I do not find many astrophysicists and cosmologists engaging themselves with the question of the probable origin or origins of the cosmos. Even when a work is purportedly to be on this theme, the authors beat around the bush so much so that they have finally time only to conclude with some suggestions. These suggestions are based only on the kind of reason that experimental astrophysicists use, and not on the general logic emerging from and beyond the cosmological theories...! What would be the philosophical and cosmological reasons behind this diffidence of scientists?
Raphael Neelamkavil
Dear Raphael,
thank you for asking such a pertinent and fundamental question! In fact, it is a question, that I have been contemplating myself for a while now, too. To kick-off the discussion, let me just try to collect a few thoughts here:
As far as I can see, today's standard model of the origin of the part of the universe (or "cosmos") visible and observable to us, is the Big Bang theory. However, this theory simply "retrocasts"/"hindcasts" empirical observations in the present back to a certain point in time, at which physical descriptions and values according to our current physiscs do not make sense anymore and arrive at a stalemate. "Physics breaks down", as some commentators say. So the concept of a "singularity" is envoked - similar to the state, theorists believe, characterizes the inner parts of black holes. However, this postulate can currently neither be proven nor disproven. As far as I understand, we are not able to deduce conditions prior to a certain point during the so-called inflationary epoch. This constitutes a fundamental dilemma, of course. So concepts like an inflaton field and quantum fluctuations are invoked to purportedly explain the "origin of the universe". However, in my view, such processes would require at least the existence of time as a dimension. This, in turn, would imply that time has existed prior to the point zero of Big Bang theory-processes (and thus potentially also space-time [?]). What drove these processes in the first place remains unknown. So it seems we are not any better off in answering the question on the origin of the universe/cosmos in that regard. Multiverse theories, Big Crunch/Rift, Big Bounce concepts etc. also essentially forego this most fundamental conundrum. Physicists seem to shy away from the implications of this puzzle. I think it is at this point that epistemologists; philosophers; philosophers, theorists and historians of science; and potentially also neuroscientists and theologians (?) must enter the ring! What is the fundamental nature of reality? What is reality? WHAT IS ALL THERE IS?
All the best,
Julius
Dear Julius Riese, it was a wonderful reply! I accept all that you said as really reasonable and indicative of the need for change. Am happy of the insight and capacity to generalize beyond the immediately given! Nice, my colleague!
Additionally let me suggest a fundamental matter that debilitates all science, mathematics, logic, and most of philosophy today:
Most scientists and philosophers think that reasoning by using all kinds of particularistic methods of logic, entering pragmatic conclusions as the only possible ones, considering experimental reasoning as the fool-proof system wherein “truths” can just be discovered (not produced with foundations in reality), taking inborn logical capacities as something already purified, taking theory as merely a support for experiments, etc.
These logical but partially rational practices, specifically in the sciences, may be considered as the main reason why the sciences, especially physics and astrophysics, have reached such a state. A pertinent and direct example is pharmaceutical science: we know how badly the lobby decides what is scientific and to what extent medicines should be effective.
Another example: I find a certain symmetry in a certain “universal” phenomenon. I publish an article about it in a prestigious journal. The peer-review system makes me famous. Many physicists are of the opinion that this is good enough. Hence, I get established as the discoverer (partially, the inventor) of symmetry.
But the due kind of questions on the “universality” of symmetry have not been made. For example, what about possible instances of symmetry in the cosmological context, especially when the whole existent universe / cosmos is to be dealt with? When someone comes up with such questions, one must bring in also enough rational evidence to justify even the questions! Otherwise, you get jeered and derided.
But most astrophysicists now will demand experimental evidence! It is rare that an astrophysicist with cosmological interests agrees to first look at the rational evidence (rationality) that the question of cosmological symmetries can have. This is because normally they will not be in a position to or aware of the possibility of wider concepts of rationality than what are available in merely experiment-based reason. Of course, some experimental or observational confirmation is necessary. But this need not come forth at the very first instance!
The same is the case with the absolute singularity that theorists even today ascribe to the big bang singularity! (In fact, my 2018 book quarrels a lot against this interpretation – see Chs. 6-9.) The absolute infinitesimality that the mathematical arguments would finally ascribe to a singularity cannot be taken as realizable in the physical world. That is, at least here (at spots where an infinite asymptotic approach brings in the need to accept an absolute infinitesimality, and vice versa) mathematical applications in physics (and other sciences) have limitations. Would a theorist convinced in absolute applicability of mathematics to physics now begin to think in terms of the limitations of application? In my opinion, most physicists depend on the “all-powerful nature” of mathematics in physics and cosmology. This is why the openness that we spoke about does not normally get formed in their minds. Of course, there are exceptions.
Dark energy is another example. Theoretical inquiries have reached nowhere in order to find out whether the Lambda of Einstein is the same as dark matter, whether this is just a theoretical term included to round up the stability of the theory, etc. But today there are great funding for experimental searches to find out dark energy. One does not realize that this is not so valid and evident as the search for experimental proofs for gravitational waves.
In short, the concept of sufficiently tenable rationality in science and philosophy should improve. I am on the way to formulating something in this connection. But I do not want to end up writing an attractive article published in a prestigious journal by the grace of some peers. The state of the art in theory is such that practically no journal will accept it. Hence, I go on for years toiling on a book. Sure, no mainstream publisher will accept it because the peers will object due to their absolute conviction in the power of analytic and linguistic methods that use the above type of particularistic logic.
That much about the need for a higher logic or rationality without provincialism in science or philosophy. Then there are the specific issues of cosmology. We will have to use the same physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and philosophy of nature and of science in order to overcome the said sort of logic. In this regard, I hope to find really committed scholars, especially cosmologists, astrophysicists, theoretical physicists, and philosophers….
Raphael Neelamkavil
In order to teach math to the young people, we have to make sure they are able find the solution for 1+1... before we teach them about calculus. In the same way we have to make sure that we found the basic physics about our universe, before we ask where it came from. However... the basics are not yet found and the question "where does the universe come from" has to be postponed, unless we are satisfied with fairy tales like the Big Bang, black holes, Higgs particles and gravitational waves...
Berndt Barkholz, thanks for the short intervention. Let me try to give a reply:
(1) We will never be satisfied with discovering all that belongs to the physics of the world of things near us. Cosmology is based on the same physical and astrophysical experiments and researches that we make on earth, but by extending them to the case of the whole cosmos.
Thus, e.g., when we extend the Principle of Conservation of energy and momentum to the case of the whole cosmos, we can very well -- with enough rational surety stemming from the Special (and General) Theory of Relativity -- conclude that matter and energy are completely inter-convertible in all universes other than ours. The explanation for this may be purely "this-worldly-logical", but we have at least that!
(2) As per your example of the "1+1+..." method of educating children in arithmetic, the above manner of concluding should already belong to the theoretical and partially to the experimental elements (not advances or details) of physics today.
