (objective reality) is nothing but the manifestation of the "Mathematical Idea". Einstein put it in the following way, “Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover by means of purely mathematical constructions the concepts and the laws connecting them with each other, which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. … In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed” A. Einstein, “Essays in Science”, Translated by Alan Harris from “Mein Weltbild, Quedro Verlag, Amsterdam, 1933), The Wisdom Library, N.Y., p48 – 49, (1934).

Modern official physics, mathematics and cosmology do not show the capability to comprehend the infinite and also ontology, as clearly defined (and scientifically authenticated through QED), by Hegel’s philosophy of space and time. Instead, following mathematical idealism of the past antiquity and Minkowski/Einstein’s abstract geometrical construct of a unified “spacetime”; modern official cosmology insists on a finite universe; created in the finite past with a Big Bang. But such a unified “spacetime” abstract geometrical construct, supposedly with tangible material, mechanical, metric etc., attributes; seems to be very artificial and rather contrived. Please see: "The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology"

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

As Prof. Lewis says, “They have endorsed the existence of the Higgs field and singularities in black holes both of which I think are wrong”. Based on a dialectical perspective and my own research, I totally agree with Prof. Lewis. And at the same time reject the notion of a finite universe, Big Bang creation and all other aspects of modern official cosmology. The recent developments in quantum physics and astrophysics, make the dialectical view of an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe ever more and increasingly tangible to man! "QUASARS – RETROSPECT, PROSPECT AND A POINT of DEPARTURE": Article QUASARS – RETROSPECT, PROSPECT AND A POINT of DEPARTURE

Abdul Malek It is very kind of you to promote me with the title of Prof. but I have to say that my academic career ended when I completed an undergraduate degree in mathematics at St Catharines college Cambridge.

I agree with you in rejecting the Big Bang and many other aspects of modern cosmology. However, I don't believe that the spatial extent of the universe is infinite and I am of the opinion that the universe is finite with a space boundary.

Thank you for the very clear exposition of the historical perspective of philosophers on this issue. I have struggled to answer the question of whether there was a beginning. The model that I have developed concludes that the radius of the universe increases by a factor of 2.71 every 14 billion years which leads to the constant rate of expansion over time and distance that we observe.

With this model it is mathematically feasible to go back in time without a start point. The universe just gets smaller and smaller. However, I am not totally confident in the model which seems to work when we are talking about a radius of 20 billion light years also working when the radius of the universe is 1 centimetre and less so I have left it open.

Preprint The Evolution of the Universe

I do not agree with a substantial amount of the descriptive narrative of quantum theory and I am convinced that quantum effects can be explained in a "classical" way:

Preprint The Spacetime Wave Theory (Feb 2022)

Richard

We clearly can say without bothering philosophical history that an infinite universe with finite ingredients is not compatible with eternity. We also can say that an infinite mass also is not something we can comprehend.

The remaining possibility is a finite universe with finite ingredients. But this is only compatible with eternity if an energy recycling mechanism is implemented.

The only possibility of an energy recycling mechanism which is not in contradiction with thermodynamics is that media are involved which do not have a temperature. The possible media are black hole matter and gravitational field.

Wolfgang Konle I don’t have an energy recycling mechanism but instead a conservation of energy law which includes Spacetime curvature. So as the universe expands energy is released for matter formation keeping the matter density approximately constant at around 1 hydrogen atom per cubic metre.

The matter formation takes place in galaxy formation events.

This process can continue forever but we don’t see anything going on beyond the observation horizon at 14 billion light years.

Richard

Richard Lewis "The matter formation takes place in galaxy formation events."

What is the particle physics proces which leads to matter formation?

"The remaining possibility is a finite universe with finite ingredients. But this is only compatible with eternity if an energy recycling mechanism is implemented."

What great "scientific" wisdom sans philosophy! But "an energy recycling mechanism is implemented", by who? Must be by our great RG "physicist"? And an "energy recycling mechanism" in "a finite universe with finite ingredients", must have been started (implemented) at some time in the past, no matter how far back that past is!.

