Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anton Biermans: on 12/12/09 at 5:49am UTC, wrote Reply 2 to Ryan Westafer Reply 2 to Ryan Westafer "As the accuracy in one...

Anton Biermans: on 12/11/09 at 4:56am UTC, wrote As the essay is the report of an investigation in progress, I'd like to be...

Anton Biermans: on 11/4/09 at 9:34am UTC, wrote Part 2 of my comment on the essay of Arjen Dijksman. Though a particle is...

Anton Biermans: on 10/17/09 at 8:30am UTC, wrote Hello Arjen I measure the mass of an object by weighing. Though this...

Anton Biermans: on 10/17/09 at 8:22am UTC, wrote Hi Steve Since a self-creating universe doesn’t even exist as ‘seen’...

Arjen Dijksman: on 10/11/09 at 20:54pm UTC, wrote Well, thank you for your long answer which I read. I must admit that it...

Anton Biermans: on 10/11/09 at 4:56am UTC, wrote Dear Ryan, ‘ … "As the accuracy in one is equal to that in the...

Anton Biermans: on 10/9/09 at 8:24am UTC, wrote Reply to Arjen Dijksman ‘ … you propose to express gravity as a...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Re “I won't reply if you post outside the thread”: Tom, next you’ll..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

John Cox: "Just posting to reclaim the clickable heading for this topic." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Anonymous: "Is the phishing bot attack over? The headings column is still full of..." in Sounding the Drums to...

smith jina: "awesome post, thank you. Epson Help Epson Support Epson Support Number ..." in What Happens Inside the...

Brain Wave: "Beauty Tips Skin Tips Beauty Tips For Face Natural Beauty Tips Beauty..." in A Deeper Understanding

Brain Wave: "Beauty Tips Skin Tips Beauty Tips For Face Natural Beauty Tips Beauty..." in Building a Better Black...

Brain Wave: "Beauty Tips Skin Tips Beauty Tips For Face Natural Beauty Tips Beauty..." in Co-Travelers

Brain Wave: "Beauty Tips Skin Tips Beauty Tips For Face Natural Beauty Tips Beauty..." in Talking Heads


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.


FQXi FORUM
August 22, 2017

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Mechanics of a Self-Creating Universe by Anton W. M. Biermans [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 14:46 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay is a cursory overview of the first insights to come out of an investigation into the question whether a universe can create itself out of nothing and, if so, how. The suspicion that in an uncaused universe where things create, and so explain each other it doesn’t make sense to try to describe events in terms of cause and effect is supported by the fact that quantum mechanics only makes perfect sense if we abandon causality, if, as in quantum field theory, we consider particles to be the product as well as the source of their field, their interactions. As the law of action = reaction acknowledges the fact that the force on a particle can only be as strong as its opposition to it, its inertia, and particles owe their inertia to the force they anchor each other on the positions they act from, gravity must be ambivalent. By introducing a quantummechanical definition of mass, the essay shows how attraction and repulsion are the two sides of a gravity that powers and is powered by the expansion of the universe, inevitably leading to a uniform mass distribution. As in a self-creating universe the total of everything inside, including spacetime itself stays nil, nature has a paradoxical character which may take some effort to digest: instead of clinging to the essentially religious idea of causality and missing the fun, the reader will have to get used to the rational reasoning required to understand and appreciate the tale.

Author Bio

I studied chemistry at the University of Technology Eindhoven in 1969-74, but stopped halfway between my bachelor and master degrees as a professional life among people as boring as my fellow students, who in the course of their education managed to loose any imagination and creativity they may have started with, was too depressive a prospect to stomach. About ten years ago I became seriously enough interested in physics to study its essential textbooks to be able to use its many inconsistencies as guide for my investigations.

Download Essay PDF File




Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 00:00 GMT
Hi Anton. Greetings, you mentioned that your essay "shows how attraction and repulsion are the two sides of a gravity that powers and is powered by the expansion of the universe, inevitably leading to a uniform mass distribution".

Remarkably similar to your ideas, I have already previously written:

1) "Electromagnetism involves extremes of feeling, brightness, visibility, size, and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 00:08 GMT
Anton, I forgot to mention, feel free to quote me in your future work.

Author, Frank Martin DiMeglio

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 22:32 GMT
Hi Anton:

In your essay -- regarding the significance that you attach to "perpendicular":

Note: The 90 degree angle involving the body in relation to dream and waking experience. I forgot to include this in my prior 2 posts.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 03:54 GMT
"... any fool can master the maths of physics and publish respectable looking nonsense full of impressive equations ..."