In this manner, we can extend to cosmology the many thermodynamic and other physical and astrophysical results which we consider as sure enough. How to do it? This will be discussed after (3) below.
(3) Add to the above sort of extension of results also the basic physical constants. These constants need not be valid for all the worlds that might exist beyond our so-called "big bang" world. These constants and related results need not even be exactly what the results so far have shown us to hold as, with respect merely to our universe.
But to every group of wider gravitational realms of influence (I call them "gravitational coalescences") in the world, there must be some finite Planck's constant, Hubble's constant, etc., however differently they are formulated. Assume along with it also that the gravitational constant is variable from world to world or from groups of globular clusters to other such groups. (Note: In fact, such are the kind of questions that critics of big bang, black hole, gravitational waves, and other theories make!)
We can assume that there SEEM to be some such constants, which we can only theoretically calculate and experimentally measure approximately. We can very well accept this state of affairs as belonging at least to our human limit situation! Nevertheless, we ARE doing science!
(4) Further, we can assume (very rationally, please!) as sufficiently true many theoretical results in physics and cosmology, especially by applying the general logic of reduction (removal) of all doubtful cases of realization, and by accepting at least the extremely sure cases of the values of matter-energy content, spatiotemporal coverage etc. in our cosmos (not limited to our own universe).
(5) This is the MMM method that I have formulated in a little book of less than 100 pp., meant for beginning and advanced students of astrophysics and philosophy of physics: ESSENTIAL COSMOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY FOR ALL, 2022, KDP Amazon, and costs only 4 to 5 dollar. (Please do not feel that I am publicizing my book here. I had to mention the book in this context! I have kept it at the lowest price on purpose. I get only 7 cents as royalty on each sale!!)
The MMM method has been formulated in order to show that we have broader than strictly particularistic-logical and experimentalist-logical realm of rationality. All forms of the latter two are in fact based on the more general notion of rationality, the logic of which needs formulation in the course of time.
(6) I BELIEVE THAT BY USING THE MMM METHOD WE CAN FORMULATE VERY GENERAL THESES ON THE COSMOS.
"IF THIS WERE THE CASE, HOW THEN COULD THE REMAINING OR RESULTANT CASES BE CONCEIVED LOGICALLY?" "ASSUMING THAT ... (such and such) ..., WHAT SHALL NOW BE CONCLUDED AS THE SURE CASE (the sure case, please!)?" etc. are some of the ways of reasoning here.
(7) ONE MAY NOW ASK: IN THAT CASE DO WE OBTAIN ANYTHING MORE THAN MERE PROBABILITIES IN SCIENCE? My answer will be: "As if we were so far obtaining absolute truths!" If anyone suggests that we obtain some absolute truths with all possible explications of these truths, I WOULD KEEP QUIET AND NOT SPEAK WITH THAT PERSON....
Even in math and logic just circumscriptions are the case. Take a look at the plight of the Hilbert Program and study what Gödel has achieved and brought in a revolution in logic and mathematics, and of course also in epistemology, metaphysics, etc.
NOW MY WONDER IS THIS: Inspite of all the uncertainties involved even in determining whether, for all possible cases (and worlds), '1 + 1 = or < or > 2', what are we wait for? We need to do what is in our capacity. None should prohibit us from positing the questions of the possible amount of matter-energy (infinite, finite, or zero) in the cosmos, possible extent of measuremental "space-time" thinkable in the cosmos (again, infinite, finite, or zero) and think by use of these....
Berndt Barkholz, I consider you as a mature scientist. I want to tell you that I did not try to belittle your arguments. I have tried to show you another aspect of these arguments. Bitte fühlen Sie sich wohl, weiter mit mir (und den anderen hier) diese Diskussion zu halten.... Bin offen für Kritiken. Danke dir herzlich!
Raphael Neelamkavil
“Why is the origin/s of the cosmos taken lightly in cosmology, astrophysics, and physics?”
- the question
“…IS THE QUESTION OF ORIGIN ABSOLUTELY IRRATIONAL IN COSMOLOGY?……”
- really is practically answer to the thread question above - the origin/s of the cosmos is taken lightly in cosmology, astrophysics, and physics because of in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including cosmology, astrophysics, and physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions first of all in this case “cosmos”/ “universe” [more correctly “Matter”] – and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- and so in every case, when physics, in this case concretely cosmology, addresses to some really fundamental points – in this case to “origin of Matter”, the result in better case “is taken lightly”, and – what happens more often, including what is in standard Big Bang cosmological model, when the physicists address to the “origin problem”,
- that are some really irrational mental constructions that are based on some irrational ad hoc transcendent conjectures – that Matter appeared at some for some mystic reason and by some mystic ways happened irrational/mystic “fluctuation” of some irrational “spacetime’s”, of some irrational/mystic “scalar fields’”, etc., point, when for some mystic reason this point becomes to be transformed into observed now matter that had at the origin “extremely hot and dense”, etc.
All that in the mainstream, again, is quite logical inevitable consequence of the transcendence above; including, say, the mainstream scientists really don’t understand – what they are, why they study something at all, and why at the studying sometimes some logical links between material objects/events/effects/processes are observed [and why they exist in Matter at all, though] , why sometimes the observations are illusions, etc.
Any really fundamental phenomena/notions can be, and practically all that are important in sciences are, scientifically rationally defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- and more concretely relating to Matter in the informational physical model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics, where, including, the unique now really rational initial cosmological model is developed, see the last link, section “Cosmology”, though to understand what is in the section it is necessary to read whole paper.
More see the last link above, here only a few points:
- in the conception it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; which - the Set - exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent; and so exists absolutely eternally, having no Beginning and no End.
Including in the conception “Matter” and "Consciousness”, including “human’s consciousness”, are scientifically defined – they both are nothing else than some informational systems – elements in the Set;
- and from the really scientifically rationally interpreted existent reliable experimental data it looks as quite rational to suggest that Matter was created in the Set by some other than “consciousness on Earth”, the Set’s element – some very smart and mighty “Consciousness”, i.e. “Matter’s Creator” ;
- while in that humans’ [and not only, every living beings’ as well] fundamentally non-material consciousnesses obtain and sometimes rationally elaborate the obtained information about the mostly material environment there is nothing transcendent/ irrational – that happens because everything is made from the one stuff “Information”.
SS comment to the really interesting Ethan Siegl Forbes article about cosmology in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Big_Bang_theory_falsifiable/32 is well relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko, thanks for the reply. A definition of 'information' would be useful. Recently I wrote something on the Causal Concept of Information. There I defined it physically. How would you define information, if information is the stuff of everything?