"...an energy recycling mechanism which is not in contradiction with thermodynamics is that an energy recycling mechanism which is not in contradiction with thermodynamics is that media are involved which do not have a temperature. The possible media are black hole matter and gravitational field.The possible media are black hole matter and gravitational field."

Whence cometh the "media involved which do not have a temperature" and "black hole matter and gravitational field"? By the magic wand of our great "physicists"? The only other possibility is our well-known Omnipresent, Omniscient and Almighty God! Amen!

Richard Lewis> “With this model it is mathematically feasible to go back in time without a start point. The universe just gets smaller and smaller”.

I don’t think your proposition is consistent with the concept of a universe that is finite with a space boundary. No matter how small the universe gets, it must have existed to start with!

As I have explained in my article on “The Infinite” only a dialectical epistemology combined with modern QED (with newly conceived dialectical interpretation and formulation) is compatible with the concept of an Infinite, Eternal and ever-changing universe. Please see the following RG question initiated by me, “Are you Certain, Mr. Heisenberg?”, which deals with the dialectical interpretation of QED. It is very different in essence from the official QED of Feynman et al.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_You_Certain_Mr_Heisenberg

I have tried to show through my published books and journal articles, comments etc., that causality and formal logic (mainstream epistemology)-based physics and mathematics are out of depth in conceiving both the infinite and the quantum phenomena. The Harvard physicist Max Tegmark in a comment published in The Guardian (some years ago) wants to "RETIRE" the English word "INFINITE" from scientific vocabulary!

Aside from the references cited in my comment and the references cited in the RG question, linked above; I can refer you to the Internet based journal “SHAPE” edited by Prof. Jim Schofield of UK – a mathematician, theoretical physicist and in fact a polymath! Prof. Schofield was kind enough to reprint my article on the Infinite in a Special Issue of their journal, “The Limits of Mathematics” at the following link:

http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf

Best regards, Abdul

Dear Abdul,

thank you for your earlier detailed account of the history of Western thought and philosophy in that regard. I was just wondering: If the universe is infinite in both space and time (both interpreted as abstract dimensions), what about matter and energy? Does the overall amount of matter/energy "stored" in the universe/cosmos stay the same in eternity, so to speak, according to your postulate? I suppose energy and matter are simply interchangeable - at least this is what Einstein tells us, right? But how do you conceptualize what we call "matter"? How do you solve or reconcile the wave-particle duality in your theory? Are matter and energy simply properties of a universal (quantum) field (perhaps the universal wave function)? I'd also be interested to learn whether there are any connections between your proposal of an infinite universe and the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?

Many thanks as always & stay well,

Julius

Abdul Malek "…an energy recycling mechanism is implemented", by who?"

"By who?" is the wrong question and you know this. You could have asked how such a mechanism is supposed to work, but this seems to be uninteresting.

It’s nearly funny, but looks more desperate, how you draw statements out of the context. The context is energy recycling without violating thermodynamics. Thermodynamics considers media which have a temperature.

If we do not want to violate thermodynamic theorems, we must look for media which are not considered in thermodynamics.

Candidates are all media which do not have a temperature, but contain energy.

My favourites are fields and black hole matter. May be, you know other media which contain energy but do not have a temperature.

Julius Riese : Dear Julius, Thanks for your interest in my works on modern theoretical physics and cosmology. As you can see, my views in these areas in particular (even other areas) are radically different (nay, the opposite) from hitherto mainstream science. This is because my science is based on a world view of dialectics; which Hegel called “the view of reason” to distinguish it from the historically predominant world view of causality and formal logic; which Hegel called “the view of understanding” or metaphysics. To understand my works and views; it is necessary to understand the difference between these two opposing world views. It is difficult to explain this difference in few words in a comment like this. Dialectics is unintuitive to everyday life and to ordinary mode of thinking (good old common-sense); the reason why it is poorly known and the cause of much hostility towards dialectical approach to natural science specially in exact sciences like physics and mathematics. Frederick Engels (in a division of labour with his friend Marx) first initiated a dialectical approach to natural science and he remains my primary source of inspiration. I have the unfortunate situation that often I have to explain this difference between the two world views, to make my works sensible to people; in addition to the subject I am dealing with! I did it as a separate chapter of some of my books.

