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

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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 Fund.
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

George: on 10/3/12 at 5:18am UTC, wrote Dear Anton, Thanks for interesting essay. You says that the basic paradigm...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/28/12 at 11:47am UTC, wrote Dear Anton, In your essay you discuss < The idea that particles only...

Peter Jackson: on 9/27/12 at 12:18pm UTC, wrote Anton Although using the term 'speed' I see no mutual exclusivity with c...

James Putnam: on 9/25/12 at 13:55pm UTC, wrote Anton W.M. Biermans, Thank you for your extensive detailed replies. I hope...

Anton Biermans: on 9/22/12 at 10:23am UTC, wrote Dear James, If two identical virtual particles A and B pop up with an...

Anton Biermans: on 9/22/12 at 3:19am UTC, wrote Hi Eckard, It surely takes less effort to download the thing and read...

Stefan Weckbach: on 9/21/12 at 18:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Anton, Yes, i think "understanding" QM and its possible implications,...

James Putnam: on 9/20/12 at 15:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Anton, I guess the major difference between my reading of your...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Einstein's Error 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 Jul. 11, 2012 @ 10:33 GMT
Essay Abstract

This is not about what Einstein himself thought his biggest mistake but about a crucial conceptual error at the very heart of classical mechanics. There's no idea which has obstructed the development of physics since time immemorial so disastrously effective as the idea that our universe was created by some outside intervention, by God, or, what's in a name, a 'Big Bang'. This essay argues that the fundamental problems of present physics, how nature's different forces can be unified, how General Relativity can be reconciled with Quantum Mechanic and how to get rid of the contradictions and infinities which plague present physics, arise out of a completely outdated paradigm. Here the contours are sketched of a radically different paradigm, showing our universe to be quite different from what we think it is, much stranger but also, finally, understandable by reason, that is, if we are willing to trade our preconceptions about what's logical for Nature's logic. As the view here presented also differs in very subtle ways from what the reader is familiar with, (s)he may have a hard time to even grasp it (though if the solution to our problems would be easy to fathom, it would've been found long ago: it requires a drastic revision of our notion time, of how we look at things, of ideas which have passed their shelf life.

Author Bio

I studied chemistry at the Eindhoven University of Technology. Out of curiosity about how a universe can create itself out of nothing, I have, by self-study, become somewhat of an autodidact, an amateur in physics. Being of the pioneering sort, I felt less obliged to follow consensus as to how observations must be interpreted as professionals must, if they are to write publishable papers, which they must or else perish. Free to roam unexplored pastures, stumbling upon a good idea and following where it led, I think this amateur found directions to physics' grail.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 23:02 GMT
Dear Anton,

I enjoyed reading your fascinating essay. There are some parts I agree with and others that I have reservations about, as I have argued differently. It is well written; fascinating to see how you are thinking and piecing the ideas together.

I have just read the New Scientist magazine 30th June issue, which has an article "What kind of Bang was the Big Bang".Some of Max Tegmark's reservations about inflation of the universe are quoted. Though a Big Bang and inflation is widely accepted there are cosmologists who are questioning whether it is the best explanation after all.You and I are in agreement it didn't happen and did not create the universe.

I hope you get many appreciative readers. Good luck in the competition.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 07:53 GMT
Dear Mr Anton Biermans

I went through the same questions as raised in your essay. Since I have meditated on them for some time, I would like to share my opinion on the same;

1. The idea that the universe is an object we may imagine to observe from without

I have discussed substantially on observation at http://picophysics.org/concepts/observation-observer/. You will find that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear Anton

Congratulations for the courage to explore a different approach! For Self-Creating Universe you can use the more technically understandable "self assembling universe" as in cellular automata. I am not sure if what you describe is similar to my model Beautiful Universe but in some ways it resembles it- local causality, absolute local interactions.. no time...perhaps not? My FQXI essay hints at some approaches similar to yours but on a first reading I do not yet understand your SCU fully .. this is just my first reaction.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
Dear Anton

Your abstract and biography read like something from my own experiences. I liked the step back approach you've taken which is again very similar to my own. Some of your ideas I agreed with and some seemed a bit misguided perhaps, but on the whole a very worthy essay for the competition.