Raphael Neelamkavil
The simple answer is that all valid science must follow the scientific method which means our hypotheses must be verifiable by observational evidence. The current models for the early universe are based on an inflationary period during which the scale factor formula was exponential. There is evidence to support that phase from the Planck results but if it is correct, the degree of dilution of the conditions during any prior state would be so high that it would leave no imprint on any observable remnant. The reasoning then is that since it is technically unobservable, any speculation about it should be considered unphysical.
That hasn't stopped Roger Penrose proposing his cyclical model.
George Dishman, thanks.
Penrose and Gurzadyan (I forgot the details now. I have cited them in my Dr. phil. work, GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX AND..., after an email correspondence with Penrose) have proposed the cyclic model. I have critiqued it, but proposing a not fully cyclically closed one. I have also given enough reasons for this variation.
Now about what you said about science: I would characterize it by limiting it as valid for experimental sciences. But as we know, for each experimental science there is a theoretical science too. There we do not have immediate validation by experimental verification.
Thus, the growth of experimental sciences is dependent on theoretical sciences. This latter aspect of the sciences is what I have in mind when I ask why astrophysics and cosmology are unwilling to generalize enough to try a hand on the rational possibilities beyond a single, finite-content, universe.
Raphael Neelamkavil
The constancy of the speed of light, or for that matter the attainment of a maximum possible velocity (a criterial velocity) must be the case only if we have a finite-content universe.
But it need not be taken as constant throughout the cosmos especially in the case where an infinite number of finite-content universes exist within the cosmos.
I claim the latter to be true because each such universe will have a different amount of matter-energy content, and hence a different total density, pressure, etc. These must be the causes of existence of a maximum velocity in each specific universe.
Now, EVEN IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT HIGHEST POSSIBLE VELOCITIES IN THE VARIOUS (INFINITE NUMBER OF) UNIVERSES IN THE COSMOS, WE HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS TO CONCLUDE THAT EACH GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE OF UNIVERSES, UNIVERSE OF UNIVERSES, etc. WILL HAVE A HIGHEST POSSIBLE ENERGY PROPAGATION VELOCITY TOO.
But this velocity will never be infinite in any one member universe. This suffices, again, to ask: WHAT WILL BE THE GENERAL SCENARIO IN THE COSMOS IF THERE IS THE GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE FORMATION TENDENCY THROUGHOUT THE INFINITE (this was the presupposition -- the other case is dealt with above, in another intervention) COSMOS.
My apologies Raphael Neelamkavil, I did not see your earlier answer.
RN: But as we know, for each experimental science there is a theoretical science too. There we do not have immediate validation by experimental verification.
To be classed as a theory, there should be observational confirmation. It need not be experimental and in astronomy or cosmology that is usually the case, we can't create supernovae in lab conditions, but we must have confirmation from observation of naturally occurring events. In that way, we can observe the effects of inflation but not any effects from conditions prior to it. Penrose claims otherwise but that has not been generally accepted as far as I know. There are many ideas being looked at but all are currently classed as speculation for that reason.
RN: The constancy of the speed of light, or for that matter the attainment of a maximum possible velocity (a criterial velocity) must be the case only if we have a finite-content universe.
That is an unusual claim. We know the speed of light is a limit in our universe but the Friedmann Equations allow the size to be either finite or infinite, we cannot at present distinguish which is true so I see no connection between size and the existence of an upper speed limit.
Best regards
George
George Dishman, thanks. First let me speak of the second point that you treated.
If the universe is of finite content, we need to have in it a maximum possible velocity! But if it is of infinite content, we are not sure that the maximum possible velocity obtained in a locality is the case in another part of it. Of course, we do not have an experimental confirmation for this last statement of mine here. But so is the case with the contrary statement too. That is what I meant.
About the first point, your thought is acceptable to me too.
George Dishman, you may like the following very short discussion. Just a few paragraphs. I think you will surely like the argument there.
The Irretutable Argument for Universal Causality. Any Opposing Position?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irretutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position
Raphael Neelamkavil, it is philosophical, not physical, and I see nothing there which connects the existence of a speed limit to the spatial extent of the universe.
I would argue that since whatever is beyond our cosmological horizon is not causally connected to our region and whether the universe is finite or infinite is certainly far beyond the horizon, the two cannot be connected.
George
But if the distance between two universes (or parts of a universe) are finite, it is impossible to claim that there will be no causal contact between them at all.
Secondly, whatever we have been discussing in the previous interventions is not physics but just philosophy of physics. In my opinion, the conceptual clarity that any physicist creates in his works belongs to both physics and philosophy of physics.
You may like the new discussion session: GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX. It is the kernel of an idea on which I have reflected more than 35 years by now, have presented arguments to some cosmologists, and have got support.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP
Friends,
Kindly read the following chain-conversation between an earnest scholar with insight into philosophy, the physical sciences, and logic::::
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
2 days ago
Logic, as we commonly understand it, is a system of thought based on the reasoning capabilities of the human mind. It allows us to take premises, apply rules, and arrive at conclusions. We view these principles as universal due to their applicability to the wide range of situations we encounter in our daily lives.
However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter. Traditional logic isn't always equipped to handle the strange, often counterintuitive phenomena observed in realms such as quantum physics.
Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect.
These instances do not necessarily mean our logical principles are incorrect, but they highlight that our traditional logical framework may be incomplete. It's like trying to comprehend a three-dimensional object with two-dimensional understanding—our perspective is inherently limited.
While the principles of logic remain powerful tools for navigating the world as we perceive it, we must remain cognizant of their limitations. They represent one dimension of a multifaceted reality, and unlocking a more comprehensive understanding of the universe may require us to augment, or even transcend, our conventional logic.
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
2 days ago
Alessandro Rizzo,
This is a very good realization: "However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter." Mostly it is so. The whole of analytic logic is developed for just for normal life-situations, technically scientific applications, and today for direct computer applications. Of course, this need not be the case with math. Math has a wider set of background considerations today. Ordinary logic is always based on direct needs.
But the following is difficult from the viewpoint of the realistic necessities behind the formulation of the foundations of any sort of logic. "Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect."
Either it is because such physics is extremely fragile; otherwise it is because any sort of logic cannot really apply to such physics. Even counterintuitive forms of logic falter there!
Hence, I have been following a different course of thought in order to conceptualize what basically would be problematic in quantum, statistical, and other sorts of counterintuitive physics. You can see some such works of mine in very short summary forms in some of my discussion questions (suggested at the end of this intervention).
I recognize that you are an informatics person. An information for you: Just today I have finished the work of a 200 pp. book in English and Italian:
COSMIC CAUSALITY CODE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS, MIND, AND VIRTUAL WORLDS
and
IL CODICE DI CAUSALITÀ COSMICA E L’INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE: FILOSOFIA ANALITICA DI FISICA, MENTE, E MONDI VIRTUALI.
Now I must begin searching for a publisher....