I find this offensive. More like any fool can write a garbage essay.

report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 03:37 GMT
Dear mr./mrs. Anonymus,

Though my comment wasn’t intended to offend as the work of so many physicists is invaluable, I only meant that too often a theory is proclaimed, complete with the appropiate equations and accepted by the physics community, at least for some time, but which nevertheless is complete nonsense.

My comment was partly inspired by the fact that an academic degree...

view entire post





Leshan wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 17:28 GMT
'Since we cannot isolate a system from gravity, we can never construct a perfectly closed system'

You can see an example how to isolate gravity and construct a perfectly closed system here If the link do not work see below

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Leshan_Les
han.pdf

If you ask 'whether a universe can create itself out of nothing' then this essay will be interesting for you.

What is outside of your self creating universe? - Nothing is outside of universe, it is a hole in spacetime.

report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 02:13 GMT
Dear mr./mrs. Anonymus, (part 2)

Your comment made clear that I have to attend the question how present physics can be so wrong about some rather important issues, so here’s part two of my answer to you.

Though most articles on astrophysics, for example, report measurements, speculate about mechanisms of the observed phenomena or propose theories to explain them, they all...

view entire post





Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 03:55 GMT
Hi Lesham,

As particles preserve their mass by exchanging energy, by transmitting gravity between them, and you cut off this exchange by isolating the particles inside a system from the particles outside of it, they cease to exist to their siblings outside, so you would annihilate them if you could completely isolate them.

Our mistake is that we believe that things can exist even if...

view entire post





Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 05:41 GMT
Hi Anton W.M. Biermans,

'Though a discussion of the non-existence of spacetime outside the universe may seem of the same order as the question how many angels fit on the top of a pin'

Outside of your selfcreating universe is nothing, it is a hole in space-time or an absolute vacuum. It is not an abstraction, we are able to detect and create experimentally these holes in space-time. We can detect easy holes using their properties. If a hole appears, it means disappearance of extension and duration properties. Therefore, if we increase the concentration of holes in space, the observer must detect the time dilation and length contraction effects. Because in the limiting case when space consists of holes only, the distance between every two points is equal to zero and time as a property do not exist. Outside of universe does not exist the properties of extension and duration.

To create a hole in space-time, we must remove all matter from chamber very quickly. For this purpose we can use inelastic scattering of particles. If a particle with a near-luminal speed strikes another particle, one leaves its volume at near-luminal speed due to a hole must appear.

Thus, if clocks placed near a collider tick slower, it will be an experimental proof for the holes in space-time.

Since we can remove the space-time, consequenly space-time really exist.

report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 03:58 GMT
Reply to Robert Oldershaw, Dean Rickels, …

As for a lack of alternatives, most astrophysicists take the Big Bang idea as a starting point for their own research, affecting the direction and subject choice, its implicit assumptions infect their investigations or at least the interpretation of their observations, and thus the theories they come up with. As the bang doesn’t automatically...

view entire post





Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 17:45 GMT
Hello dear Mr Anton W.M. Biermans ,

Nice to know you .

In your essay,you speak about the expansion ,I have a question ,

Are you sure what our Universe actually expands ?

What about the evolution point of vue ?

If the self creating Universe is an effect thus what is the cause ?

Sincerely,

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 08:53 GMT
As some comments on other essays elucidate my own, I’ll also post them here.

Comment on ‘The Fariness principle and the ultimate TNOE – bij Giovanni Amelino-Camelia

‘ … The outside world is something independent from man, something absolute …’

If the universe creates itself out of nothing and continues to do so, then the sum of everything inside of it, including...

view entire post





Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 09:53 GMT
Thanks for the development .

Indeed the ultim entropy is very difficult to encircle because is outside the physicality .

But of course we see this splendid equation and its building in our Universe in evolution ,where the mass increases and improves,optimises ....

Our Universe is indeed a mechanic which is under an ultim equation and its universal parameters ,invariances ,coherences ,constants ....

I understand your point of vue .

Good luck for the contest

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 05:15 GMT
Comment on “What is the Ultimate Velocity ?” by Andrew Miller

‘… one day it may be possible to travel faster than the speed of light …’