My last essay entry is exactly about a self-creating universe and should grab your interest with luck. My latest contribution continues the theme with a new insight which links the problems with sunlight-only ice age theory and the 'gravity problem'. I hope you have the time to contemplate a new angle of approach, Newtons' Isotropy and Equivalence..

Cheers,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 09:56 GMT
Anton

Not sure how I missed this essay.

“To investigate nature, a physicist must choose whether he believes that our universe was created by some outside intervention or that we live in a Self-Creating Universe”

To pursue physics, one does not have to believe anything, neither is there a choice.

We are part of a physical existence, which occurs as a sequence. We know that because we (and all organisms) receive input to the sensory systems (ie independent physically existent phenomena), and when able to compare these, difference is identified, which indicates alteration. Know being a function of being able to receive physical input and then process it. That is, we are trapped in a sensory loop. Physical reality can only be that which we can know, ie validate experiencially, either directly, or when there are practical problems in the sensory process, indirectly.

Big Bang is a logical end point of physical reasoning within this confine, ie where there is a boundary. We cannot transcend our own existence, or at least not in science. One can postulate a sequence of Big Bangs, but that is really the same logical point. Light is a physically existent entity, it therefore has a speed, which is measurable as per any other entity. So it does not determine the logic of Big Bang.

Possibly, Einstein did not make an error, that is in respect of the core hypothesis, which is Lorentz’s (with Fitzgerald) anyway, ie the possibility of dimension alteration. He did make an error in explaining it, which does not invalidate the hypothesis being explained. By accepting Poincare’s flawed concept of simulataneity, Minkowski’s reification of this flaw in spacetime, and the substitution of light speed for distance in an expression of time. All of which is explained in my blog with my posts 11/7 19.33 & 13/7 11.24. This not being directly related to my essay but a side issue, which keeps on coming up in other threads, so I took the opportunity to post these, as ordinary posts must be much shorter.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 05:46 GMT
Anton

Re your post 16.07 02.01 in A Critical Look (Daryl)

In general, the point is that at any given point in time there is a definitive physical existence, and that occurs independently of the sensing of it. However, in trying to discern that, the first problem is that there are no absolutes. Any judgement necessitates a reference, in order to compare and identify difference. And any possibility can be selected as that reference, but then it must be consistently used in order to ensure comparability of judgements.

The next problem is that Einstein accepted the Lorentz hypothesis that dimension alteration occurred in a certain circumstance, and extended that principle to light. So now there are potential references, and things being referenced against, that might not be ‘what they appear to be’. Hence, unless that is known, calculations will be incorrect.

The next point is that sight involves the reception of light, which is a physically existent phenomenon. And therefore, in terms of its functional role of providing a ‘representation’ of another physically existent phenomenon, it may be deficient due to a variety of factors. Fundamentally: it may not differentiate all that existed, it may be ‘interfered’ with en route (see above), it may never reach a sentient organism, or upon receipt the organism is incapable of processing it accurately and comprehensively.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 17:55 GMT
Anton

Interesting essay, and original views on a subject that needs more airing. Deserves a higher score.

I particularly agree with;

"We can only speak about the velocity of a particle if and when it interacts with the objects relative to which it moves,"

"...galaxies (and particles) in a SCU are source and product of their interactions"

"...two observers/interactors don’t share the exact same universe:"

and

": if the point of space is that different positions differ physically, then nature doesn't waste space on nothing."

These are also central to the ontology discussed in my own essay, which I hope you'll be able to read and comment on.

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 20:39 GMT
Dear Anton W.M. Biermans,

"...that is, if we are willing to trade our preconceptions about what's logical for Nature's logic. "

Just getting started on your essay. Find it very remarkable that you are in possession of Nature's logic. Perhaps?!