Here are the said suggestions to some of my discussions in RG:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reification_of_Concepts_in_Quantum_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Linguistic_Philosophys_Inconsistencies
Share
📷
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
2 days ago
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,
Your exploration of the philosophical underpinnings of quantum physics is both thought-provoking and challenging. As someone who has grappled with the mysteries of the quantum world, I appreciate your efforts to question and redefine our understanding of these complex concepts.
You rightly point out the limitations of conventional logic when applied to quantum phenomena. Indeed, the quantum world often seems to defy our everyday understanding of reality. Quantum superposition and entanglement, for instance, challenge our intuitive grasp of cause and effect, as well as the principle of non-contradiction. However, I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that these principles falter, but rather that they take on new meanings in the quantum realm.
Your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing. The notion that everything that exists is in causation, even quantum-mechanical processes, is a bold one. I would argue, however, that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality.
Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach to understanding scientific theories. The idea that anything not in Extension-Change is non-existent is a compelling one. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine.
Your discussion of reification in quantum physics raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. It's true that we must be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent. However, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems, which suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality.
Finally, your analysis of potential energy and the wave function collapse is insightful. These concepts are indeed more complex than they might appear at first glance. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.
Your exploration of these topics is a valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the nature of quantum reality. However, there are a few points to discuss.
1. **Universal Causality**: While your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing, I believe that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality. It's not that causality doesn't apply, but rather that it may manifest in ways that are not immediately intuitive.
2. **Existence and Non-Existence**: Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine, and phenomena that don't fit neatly into our conventional understanding of existence may still have significant physical implications.
3. **Reification in Quantum Physics**: Your discussion raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. However, while we must indeed be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems. This suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality, even if they don't correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.
4. **Potential Energy and Wave Function Collapse**: Your analysis of these concepts is insightful. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes. The wave function collapse, for instance, may not be a physical process in the conventional sense, but it is a crucial concept in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I appreciate your efforts to challenge conventional wisdom and push the boundaries of our understanding. Even though we may not agree on all points, such dialogue is essential for the advancement of science.
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
2 days ago
Alessandro Rizzo, thanks a lot for the fine formulations. Very wise and thoughtful. Congrats. At the end of this intervention I give 2 of my discussions, which are on the QM and Statistical notions that are involved in physics. Let me express just a few thoughts hereunder, with an introductory statement: I have been into this field of publication at least for more than 2 decades; but by way of reading and reflection, I have been in it for more than 3 decades.
Our statistical measures, e.g., of the position of an electron at a given time, does not depend on the model of statistical interpretation that we give, but instead, they depend on the very statistically managed measurements and their proportions of certainty of discovery, prediction, determination, or definition thus achieved. Hence, the varied successes of QM and statistical physics at this level in predicting the related phenomena are all due to the application of the mathematical apparatus, and the model thus achieved, to physical instruments.
That is a sort of algorithm-driven instrumentalization, in a general sense. This, e.g., is exactly why quantum informatics and the various quantum technologies can have success stories.
Let me illustrate this sort of success with a simple example. There are two leaves on a tree at a distance of one meter, but one over the other. Drops of water fall onto the first, and get flown onto the second. We create a signaling system as the drops fall on the first and the second leaves. The nature of light signals take care of the technology behind the signaling. We do not have to bother why light signaling is the way it is!
Here we know that the drops are not exactly spherical / globular. But, for the purpose of mathematical applications, we consider them as spherical drops and reduce them even into the shape of points for the sake of "mathematical precisioning" within the context of the mathematics available -- but which does not harm the signaling. We know clearly that theoretically these are not absolute truths or models...!
The signaling system is related directly to the temporal and spatial approximations of the falling of the drops on the two leaves. As the signals fall on another electronic device (at a distance), and the signals trigger a certain motion on the device. Using this system, let us suppose that we can instrumentalize some other physical process. Whatever the actual physical process and the shapes involved in fact are, the system works and produces the expected results!
We may later give a detailed physical explanation of the approximations involved in the implementation of the theory of, say, "Water Drop Signaling". These are not merely interpretations, but also closer approximations to what is happening in the reality externally to our interpretation. Note clearly: the theoretical model and approximations used in it are all just approximations of what really is the case in nature. We are not able to delve into all the processual layers of the object set and unearth all possible explanations of the processes and all their layers.
In order to apply our theory of the specific and precisioned processes with all their complexity in physics, we need to create instruments that work in accordance with this new theory and other related these physical and other theories which work only at a certain level of instrumentation in the given case. What works at the electronic level need not work at the nano level of physical activity.
We cannot also finalize our theory by stating that whatever works at the nano level is final and that there are no deeper layers within the object set. Even as we discover deeper layers and begin to formulate methods of instrumentation at that level, the instruments can continue to work without any hindrance. The only thing is that the instruments can further be made more precisioned and more effective. This does not work as an argument against the existence of the deeper layers beyond the nano structures!
That is, this means that the first set of interpretations and their instruments can go on to work and produce technological successes. They will continue to yield successes. This is why even now Newtonian physics yields many successes, especially at the engineering level!
Similarly, the successes of QM need not suggest that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality in a very exact manner. Of course, this is the case to a certain extent (say, statistically), but this certainly at a certain narrowly real interpretational level.
The statistics here is a model, and therefore, is based on the measures of our ability to capture the causes and the processes within a given circumstance and sample. Statistics is thus the admission of the extent of reach into the exact correspondence of the truth projected by our measurements with respect to what is actually happening in the object process!
But this fact of lack of absolute truth in our models and theories does not affect the successes at the level of application of the possible experimental results of the theory! Now you see clearly that what quantum physicists call as the statistical truths of quantum physics are not truths but models, using which there are certain instruments and their theory of apparatus-wise obedience of quantum physics.
This is also the case with respect to Relativity. Just take the case of the Lorentz factor: Root of [(1 - (v-squared) divided by (c-squared)]. What does it in fact mean? That I am willing to measure the movement process (v) of a particle only in terms of the experimentally rather well determined / fixed luminal and luminally comparable energy propagations c.
But this means also (and exactly) that, since I use luminal velocity as the criterial velocity (merely because I have natural vision and instrumentational vision at the level of c at this epoch of the history of advancements in science), my calculation forbids v from exceeding the luminal velocity limit c!!!
Does this mean that there should not be superluminal velocities?
If there are real-valued (not complex-valued) superluminal velocities, whereby the superluminal velocity in question is C1, C2, etc., which can replace the c, and c can be placed at the place of v in the nominator, in the Lorentz factor. Thus, we have a real solution for the EPR problem, too!
After all, the c is not fixed or fixable as an absolute constant except by a convention that has proved it to be so in our region of the universe, and not for all the possibly existing worlds! Using this convention, we can continue to make our Water Drops Signaling work. But this success in measuring the lack of temporal lag in the working of the instrument need not mean that c is a universal constant for all the regions of the cosmos.