Dialectics started with the apparently simple, but very brilliant and the extremely significant intuition of Heraclitus: “Everything changes, comes into being and passes out of existence; due to inner conflict (contradiction) of the opposites existing together”. This means that the logical contradiction of the “unity of the opposites’ exists at the very element of a thing or a process and the resolution of this contradiction mediated by chance and necessity is the self-induced impetus for change, motion etc. The realization that change is the most fundamental aspect of objective reality and that this change comes from inner contradiction; on the one hand eliminates the necessity of the mystery (of God, for example) of an outside source for “cause” of change, motion, evolution, development etc., and on the other hand leads investigation to the reality and in the identification of the contradiction (or the primary one in a group of inter-related group of contradictions), that determines the process of change. For dialectics, everything in the universe are inter-related. So, for dialectics, contradiction is the soul and the mode of any existence at all.

To answer your question on matter, motion, energy etc. We have to go to Hegel’s ontological contradiction “Being-Nothing”. In this and any contraction, the opposites must exist simultaneously together (an absurdity for formal logic!), one can never exist by itself alone! This means that the category “Nothing” by itself, is impossible in dialectics.Hence, the notion of “ex nihilo nihil fit” of theology, formal logic and natural science etc., has no meaning for dialectics. I have given a quantum electrodynamical (QED) explanation how fundamental matter particles and motion come into being and also passing out of existence as the resolution of the contradiction of abstract space and time; first to the virtual particle-antiparticle pair of the quantum vacuum, which in turn resolves to coming into being and passing out of existence of real particles with motion; through quantum tunnelling along with possible yet other unknown physical processes. This happens preferably at the presence of already existing matter like the centre of the galaxies and also where the energy necessary for the equivalent matter (mass) is available. Please see my article on "The Infinite" and the following for examples:

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?

"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies": http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

This process of continuous coming into being and passing out of existence of matter and motion is a spontaneous and eternal process going on everywhere in the infinite universe. Chance accumulated (also a necessity!) matter and or antimatter particles give rise to the phenomenology of the universe as explained in my article “The Breeding Galaxies”. Notice that in this spontaneous coming into being and passing out of existence of matter and motion; conservation laws (total energy etc.) has no meaning at all and can vary either way! But one thing is certain, in that there must always be some existence of matter and motion as dialectical and quantum dynamical necessity, because total void would violate the law of contradiction and also the uncertainty principle! The quantum phenomena is the most direct and dramatic representation of dialectics in Nature!

There are solid experimental and observational basis as explained with references in my works as shown in the question, “Are you certain, Mr. Heisenberg?” (link in my comment above); for such a world view of objective reality, without any recourse to mystery of beginning, creation, dark, black cosmic monsters etc., which is the pabulum of causality-based cosmology or the quantum theories (SM). On the question of wave/particle duality, please see the following article:

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Causality and formal logic (mathematics is the epitome)-based approach to the quantum phenomena leads to absurdities, because it can only deal with polar opposites of either one or the other separately: yes or no, positive or negative, cause or effect, chance or necessity etc., as absolutely separate entities strictly separated by “an excluded middle” in between as described by the Aristotelian principle “Unity, Opposition and the Excluded Middle”. For dialectics, there is no “Excluded Middle”. The principle of dialectics is “Unity-Opposition, together!” or the “unity of the opposites” as in wave/particle duality or everything else in the universe. Wave/particle duality is the simplest and the most clearly defined manifestation of the contradiction of "the unity of the opposites". In complex systems and most other cases, the primary contradiction (which mediates the behaviour of a particular object or process) has to be identified through empirical investigation.