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 08:20 GMT
REPLIES TO ALL OF THE ABOVE COMMENTATORS, PART 1

@ Georgina,

Thanks for your kind words.

Whereas present physics tries to find out how nature works by observing and measuring things, I try to work things out from the opposite direction: can I rationally understand and find out how, roughly, how a universe might create itself out of nothing? Can I think of a scheme which makes...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 08:23 GMT
REPLIES TO ALL OF THE ABOVE COMMENTATORS, PART 2

@ Alan,

I'm sorry to say that I don't see any relation between a SCU and what you describe in your essay.

@ Paul,

To pursue physics, we must distinguish between what we can observe by physical interacting with the observed, by affecting it and be affected by it, and things we assume to exist but cannot verify whether...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 12:18 GMT
Anton

Although using the term 'speed' I see no mutual exclusivity with c as a space time property which, in both cases I think, is dependent entirely on particle interactions.

Do you agree that if a lens approaches a source the time/distance between subsequent interactions once passing through the lens medium will be reduced?

And secondly, that all electron 'emissions' are modulated by the property locally?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 08:24 GMT
@ James:

I certainly am not 'in possession of Nature’s logic'. My point is that we tend to cling to what to us seems logical rather that to what is logical. Our logic isn't some infallible ability to distinguish sense from nonsense, but, evolved in a long history of trial-and-error, at best is but a poor reflection of nature's logic, which is what we want to decipher. Science is not about interpreting observations to fit our ideas about what is logical, a logic which may very well be based upon preconceptions, but about remaining alert for signs which may prove our assumptions wrong, our ideas of what is logical. The fact that every major breakthrough in physics was a conceptual revolution, a break from old, trusted assumptions and ways of looking at things, should help keep an open mind, which in practice is very difficult, as Max Planck found:

''A new scientific truth doesn't prevail by convincing its adversaries and show them the light, but rather because its opponents die out and a new generation grows up which is familiar with it.''

Though we have found it logical for millennia to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, it took much effort to trade the preconception that the Sun revolves about the Earth for Copernicus' view, for Nature's logic. I'm afraid that Big Bang Cosmology similarly represents a completely obsolete, pre-Copernican view on reality. To me what happens in present cosmology is very much like an alien society where the belief that their own planet is at the center of the universe is a truth which under no circumstances is to be relinquished. As a result the alien cosmologists must dream up an artificial, far-fetched, complicated hypotheses to explain things, complete with equations to enable them to predict motions of stars and galaxies and at the same time keeps that illusion intact, so their equations must in some way be convoluted to be able to correct for the erroneous belief. If observations are made which seem to contradict this belief, additional hypotheses are dreamed up to circumvent or to 'explain' away such observations, just like the cosmic inflation and dark energy hypotheses were invented just to save the fatally flawed big bang hypothesis.

What I want to do is break the taboo by showing a how things look like from a different vantage point, where no far-fetched hypotheses have to be thought up to explain observations. Though physics shouldn't be a playground for philosophy but a domain for statements which can be experimentally tested, some philosophical insights can have a huge impact on physics if they concern the interpretations of observations, even if they aren't verifiable by experiment, like the question whether the speed of light refers to a velocity or to a property of spacetime.

Anton

Bookmark and Share



James Putnam wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 15:44 GMT
Anton W.M. Biermans,

I see your essay as an imaginative testing of current physics. Yet it begins with and carries along with it a version of 'Creation'.

"To investigate nature, a physicist must choose whether he believes that our universe was created by some outside intervention or that we live in a Self-Creating Universe (SCU). If a universe creates itself out of nothing, then conservation laws say that everything inside of it somehow has to cancel, add to nothing –in which case it cannot have any particular property or be in some particular state as a whole, as ‘seen’ from without, so to say."...

I fail to see any differentiation between "universe was created by some outside intervention" or "that we live in a Self-Creating Universe (SCU)." It appears to be just a matter of choice as to how one wishes to refer to the 'miracle'. I presume that you see 'self-creation' as not being 'supernatural'?