The cosmos may have a finite number of local universes or even an infinite number of them. In both the cases -- and in the latter case surely -- c may be replaced with C1, C2, etc. in other regional universes. That is, the highest possible velocity within a big bang local universe anywhere in the infinite-content cosmos can only be determined by the maximum density achieved at any one big bang of the given local universe, in a series of its oscillations between bangs and crunches. (I have treated this in my book of 2018 and in some discussions in RG, which will be given at the end of this reply.)
Nevertheless, miraculously clear and working precision is to be had in many scientific theories and experiments, both on earth and in the outer space, using this special theory of relativity! Even QM uses the Lorentz factor freely!
Should these successes mean that the Lorentz factor should be an eternally fixed proof for the so-called criterial limit-nature of c?
Now I believe we can think of a possible solution for the EPR problem! I have suggested one such in 3 of my works. I think, therefore, that what we need is a range of differently-valued c and the many relativity theories in terms of them.
I have discussed such questions in detail, including a detailed theoretical solution to the EPR problem, in three of my printed books (2014, 2015, and 2018).
I should salute you for your openness and genuineness of scientific spirit, which permit you to see many important points in the notion of theory formation in science and philosophy. Not merely of my ideas, but also of others ideas.
I am a mad man. I have dedicated my life to some such projects in the form of books. To avoid peer reviewers' ire is not easy. Hence, I may not get the most renowned publishers to publish my books. I should also forget about publishing articles in reputed peer-reviewed journals! This is my fate, and also my pleasure. I think some future acceptance (at least after a few years or decades of my death) is forthcoming.
And kindly take a look at the following discussion sessions. I think you will enjoy them. And thereafter I give a SET 2 of discussion links, which give the discussions on the cosmological problems suggested above.
SET 1:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_basic_insecurities_of_physics_especially_of_statistical_physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Causality_Necessary_in_Physics_Philosophy_and_Other_Sciences_in_Place_of_Statistical_Bayesian_and_Other_Theories_of_Causality
SET 2:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_cosmic_or_local_black_hole_singularity_be_of_infinite_density_and_zero_size
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source-Independent_Velocity_of_Pure_Energy_vs_Causality_vs_Superluminal_Velocities
https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology
Share
- 1 Recommendation
📷
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
1 day ago
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,
Your thoughtful and extensive response is deeply appreciated. The time and dedication you've devoted to these intricate concepts shine through, and your perspective brings a refreshing viewpoint to our discourse.
You assert that our statistical measures in physics are heavily influenced by the mathematical models we've formulated, a position that resonates with accuracy. These models, while approximated by nature, have served as the bedrock of our comprehension of quantum mechanics, enabling us to generate predictions from this understanding. However, as you astutely pointed out, this doesn't necessarily indicate that these models encapsulate the entire scope of quantum reality. Perhaps it's more accurate to state they represent our best tools available for interfacing with and comprehending the quantum world, given our current technological capabilities and conceptual understandings.
Your analogy of abstracting water droplets to points for mathematical precision provides an excellent illustration. Fundamentally, the models we employ in physics are simplifications of reality, designed to encapsulate the most pivotal aspects of the physical phenomena we investigate. But it's crucial to avoid mistaking these models for reality itself. They merely represent our best current methods of describing and predicting reality.
Your comments concerning the Lorentz factor and the speed of light are strikingly thought-provoking. Indeed, the assumption that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe is underpinned by empirical observations within our observable universe and within the framework of the theory of relativity. The concept of superluminal speeds would require us to radically revise our understanding of the universe.
Your courage and determination to challenge the established scientific framework are admirable. Authentic progress in science often originates from those brave enough to question the status quo and expand the boundaries of our understanding. I'm confident that your work will find the audience and appreciation it deserves, for the truth in science has a peculiar way of making itself known, irrespective of its immediate reception.
The possibilities you suggest, such as various relativities predicated on differing c values, are genuinely captivating. This kind of innovative thinking often ushers in paradigm shifts in scientific thought.
Your ongoing commitment to these questions is inspiring, and I anticipate with eagerness the exploration of the discussions you've linked. I hold firm in my belief that science thrives on open discourse and a diversity of perspectives. Hence, although we may not concur on all points, the value of dialogue is irrefutable.
Thank you for your participation in this intellectually stimulating conversation.
Recommended
Share
- 1 Recommendation
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
19 hours ago
Alessandro Rizzo, I have revised my previous reply and detailed it further, also extending its cosmological implications. In fact, I had written the earlier version of the response in a hurry, in about 15 to 20 minutes. Hence the revision of the same.
Please see also the SET 2 list of RG discussions, given at the end of the revised response. These are the cosmological ones. Thanks.
Share
📷
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
15 hours ago
Dear Raphael,
Embracing your insights, the light cast by statistical measures in our understanding of quantum mechanics is impressive. They serve as a beacon in the labyrinth of quantum phenomena, born from the marriage of algorithms and instrumentalization.
The water drop signaling system, as you've painted, is a vivid illustration of mathematical approximations at work. Science walks a tightrope between reality and approximation, juggling precision with pragmatic simplicity. The certainty of mathematics may not always mirror the uncertainties of reality, and vice versa.
The discussion of various levels of physical activity and the evolution of our tools to meet these levels holds significant weight. As we continue to broaden our understanding, we must also adapt and refine our toolkit. A set of tools apt for one scenario might not apply to another.
In addressing the interpretations of quantum reality, you are pushing the envelope, provoking us to reevaluate our grasp of the universe. Though we navigate the quantum realm with the compass of statistics and models, we must stay mindful that these are but the footprints of reality - giving us direction, but also concealing a sea of unknowns.
Your exploration of the Lorentz factor and the hypothesis of superluminal velocities are mind-stretching. The cosmos, in its vast expanse, may hide surprises that challenge our ingrained theories.
Your proposition of different relativities based on maximum velocities is intriguing, urging us to step outside our comfort zone. Your suggestion hints at the reality that the map we hold is not the territory, and our comprehension of this territory is in a state of perpetual evolution.
Closing my response, I am reminded of the sentiment that the tranquility between our scientific theories and the universe's phenomena is born from understanding. Our quest is to deepen this understanding, and your insightful contributions are a cornerstone of this journey.
Eager to continue this enlightening exchange,
Alessandro
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
15 hours ago
Thanks, Alessandro. Giusto adesso ho visto che sei italiano! Just 2 days ago I finished a work in English and in Italian: Cosmic Causality Code and Artificial Intelligence: Analytic Philosophy of Physics, Mind, and Virtual Worlds, circa 200 pp., and its self-made Italian version (corrected by native speakers): Il Codice di Causalità Cosmica e l’Intelligenza Artificiale: Filosofia Analitica di Fisica, Mente, e Mondi Virtuali, circa 220 pp.