I’m sorry but the speed of light isn’t even a velocity but just a number which says how many meters correspond to how many seconds, so you can never travel a greater spacedistance than the time-distance it corresponds to. Like some rulers which show lengths in centimeter at one side and in inches on the other, their ratio being 2.54, spacetime uses a ruler with a length scale at one side and a time scale at the other, the ratio between meters and seconds being c. Spacetime is not a space where it is everywhere the same time: the idea of a universal clock, which comes down to a clock outside the universe directing the pace of everything inside is a truly religious notion. As it isn’t everywhere the same time but clock readings depend on the observer and the observed process, as there’s no point in the universe from which unambiguously can be determined where it is earlier or later, a photon cannot even know in which direction it moves. Only an object which interacts with the environment it travels through can have a velocity with respect to the things it interacts with: as the photon cannot express its properties in interactions so the part “with respect to” doesn’t even apply, the speed of light is not a velocity. As it took me years to accept this state of affairs and only now am beginning to understand this dichotomy, its need in nature for engineering reasons, I suspect this to be hard to fathom for the reader: that Newton was right in thinking light to be transmitted instantaneously, Einstein being right in equating a spacedistance with a timedistance, but nevertheless mistaking a timedistance for a duration. As to a photon the world it travels in doesn’t exist as at that speed its properties are suspendend in time so it cannot express them in interactions with that world (which anyway would require influences propagating even faster), to the photon there’s no space nor timedistance between the points it is transmitted (never mind that photons do seem to interact when traveling –see Mechanics of a Self-Creating Universe), its transmission is instantaneous, notwithstanding the fact that an observer measures a time proportional to the distance between the points it is transmitted as to him they have different spacetime coordinates.




Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 19:32 GMT
Hello Mr. Biermans,

After reading your essay, I could appreciate the honesty with which you described it in your abstract: a cursory overview of the first insights to come out of an investigation into the question whether a universe can create itself out of nothing and, if so, how. I encourage you to go ahead. Many times your phrases begin with the word "if". The ideas you advance are speculative, in the good sense of the word. As Einstein wrote to his friend Michele Besso: "only bold speculation will enable us to progress and not an accumulation of experiments". However, speculation is not enough. It would be good if you referred to verified experimental facts and try to formulate the speculations as physical laws. If I understood your point well, you propose to express gravity as a vector perpendicular to the electric field and the magnetic. This may be expressed quite simply as a vector product G proportional to E x B. I don't see how this would relate to experimental evidence but maybe you have some original insight. I think that in this way you may begin to adjust your model.

By the way, in order to promote the contest, I publish essay quotes on my twitter profile and blog. Would you mind if I quote some of yours (with a link to your essay of course)? For example : "If an electron cannot express its charge if there is no other charge in the universe, then it couldn't be charged itself."

Regards,

Arjen

report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 11:28 GMT
Arjen, Of course you may quote. Answer follows one of these days.




Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 02:27 GMT
Reply to Leshan

If we define the outside of a universe as that area where the concept of spacetime looses any significance (keeping in mind that every every observer is at the center of his own universe), then the universe of course is no hole in spacetime, nor in some other kind of stuff, some other quantity or realm. That said, in the central area of a large region of spacetime which like an enormous soap bubble is enclosed by clusters of galaxies, spacetime is so undefined that positions over a large distances are almost identical physically, the virtual particles populating this area having an extremely low energy.

If we have two extremely long rulers (both having a scale for meters and one fore seconds), a regular one which contracts and expands according to the gravitational field it is dipped in, and a rigid ruler unaffected by the field and put them alongside each other from one cluster of galaxies diagonally across the bubble towards a cluster at the other side, then the density, the number of marks on the regular ruler per meter of the rigid ruler would be high and increasing nearer the clusters, at the ends of the ruler, whereas in the empty area their density would be extremely low, meaning that the distance in space and time between what on the rigid ruler corresponds to an enormous number of graduation marks, is very small in meters and seconds on the regular ruler which measures the physical distance. Nevertheless, a spacetime area which is completely empty is a waste of space in the eyes of nature: as such an area would take up space in our universe and increase the distance between objects at both sides and change their interactions, there are no such completely empty areas. If spacetime cannot exist without the virtual particles which keep it going, if these particles and spacetime are two aspects, manifestations of the same thing, then a completely empty spacetime can only exist in the mind of a mathematician.




Ryan S. Westafer wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 03:30 GMT
Dear Anton,

I applaud you for your discipline in self-study of physics. I agree with the zero-splitting argument and ambivalence about causality. Causality is a relative phenomenon, described well by quantum transactional wavefunction collapse (check out John G. Cramer's work)... something you and I both have independently determined, and at least one well-known physicist agrees!