“Infinite Universes”, “many worlds” etc., has no meaning in an infinite universe; these are fantastic notions arising from an either/or, yes/no binary approach to the quantum phenomena; which is invalid! For dialectics, the finite and the infinite are in a dialectical contradiction of the “unity of the opposites”. The finite IS the infinite and vice versa! This contradiction is revolved forever in the unlimited extension of the universe in space and time; mediated by chance and necessity. There are no mysteries to be found at a distance of 14 billion light years (lys) for example. What we will see there is the same as we see within few million lys around us, including the atoms molecules etc. The properties of water, for example, would be exactly the same elsewhere in the infinite universe under the similar condition of temperature, pressure etc. as is on earth. In other words, only one sun with its life-bearing planet earth and only one Milky Way Galaxy with its extended family group form the essential basis of our understanding of the universe. Causality and mathematics-based and mystery driven official physics and cosmology foolishly wastes social, human and natural resources in attempts to see far after far distances, to possibly see the border of the universe; in attempts to “prove” their fantasy of a “Big Bang” creation! But if you tell the dialectically, quantum dynamically and rationally derived truth, you are an apostate, a heretic; an enemy of God etc., and guilty of the worst possible crime!

My work in these areas is at its infancy, limited and in progress. It only started a couple of decades ago. To my knowledge, at present I am the only person working in these areas with a dialectical approach; the reason I advocate for this approach as the only appropriate scientific approach in natural science in general and cosmology in particular. Please see my most recent comments on these issues in memory of by great friend Wolfgang W. Engelhardt, (who past away last year), in the following RG forum that he had initiated few years ago:

Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

Best regards, Abdul

Dear Julius; The dialectical view of the infinite universe is contained in the brilliant intuition of the Persian poet Rūmī (جلال‌الدین محمد رومی) : “You are not a drop in the ocean, you are the ocean in a drop”.

Regards, Abdul

Dear Abdul,

I find it fascinating that you're invoking the great classical Persian poet and thinker Rubi in our scientific discussions on cosmology! Indeed, Rubi's phrase you're citing gives much cause to reflect upon... As you know, I am a fervent supporter of the idea to include "umbrella disciplines" such as philosophy, epistemology, ontology etc. in the field traditionally ascribed to the natural sciences. Nevertheless, I need more time to fully grasp your idea of introducing dialectics to this arena. But it's just a question of time resources at the moment, not an issue of a lack of willingness or openness, I can assure you... I have also been thinking about Plato's Parable of the Cave in this context recently. I think it is very instructive in demonstrating the potential limits of human understanding. I have to run, but talk to you soon!

Best,

Julius

Richard Lewis : Dear Prof. Lewis, I call you Professor because , as far as I am concerned, you are endowed with the qualification of a professor in the real sense of the term. The very fact that you dare to swim against the current, refused entry to scientific conferences and the elite scientific clubs etc.,; are good enough a qualification for me, of a Professor, even though we have some basic differences. So, please accept my deep respect, Sir!

You may be surprised to know that I am not a formally trained physicist either! I also have limited exposure to mathematics, because my formal education is in chemistry. But I now think that it was a blessing in disguise for me; because I do not carry a heavy load of baggage, prejudice and conformity that goes with formal official education! I had a clear mind since I started thinking and writing on the issues of theoretical physics and cosmology, couple of decades ago; and learnt things through painful self-study. Because of my unbiased and innocent mind, I could, for examples, find out the fatal defects in both the theories of relativity and Newtonian extra-terrestrial universal gravitation; as I demonstrated in my few recent publications. These defects eluded attention of formally trained physicists and mathematicians for such a long time; because they took things (as they were taught) for granted! Of course, I must say that my dialectical approach was crucial for my development.

I view you the same way I see Chip Arp and Wolfgang Engelhardt. I had the good fortune to meet both of them in Munich, where both last worked and passed away. I also had some differences of views with both Chip and Wolfgang, but their works benefited my own learning immensely; and I am forever grateful to both! Wolfgang’s major RG forum is still open. I paid my last homage to Wolfgang in my last few comments in that forum:

Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

Best regards, Abdul

I think it was Abdul Malek who mentioned German physicist Sabine Hossenfelder earlier on in our discussion. Her first book ("Lost in Math", 2018) was a great success and laid bare some of the impasses in modern-day physics. I just saw that a new book by Sabine is due to be published this August (please see the link below). Note that she is - in my view quite rightfully - described in this blurb as a "contrarian" physicist. So some contributors to this thread may find her latest installement interesting :-) I'll be sure to get a copy once it is out...