Source of Major Flaws in Cosmological Theories: Mathematics-to-Physics Application Discrepency
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency
Please remember this:
The big bang theory has many limitations. These are,
(1) the uncertainty regarding the causes / triggers of the big bang,
(2) the need to trace the determination of certain physical constants to the big bang moments and not further backwards,
(3) the necessity to explain the notion of what scientists and philosophers call “time” in terms of the original bang of the universe,
(4) the compulsion to define the notion of “space” with respect to the inner and outer regions of the big bang universe,
(5) the possibility of and the uncertainty about there being other finite or infinite number of universes,
(6) the choice between an infinite number of oscillations between big bangs and big crunches in the big bang universe (in case of there being only our finite-content universe in existence), in every big hang universe (if there are an infinite number of universes),
(7) the question whether energy will be lost from the universe during each phase of the oscillation, and in that case how an infinite number of oscillations can be the whole process of the finite-content universe,
(8) the difficulty involved in mathematizing these cases, etc.
Rana Hamza Shakil, a good general summary of the state of affairs on the question today. Thanks.
Is it possible to try amalgamating the various theories of the origin of the universe? Perhaps this will help understand the acceptable and non-acceptable aspects of the theories better! This is the line of thought I have adopted in my published books, especially in that of 2018.
Let me show another aspect. In any given world or part of the world there must be a highest velocity. I think this will be determined by the matter-energy density achieved at the broadest (all-inclusive) condensation phase available in that part of the cosmos. Let's call it a world. In this world, it is possible to measure all motion in terms of the highest c of that world. In a broader world that includes this world, or in another world, we should a c-2, elsewere c-3, etc. Thus we have a spectrum of STRs and GTRs. Then the problem of measurement will be more complex.
How to formulate and understand the question of the origin of the universe in terms of this?
Infinite-Eternal Multiverse?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Infinite-Eternal_Multiverse
I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:
FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
1. INTRODUCTION
I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.
This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.
Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.
A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.
I BELIEVE THAT THE TRADITION OF LAPPING UP WHATEVER THEY SAY BASED ON THEIR MANNER OF USING MATHEMATICS SHOULD STOP FOREVER. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE MAGICIANS, AND THEIR READERS SHOULD NOT PRACTICE RELIGIOUS FAITHFULNESS TO THEM.
Even in the 21st century, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity with its various versions and especially its merely mathematical interpretations have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields. The mathematics did not need existence, and hence gravitation did not exist! But the same persons did not create a theory whereby the mathematics does not need the existence of the material world and hence the material world does not exist!!
Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities
Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason
This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.
The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.
The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics
Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text
Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation
Sorry again for the delay Raphael Neelamkavil, life has been hectic.
RN: But if the distance between two universes (or parts of a universe) are finite, it is impossible to claim that there will be no causal contact between them at all.
That is incorrect, though whether it is relevant or not is debatable. We know that matter in this universe was first generated 13.8 billion years ago and we know the speed of light is finite. That means that regardless of other considerations such as the rate of expansion, light could have travelled only a finite distance in that finite time. If the finite separation between two regions exceeds that distance then they cannot be causally connected.
The figures at present are for our horizon 46 billion light years and for the minimum circumference (if the universe is finite) at least 1000 billion light years (over 4 sigma confidence) or 2600 billion light years (1 sigma) so we can be sure that the majority of the universe in which we exist is beyond causal connection.
Now I said the relevance of this is debatable. That is because the inflationary phase solves the "horizon problem" (in that the temperature of the CMB is the same on opposite sides of the universe to within 30 parts per million) by modelling a very rapid expansion phase such that the region we can observe came from a small patch with significant overlap. However, we must be careful not to fall into the "fallacy of common cause", the opposite sides of the CMB are similar because they came from a causally overlapping common source region, but they have been causally isolated since before the generation of matter in the "Big Bang" phase that resulted from the end of inflation.
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist
George Dishman,
You: "If the finite separation between two regions exceeds that distance then they cannot be causally connected." True. What I meant is that at some time they will develop some causal influences between them.
PLEASE NOTE: In the present lead-text I have been discussing the case where there exist an infinite number of finite-content universes outside of our own big bang universe. These, I say, together may be termed an intinite-content cosmos.
Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist
Hi Raphael Neelamkavil,
RN: What I meant is that at some time they will develop some causal influences between them.
That is not the case where dark energy is dominant as it appears to be. There are horizons around us beyond which material will always be beyond causal connection. In comoving coordinates, material now beyond about 62 billion light years can never influence us (our event horizon) or be influenced by the material that formed our neighbourhood (our particle horizon). See Figure 1 of this paper, the bottom panel in conformal coordinates is the easiest to understand.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf
For our location now, nothing beyond 46 billion light years can influence us and we cannot influence anything beyond about 16 billion light years.
If you could read my lead text of discussion on Gravitational Coalescence Paradox, you might get more clarity as to what I have been speaking of.
George Dishman, if the so-called dark energy is really existent and not merely virtual, then it should have some causal interactions. Only merely non-existent and virtual energies do not exert any influence!
Dark energy does have a local effect, it causes expansion to accelerate hence it does exist, but all effects of events remain limited by the speed of light.
Dark energy is still a substitute for the Lambda term, as if the expansion must be caused by a different force. And if there should be a contraction, some would posit another, totally different, form of energy for contraction too. But these are primarily mathematical tools to represent the two effects, namely, expansion and contraction. We should wait until these are confirmed well enough.
In the relativity theories, QM, etc. the criterial velocity of light is criterial. But this need not mean that the ultimate criterial velocity is this at every part of the cosmos.
The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles
RN: Dark energy is still a substitute for the Lambda term ...
Yes, to date there is no observational evidence to suggest that they differ.
Thanks. If dark energy does not have locally causal interactions, and works only at expansion, then one might posit anti-dark energy for contraction too. I think these are all an eyewash administered by astrophysicists and cosmologists to dissuade others from asking more fundamental questions.
RN: one might posit anti-dark energy for contraction too
You could, but the observational data is that the geometry is near to flat which requires a positive value and implies accelerating expansion. That too is consistent with observation.
I do understand this. What I meant is that there will be some physicists who posit the existence of some anti-dark energy. I on my part am totally against dark energy too.
Dark energy is not a particle so has no "anti-" version (perhaps you were thinking of dark matter), it would just be a negative energy value, but actually just reducing the value to near zero would switch acceleration to deceleration. However That would also significantly alter the curvature value, well outside the limits set by the Planck mission.
How do you think that I was thinking of dark matter? I did not expect such a statement from you!
Since dark energy is just a substitute for Lambda in theory, some physicists have attempted to make dark energy an existent sort of energy in order to make it all look like real. Then there can be some physicists who want to create also another energy as the agent of contraction and then make this anti-dark energy look for real. The latter too can insist that anti-dark energy is existent. This is how theoretical physicists bind a thick veil on the eyes of their readers and also on later experimentalists who lap up all these and try to prove the existence of dark energy and anti-dark energy. Many PhDs would already have been done on all these!