... "From an engineering point of view, a universe which is to create itself out of nothing must invent something which has the inclination to increase, to keep (re)creating itself without violating conservation laws, something which is neither positive or negative or both, something which as seen from one place or time looks as positive as it looks negative from the other. This sounds like energy: as two photons annihilate without liberating any energy, energy is a quantity which is both positive and negative."

Is 'energy' your version of the 'miracle'? In the beginning there was energy? I would be interested if you could talk about the science of creation before properties exist. The properties seem to appear as free givens without explanation.

"If a universe creates itself out of nothing, then conservation laws say that everything inside of it somehow has to cancel, add to nothing..."

Is your belief that 'nothing' is the cause of our beginning?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 00:59 GMT
James,

The point is that a SCU does not exist, has no physical reality as a whole, so cannot have a beginning as a whole, so we cannot even say that it was, is created or that it created or is creating itself. A SCU therefore doesn't have a cause, nor does it live in a time continuum not of its own making. A SCU is somewhat like a zero continuously splitting itself in positive and negative numbers, their sum always nil, so exists only exists as seen from within, by an observing particle, for example, a particle which is part of the sum which is to stay nil. As there's nothing outside the universe, no warden outside of it to prevent anything to happen inside, things can appear and happen as long this sum stays nil: they have no physical reality to an imaginary outside observer.

Nature's trick to keep the grand total of everything inside the universe nil is to design energy as something the sign of which alternates in space and time, which is why a particle is a wave phenomenon, the magnitude of its energy varying within every cycle even if the period of the cycle, the frequency of the alternation does not. The problem of the present idea that energy is an objectively observable quantity which is always positive is that in such universe conservation laws are violated.

The uncertainty principle is interpreted to say that virtual particle antiparticle-pairs are continuously created out of nothing, to annihilate each other after a time inversely proportional to their energy, energy they supposedly borrow from the vacuum, which, again, is a violation of conservation laws.

In contrast, in a SCU particles only exist to each other if, as far and for as long as they interact, so here they don't borrow energy from the vacuum but from each other: the particle borrows energy from its antiparticle which then pops up with an equal, negative energy, or, what's the same, in counter phase, so here there's no conservation law violated and the total energy of the universe stays nil. The fact that energy is expressed as a frequency, which cannot be a negative number, does not mean that energy itself is a positive quantity, always: if particles only exist to each other if they interact, then their energy sign, the phase they are in with respect to each other is relative, depending on their distance, for example.

The 'magic' is that in a SCU virtual particles become real ones as soon as they manage to set up a continuous energy exchange so they reappear after very disappearance: as they only exist to each other if they interact, exchange energy, no conservation law is violated, so there is no hocus pocus involved in their creation. The energy of a real particle then equals (h = 1) the frequency at which its energy sign alternates, the frequency it pops up, disappears and pops up again etcetera, so in a SCU particles preserve and express their mass by continuously exchanging energy.

As a SCU doesn't exist as a whole, as ' seen' from without, from the imaginary vantage point bigbang cosmologists abide to look at the universe, it obviously doesn't have a beginning, nor has it any cause.

Since in a SCU particles create, cause each other, they explain each other in a circular way, so here we can take any element of an explanation, any link of the chain of reasoning without proof, use it to explain the next link and so on, to follow the circle back to the assumption we started with, which this time is explained by the foregoing reasoning, that is, if our reasoning is sound and our assumptions are valid. If we have more confidence in a theory as it is more consistent and it is more consistent as it relates more phenomena, makes more facts explain each other and needs less additional axioms, less more or less arbitrary assumptions to link one step to the next, then any good theory has a tautological character, fitting a self-creating, self-explaining universe. The circle of reasoning ought to work equally well in the reverse direction.

For a more extensive discussion of the self-creation process, see my website www.quantumgravity.nl, though I have to warn you that a) this is a qualitative study, a work in progress, and b) that I am an awfully bad writer so you may find it hard to read. Another, perhaps more insurmountable obstacle to make sense of the study is that the way we look at things is so conditioned by our belief in causality, that it is very hard to even consider the possibility that nature at its most fundamental (quantum) level simply is non-causal.