A...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 08:24 GMT
Reply to Arjen Dijksman

‘ … you propose to express gravity as a vector perpendicular to the electric field and the magnetic. This may be expressed quite simply as a vector product G proportional to E x B. I don't see how this would relate to experimental evidence …’

You don’t see this because you still think that the mass of particles and the spacedistance between them are...

view entire post





Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 04:56 GMT
Dear Ryan,

‘ … "As the accuracy in one is equal to that in the other" ... shouldn't that be "is inversely proportional to the other?" - but I still understand your point …’

Writing the uncertainty principle as dE = 1 / dt, this is Planck’s law E = v, so both terms are equally accurate. I mean to say that a higher energy corresponds to a shorter time interval, and as in my book a higher energy is a less indefinite energy, a shorter time is a less indefinite time. Though the consensus is that a higher energy is a less definite energy, I hope to have made clear that this is not nature’s idea.

‘ …. To be understood by the majority of scientists, one must adopt their parlance - study their methods and start with the common assumptions before showing anything new …’

My problem in studying their methods is that though the methods and models may be sound, they’re applied even when they shouldn’t, making matters unnecessarily complicated. Having identified photons as carriers of the electromagnetic force, it may seem obvious to suppose other forces have their own carriers and think up fancy names for them like gravitons and gluons. However, if the assumption on which the idea of different forces is based on is invalid, if, gravity is attractive and repulsive, then this throws a completely different light on these ‘forces’, on the nature of energy and charge, and at least should lead to an inspection as to whether we really need them.

If a particle cannot distinguish by what force or field it is accelerated, if the field by accelerating it brings its inertia to expression as gravity, as a force between the source of the field and the particle, then we should apply the equivalence principle (if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck … ) by saying that electromagnetism is but a way to manipulate gravity. As long as we insist it to be a wholly different kind of force, completely independent from gravity, it indeed will stay a force unifyable with gravity. So when I read about the quest for the unification of gravity with electromagnetics, about gravitons and Higgs particles and other nonsense like Bing Bang and Inflation hypotheses, I wonder whether I should take the trouble to learn the lingo. To mee it seems that our toolbox (maths and models) has taken over physics, which, however invaluable, for different reasons is a sorry state of affairs. More about ducks you can find in my reply of 9 oct. to Arjen Dijksman above.

P.S. The mountaineer I’ve run across in some book I don’t remember which.




Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 20:54 GMT
Well, thank you for your long answer which I read. I must admit that it didn't make it clearer probably because I can't see from which standpoint you start. What is gravity for you? What is mass? How do you measure it?

I don't think that "the mass of particles and the spacedistance between them are entirely different and independent quantities" (cf. my essay), nor do I assume that charge is an intrinsic property of particles, so there are a few misunderstandings between us. Never mind, I'll be pleased to read your explanation about how two electrons repel each other.

I quoted from your essay on my "Common sense quantum physics" blog.

Regards,

Arjen

report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 08:22 GMT
Hi Steve

Since a self-creating universe doesn’t even exist as ‘seen’ from the outside, by definition having no cause, it is its own cause and effect. So it doesn’t expand into something else but continues to create energy and spacetime within. As seen from within (any point being the center of its own universe), its rim is no sharp border but a transition area where the energy of...

view entire post





Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 08:30 GMT
Hello Arjen

I measure the mass of an object by weighing. Though this measures its seemingly attractive mass and involves the kind of gravity which makes things move and radiate, related to expansion of the universe, it is proportional to the mass it preserves by exchanging energy, an exchange which transmits the kind of gravity which doesn't accelerate as it is as attractive as it is...

view entire post





Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 09:34 GMT
Part 2 of my comment on the essay of Arjen Dijksman.

Though a particle is an oscillating piece of spacetime, a pure wave phenomenon, it can behave like a tangible, pellet-like thing. As time passes slower where the field is stronger, nearer its mass center, it offers an increasing opposition to a probe trying to penetrate the field. So if with very tiny fingers we would pinch the piece of...

view entire post





Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 04:56 GMT
As the essay is the report of an investigation in progress, I'd like to be able to change it, to delete some parts, to rework others and add to it, as well as revise some replies and comments, as some ideas will be proved wrong or irrelevant as my view evolves.

As I cannot do this here, you can follow this evolution at www.quantumgravity.nl




Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 05:49 GMT
Reply 2 to Ryan Westafer

Reply 2 to Ryan Westafer

"As the accuracy in one is equal to that in the other" ... shouldn't that be "is inversely proportional to the other?"

On second thought, as this seems to be a widespread misunderstanding, here's why I mean 'accuracy':

dE . dt = 1, or let's write a . b = 1

for a = 9,5, b = 1,053

for a = 10.5, b = 0.095, so as 9,5 < a < 10,5, delta b = 1,053 - 0.095 = 0.958

for a = 9.95, b = 0.100

for a = 10,05, b = 0.099, so as 0,995 < a < 1,05, delta b = 0.100 - 0.099 = 0.001

So the more precise, the less indefinite a is, the less indefinite b is.




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.