Hi Raphael Neelamkavil,
RN: How do you think that I was thinking of dark matter? I did not expect such a statement from you!
Simply because you prefixed it with "anti-" which reflects the solution found by Dirac in particle physics and gives us "anti-matter". There is no equivalent for energy.
RN: Since dark energy is just a substitute for Lambda in theory, some physicists have attempted to make dark energy an existent sort of energy in order to make it all look like real.
Yes, that is because you can put the lambda term on either side of the field equation (with a reversal of the sign of course), on one side it becomes a constant in the geometry, on the other side it is a background stress-energy tensor with positive energy and corresponding negative pressure. We have no guidance from nature as to which side it should go on, both approaches are equally valid.
RN: Then there can be some physicists who want to create also another energy as the agent of contraction ...
That is not something I've ever come across, can you give a name for any of these physicists or a link to their paper on the subject please.
I said, there can be some who think that an anti-dark energy is required, because there are some who REQUIRE a special (dark) energy which should initiate the expansion, instead of the very processes within the universe causally and directly requiring expansion!
I am not an astrophysicist, I know very good Solid State Physics. I read this somewhere: the Universe is so big that asking questions on how the Unisverse was born is almost impossible to answer. The best that we can do is to consider the Universe as is, almost infinite, not asking how the Universe was born. This questions is as asking: Why we do not know extraterestrials that have visited us until now to help us (Fermi 1950).
Thanks. Nevertheless, it seems worth asking such questions. Humanity can get extremely general answers based on the processes that we discover in the cosmos. Of course, these are not to be taken as very good after a few years when the bases are revised!
Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of improving the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.
Hi Raphael Neelamkavil,
RN: I said, there can be some who think that an anti-dark energy is required, because there are some who REQUIRE a special (dark) energy which should initiate the expansion
No, you said the opposite:
RN: ... one might posit anti-dark energy for contraction too.
That would make more sense because a positive value for dark energy causes exponential expansion, a negative value would presumably cause contraction.
To clear it up, I am still asking you to give examples of the physicists you are talking about, their papers would remove the ambiguity. This is what you said previously:
RN: ... some physicists have attempted to make dark energy an existent sort of energy in order to make it all look like real. Then there can be some physicists who want to create also another energy as the agent of contraction and then make this anti-dark energy look for real. The latter too can insist that anti-dark energy is existent.
Who are these physicists and what publications are you talking about?
"One might posit" means what? In any way, not "one will posit". And 'One' in such contexts in English means 'anyone'.
If anyone insists on existence of dark energy for actually triggering and maintaining expansion, then, rationally speaking, there can be some who want to take the freedom and posit existence of anti-dark matter for triggering and maintaining contraction. If anyone does not want the latter, better not to insist that dark energy is meant mainly to cause expansion. Again, I said 'anyone'. You may ask for citations from those who have argued in favour of dark energy. If you would be happy without citations, good. But if there are some who insist on dark energy, I ask: In that case, why not also anti-dark energy?
Now you may again aske me to cite!
RN: But if there are some who insist on dark energy, I ask: In that case, why not also anti-dark energy
Raphael Neelamkavil, that is because the universe is not contracting so no cause of contraction is required.
And if at a later phase of evolution the universe begins to contract?
Watch this video (streamed today, 23 July 2023) from after the 9th minute: A suggestion that the constant velocity of light, Planck’s constant, and Gravitational constant may be found to have covariance when the whole cosmos is considered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPCoqJqSbGY
Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too
RN@ And if at a later phase of evolution the universe begins to contract?
If in the future that were to happen, we would be able to plot the scale factor and the shape of the curve would give us information about the new conditions that were causing it, but the values at present have been constant for several billion years and show no sign of change other than the expected ongoing decrease of matter and radiation density due to expansion.
I think this is too conservative a statement. Pardon me for taking the simple example of a balloon. It may be inflated with air at a measurably very stable and constant rate. But between any two points of it there must be some difference of rate of expansion. If not, all the points in it would naturally have to be made of the same thing, which is impossible.
Similarly, all our measurements and the predictions of isotropy and related equalities of spacetime, however good in theory, should not be as equal as we may conclude from the theories. Merely because of the minute but naturally true difference between theír existence in terms of the different spacetimes, it should naturally be concludable that there is absolute identity of physical existence, structure, evolution, etc. between any two parts in the cosmos.
This pre-physically true fact shows that concluding CONSTANCY OR EQUALITY OF RATE OF EVOLUTION from "the values at present ... constant" CAN AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A SELF-GOAL FOR PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY.
Hence, in my opinion, any sufficiently big portion of the cosmos, under expansion or contraction, should at some time experience some sort of contraction or expansion as the opposite evolutionary case.
This must be the case also in the infinite number of parts of the cosmos, if the cosmos is of infinite matter-energy content.
RN: all our measurements and the predictions of isotropy and related equalities of spacetime, however good in theory, should not be as equal as we may conclude from the theories.
That is true Raphael Neelamkavil, the standard deviation over the full sky is of the order of 30 parts per million in temperature and density. This is sometimes called "cosmic variance" and sets a lower limit to our observations of the universe as a whole, we can only access a single sample hence anything derived from that must have an irreducible uncertainty.
RN: Hence, in my opinion, any sufficiently big portion of the cosmos, under expansion or contraction, should at some time experience some sort of contraction or expansion as the opposite evolutionary case.
No, it means that compared to the average rate of expansion, some regions will experience a slightly higher or lower rate. Smaller regions then can experience much higher rates of contraction as you suggest, and that is what produces stars and galaxies, but regions larger than a hundred million light years or so only experience slightly lower rates of expansion, not contraction. Since expansion reduces the density towards zero and it is energy density (of matter and radiation) that acts to oppose expansion, all regions will tend to reach nearly the same rate of expansion as the density steadily falls into the far future.
Thanks. Now on the second point. If there is only expansion, then a past would have to be thought of, when everything within the vast but finite region or universe (or each finite-content universe within an infinite-content cosmos) has been much smaller in the spacetime vastness proper.
And then, if we have only a finite-content universe the only solution would be to posit creation by a God!
This is why I suggest to consider also the possibility of there existing an infinite number of finite-content universes in an infinite-content cosmos. I do not say that this should be the case. Instead, I suggest that we cosmologize on this possible case too.
What would be your take on this, on the question of the past spatiotemporally smaller states of each such universe?
Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO
How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences
Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...
Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil
Regarding the birth and expansion of the universe from nothing, I have done a little research.
One of humanity's ultimate questions is "How did the universe come into existence?"
Since energy is one of the most fundamental physical quantities in physics, and particles and the like can be created from this energy, this question is "How did energy come into existence?" It is related to the question you are asking.
Cosmology can be largely divided into a model in which energy has continued to exist and a model in which energy is also created. Each model has its strengths and weaknesses, but in the model that assumes the existence of some energy before the birth of our universe, "How did that energy come into existence?" Since the question still exists, the problem has not been resolved.