Anton

Bookmark and Share


James Putnam replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 02:02 GMT
Anton W.M. Biermans,

I think that this response you wrote indicates that you write well. Nice comeback. I am not certain what to do about it. I see so much emerging for free. To me these free-lunch programs seem lacking of scientific and logical support. Results are effects. Effects require cause. Things are either explained or they remain unexplained. If they are unexplained, then it is clear that the scientist has exceeded their knowledge limit. That is what is clear to me.

The good news is that there are a great many persons, including a few experts here now with essays, that also employ grab-bag approaches, sometimes referred to as emergence. I am not suggesting that they would agree with your arguments. That would be for them to say. I guess that the best result is that you write messages like you have done here and see what others think. It really was informative. I think you communicate well.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 03:31 GMT
James,

Though a BBU indeed is a 'free-lunch' universe, a SCU certainly is not: here a particle gets exactly the lunch it pays for, as in one phase of its oscillation it pays back the energy (lunch) it borrows in the other.

As to 'scientific and logical support', as I argue in quantumgravity.nl, unlike a BBU, a SCU automatically, unavoidably produces a homogenous universe and needs no far-fetched cosmic inflation scheme, no dark energy to explain observations, nor are phenomena like the double-slit experiment and EPR paradox enigmatic in a SCU.

However skillful the 'experts' are with equations, despite eighty years of trying, they failed to find even a beginning of a solution to the fundamental problems and contradictions of physics, so to me their theories are as suspect as those of the uninitiated, never mind their equations.

Because their theories are founded on the misconception that causality is the sine qua non of science, as far as I'm concerned their theories, from bigbang cosmology to string theory and the Higgs particle describe a fictitious universe so are a waste of time, effort and taxpayer money. Mathematics should be a tool of physics, not the other way around as it is at present.

Anton

Bookmark and Share


James Putnam replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 03:34 GMT
Anton W.M. Biermans,

"Though a BBU indeed is a 'free-lunch' universe, a SCU certainly is not: here a particle gets exactly the lunch it pays for, as in one phase of its oscillation it pays back the energy (lunch) it borrows in the other.

As to 'scientific and logical support', as I argue in quantumgravity.nl, unlike a BBU, a SCU automatically, unavoidably produces a homogenous universe and needs no far-fetched cosmic inflation scheme, no dark energy to explain observations, nor are phenomena like the double-slit experiment and EPR paradox enigmatic in a SCU."

I understand your point to be that an SCU universe gets the equals sign for free. The big bang does not. Is this correct?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 14:04 GMT
Anton,

Copying your message here:

"Reason says that what comes out of nothing..."

Nothing comes out of nothing or you have something that you are calling nothing.

"...should add to nothing, .."

There is nothing to add unless you have something that you are calling nothing.

"...so conservation laws in physics are the expression of this rational 'belief'....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 03:17 GMT
Anton,

Copying this from another blog, I refute your irrefutable logic:

''If we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause, and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause, then this chain of cause-and-effect either goes on ad infinitum, or it ends at some primordial cause which, as it cannot be reduced to a preceding cause, cannot be understood by definition.''

Which tells you that physics is not about explaining causes. Theoretical physics tries to do this with its inventions. But, empirical evidence tells us that all we know about are effects. There is no chain of causality. There is only unknown cause active from the beginning of existence. There is no defintion of cause except by theoretical invention. Theoretical inventions about cause are for those who wish to oppose something for which an interpretation of cause is a necessary pre-requisite. That something is of no more scientific value than are those invented imaginary properties passed off as cause. Anyone is invited to respond to this message.

You didn't respond to my other message above.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 17:39 GMT
Anton

The only problem is semantics, of what in reality is space-time. In the logical structure I utilise light is indeed a property of space time. And space-time now has a quantum mechanical explanation from which that quality emerges. This includes the mechanics of the observed curvature.