Best,

Julius (link to Penguin follows below)

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/616868/existential-physics-by-sabine-hossenfelder/

Julius Riese : Dear Julius, I don’t think it was me who mentioned German physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. I know about Dr. Hossenfelder, have read some of her work and YouTube video presentation and interviewing other physicists. Even though she is very critical of the present orientation in theoretical physics and cosmology; I consider her a member of the mainstream physics community who holds similar world-view based on causality and formal logic (metaphysics for Hegel). I don’t think she would have a favourable attitude (like the famous astronomer Halton (Chip) Arp, for example, had) towards the radically opposed dialectical world-view that I am advocating for. Someone in RG suggested that I contact her. But as far as I know about her, I don’t feel that it would be productive. And I think she would care little for a no-name person like me; even if she might have come across my published articles.

Until my two recent (dialectics-based) publications showing serious defects in both Newton’s extra-terrestrial gravity theory and Einstein’s theories of relativity; there were intense hostility (to say the least) even from high-ranking professors and scientists; towards by dialects-based alternative ideas and theories. The reason is that my dialectical world-view totally negates theoretical physics and cosmology of the last few hundred years, Newton onward and what modern physicists are trained in and practice in their profession! Although the hostile and even abusive stance against me in RG is now somewhat abated; I don’t think most mainstream physicists (Dr. Hossenfelder included), would embrace my radical theories in foreseeable future.

The most fundamental issue is my views on ontology, as I expressed to L K Engelhart (a serious thinker like you who has some liking for my science) in my last comment in the following forum initiated by me:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-Most-Fundamental-Essence-of-Humanity

But the most serious difference would be in epistemological and socio-political imperatives of my dialectical physics! Please see the last series of discussion and my comments in memories of my friend Wolfgang Engelhardt, in the comments section of the following article by Wolfgang, who passed away in 2021.

Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

Best Regards, Abdul

Thank you, Abdul. That's a good point. So there are different degrees of being removed from the mainstream of physics, so to speak...

I would just say that in my mind, it is very important especially for such fundamental disciplines like physics and cosmology to always keep an open mind for new explanations, theories or even paradigm shifts. I sense that while we're faring quite well in explaining our immediate surroundings and developing practical applications, we appear to still be facing major holes in our understanding of the observable universe as a whole. So let us all try to maintain an open mind in the true spirit of scientific inquiry :-)

With best wishes to all,

Julius

On February 22 Sabine Hossenfelder is discussing with Bernardo Kastrup who is certainly not a mainstream physicist. It is a philosopher that supports a particular theory about our universe.

Every theories is in contradiction with at least one experimental fact, and the Big Bang is not an exception. Science is mainly based on faith

Abdul Malek "the radically opposed dialectical world-view"

Dialectics only can consider what people have found or what they think to have found. Dialectic does not have the possibility to make own experiments driven by specific doubts in some achievements. In some aspect dialectics is like a teethless tiger. It is plaything of popularism because only the most popular findings are rinsed to the notice of dialecticians.

Therefor dialectics is not opposed to science. It only can ruminate knowledge and express some questionable assessments.

Claude Pierre Massé "Every theory is in contradiction with at least one experimental fact"

This in itself is a senseless, wrong, and provocative theory, which automatically is falsified by its own.

Most physical theories, at least the fundamental ones, are not in contradiction with any experimental fact.

You can reformulate and disarm your provocative statement as follows:

Every speculative theory in physics is in contradiction with at least one experimental fact. The theory just is speculative because of this contradiction.

Wolfgang Konle

Quantum mechanics doesn't work for macroscopic bodies , and general relativity incorrectly describes the speed profile of the galaxies. Which fundamental theory is left? Science is the discipline of squeezing the observations in a predefined world view. Many important theories have been maintained through faith despite many facts that contradicted them. A old example is geocentrism and a recent one is the Big Bang. Every theory is speculative, unless it is mere empiricism.