In order to explain the source of energy in our universe, there have been models that claim the birth of the universe from nothing, or a Zero Energy Universe. However, the key point, the specific mechanism of how being was born from nothing, is lacking, presupposes an antecedent existence such as the Inflaton Field, or is described in a very poor state. *The nothing mentioned here is not a complete nothing, but a state of zero energy.
There is an idea that could explain the birth of the universe out of nothing.
[abstract]
There was a model claiming the birth of the universe from nothing, but the specific mechanism for the birth and expansion of the universe was very poor.
According to the energy-time uncertainty principle, during Δt, an energy fluctuation of ΔE is possible, but this energy fluctuation should have reverted back to nothing. By the way, there is also a gravitational interaction during the time of Δt, and if the negative gravitational self-energy exceeds the positive mass-energy during this Δt, the total energy of the corresponding mass distribution becomes negative energy, that is, the negative mass state. Because there is a repulsive gravitational effect between negative masses, this mass distribution expands. Thus, it is possible to create an expansion that does not go back to nothing.
Calculations show that if the quantum fluctuation occur for a time less than Δt = ((3/10)^(1/2))t_p ~ 0.77t_p, then an energy fluctuation of ΔE > ((5/6}^(1/2))m_pc^2 ~ 0.65m_pc^2 must occur. But in this case, because of the negative gravitational self-energy, ΔE will enter the negative energy (mass) state before the time of Δt. Because there is a repulsive gravitational effect between negative masses, ΔE cannot contract, but expands. Thus, the universe does not return to nothing, but can exist.
Gravitational Potential Energy Model provides a means of distinguishing whether the existence of the present universe is an inevitable event or an event with a very low probability. And, it presents a new model for the process of inflation, the accelerating expansion of the early universe. This paper also provides an explanation for why the early universe started in a dense state and solves the vacuum catastrophe problem.
[ Birth and Expansion of the Universe from the Nothing]
ΔxΔp≥hbar/2
ΔtΔE≥hbar/2
By the uncertainty principle, quantum fluctuations ΔE can be created, but the problem is that these quantum fluctuations must return to nothing. Therefore, a mechanism is needed to prevent quantum fluctuations from returning to nothing.
Since there is energy ΔE that is the source of gravity and there is a time Δt for gravity to be transmitted, the gravitational self-energy (gravitational potential energy) must be considered. For simple calculations, assuming a spherical uniform distribution, the total energy including the gravitational self-energy is
E_T=Mc^2 - (3/5)GM^2/R
The magnitude at which the negative gravitational self-energy becomes equal to the positive mass energy can be obtained through the following equation.
R_gs=(5c^2/4πGρ)^(1/2)
From the uncertainty principle,
if, Δt≤(3/5)^(1/2)t_p = 0.77t_P, ΔE≥hbar/2Δt =(5/12)^(1/2)m_pc^2
By performing some calculations, we can find the time and energy at which ΔE enters accelerated expansion during Δt, in which quantum fluctuations can exist.
E=4πr^3ρ/3=(5/12)^(1/2)m_pc^2
If Δt ≤ ((3/5)^(1/2))t_p, then ΔE ≥ ((5/12)^(1/2))m_pc^2 is possible. By the way, at the moment this Δt exists, the gravitational interaction also proceeds. And, within Δt, the minimum magnitude at which the negative gravitational self-energy exceeds the positive mass energy is ΔE=((5/12)^(1/2))m_pc^2. So when Δt < ((3/5)^(1/2))t_p, the mass distribution expands as the repulsive force dominates the attractive force.
Since the repulsive force due to the negative gravitational self-energy is greater than the attractive force due to the positive mass energy, the corresponding mass distribution expands. Thus, the quantum fluctuations generated by the uncertainty principle cannot return to nothing, but can expand and create the present universe.
In this model, the following relationship holds between density and time to enter accelerated expansion:
R_gs=(5c^2/4πGρ)^(1/2) ~ ct
As a powerful constraint, it can be used to verify the correctness of a model.
Please refer to pages 13-16 of the thesis.
# The Birth Mechanism of the Universe from Nothing and New Inflation Mechanism
Preprint The Birth Mechanism of the Universe from Nothing and New Inf...
The above content is about "How did the universe born?"
By the way, my thesis also contains an opinion on another ultimate question,
"Why did the universe born?"
Please see the contents of the next chapter.
"5. Why the universe was born"
Preprint The Birth Mechanism of the Universe from Nothing and New Inf...
Thanks, Hyoyoung Choi
But don't you think that the claim of self-gravitation within the Zero Energy Universe looks very absurd? The matter to be clarified is whether energy propagations (i.e., in our context, the minimum energy present in the Zero Energy Universe) can also gravitate! I dealt with this question in other discussions of mine in RG.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvature_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist_short_text
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles
Raphael Neelamkavil
In the above article, there is some mention of a zero energy universe model, but I do not claim a zero energy universe model. I am thinking that the energy of the universe (participating in gravitational interactions) changes with time.
That is good. But just to claim that Zero Energy creates in a very minute part of a second or whatever is not an explanation. I think the general consequences of the cosmological theories too must be looked at.
If there is an infinite-content cosmos consisting of finite-content universes? Can we not then say that the infinite number of universes give and take?
PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers
THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS
3.1. Traditional Physical Categories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics
"Evidence" for another universe! But some may continue to hold that beyond these other universes no other universe exists! Should we be so conservative as to deny an infinite-content multiverse / cosmos?
Watch the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcrHdOwPTi0
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics
Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics
Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...
A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs
DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)
THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text
Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:
NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough
Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia
AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc
Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...
WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition
Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...
THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS
In view of clarifying the need of causality in "singularities" and thus reducing them from mathematical singularities to physically thick existents, and thus to address one of the insecurities of physics and cosmology, I propose the following questions:
Can electromagnetic and gravitational "quanta" form an ether-like background for the material part of the cosmos? Can there be interaction between the ether and the cosmos? If there is interaction between them, then every parts of them should interact, since the material part of the cosmos is within the so-called ether part. Then:
Are there consistent physical theories which exclude causality completely from the cosmos? Or, do they exclude causality from some portions of the cosmos and permit it in some other portions of it? In that case, how do they permit any realistic physical connection between the causal portions and non-causal portions of the cosmos?
Now, can the electromagnetic and gravitational "ether" be considered as a mere information, virtual information, etc.? Or, are these really existent energy which, of course, carry information for and from the causal formation of all that they causally affect?
That is, a mere infinitely dense stuff in the name of a black hole is a mathematical fiction. If this situation can be normalized in physics and cosmology, we have a normal universe wherein the Universal Law of Causality is applicable everywhere!
Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...
Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations
https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples
Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...
- Badges
- Science topic