My essay does seem far to difficult to read quickly and still glean the key meaning and cause and effect sequencing. I tried to use metaphores to help kinetic thinking, but then the logical monotonicity was buried too deeply. I hope you may get another chance.

In any case, you may see from other posts (at He, Oldershaw etc.) tht I entirely agree with no big bang and the self creating universe in principle, but with a well evidenced cyclic model of eternal re-ionization, indeed scale invariant, so at Galaxy scale too. Have a little fun with this and do comment; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

Best of luck in the contest.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 08:11 GMT
James

Reason says that what comes out of nothing should add to nothing, so conservation laws are the expression of this rational 'belief'. A SCU is a perpetuum mobile which yields as much as it cost: nothing, so only exists as seen from within, has reality only to its particles. Particles only exist to one another if, as far and as long as they interact, exchange energy, so if a SCU is like a zero which endlessly splits itself into numbers the sum of which remains nil, then its particles, in a sense, are the numbers which add to nil.

This is in contrast to a BBU which, as it has certain properties as a whole, presumes the existence of something outside of it with respect to which it can have such properties, that is, lives in a realm not of its own making, but is a universe which has been caused, created by some outside intervention, usually called 'God', a universe where conservation laws don't hold.

If we were to enlarge the atoms of our body to the size of a pinhead, then we'd be about 1.5 times as tall as the diameter of the Earth. From the point of view of fundamental particles of these atoms, we are gigantic bio-machines which more or less obey classical, 'causal' mechanics. These huge machines may very well follow a different 'logic' than their fundamental particles do: just like the construction of a piano, the mechanics, physics of the atoms of the wood, strings, hammers etcetera has scarcely anything to do with the melodies played on it, so doesn't the non-causality of events at quantum level exclude causality at macroscopic level. Reversely, the fact that in our macroscopic world events to some extent seem to follow causality does not mean that events at quantum level also must follow causality.

That said, I have my doubts about causality at any scale or level. Though chaos theory often is thought to say that the antics of a moth at one place can cause a hurricane elsewhere, if an intermediary event can cancel the party, then the moth's antics are a cause in retrospect, in which case it isn't a cause at all in my book. The point of my essay is that though events certainly are related, they aren't necessarily related causally: to insist they do is missing the entire point. To be able to determine what is cause of what in an absolute sense requires that we can look at the universe from the outside, which we cannot. As far as I'm concerned, causality means that if A happens, B follows with 100% certainty. Since quantum theory only speaks about probabilities, and even at macroscopic level A not always leads to B, the concept of causality is overrated: to me 'approximately' causally is a contradiction in terms.

The insight that the universe (with us inside of it) doesn't exist as a whole, has no reality as 'seen' from without, so to say, may be hard to accept as we seem to crave an absolute kind of existence, wishing for Someone in Whose eyes we exist, for our existence to transcend the universe itself, to be immortal. Alas, it is this wish which confuses the mind of even physicists which think themselves to be atheist but are not as long as they cling to causality like kids to their mother's skirts.

Anton

Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 20:26 GMT
Dear Anton,

yours is the best and most lion-hearted essay i read so far here. I think i understand you. Your approach does permit "nothing comes from nothing" as well as "all comes from all". It's only a question of perspective what one refers to, because one thing should be for sure: There IS an existence of "something" - and this not without REASON. The layer of that reason is - in my opinion - not definable for human beings in absolute terms. Nonetheless there must be a reason - and this reason has nothing to do with causality. I must end here, because of philosophical reasons, "what one cannot speak about, one should be silent about".

But: If you like, read my essay, a think i have some very similar ideas as yours and developed them properly from a more "physical" (QM) point of view.

All the best,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 21:19 GMT
Anton W.M. Biermans,

I didn't notice till today that you responded to me.

"Particles only exist to one another if, as far and as long as they interact, exchange energy, so if a SCU is like a zero which endlessly splits itself into numbers the sum of which remains nil, then its particles, in a sense, are the numbers which add to nil."

Nothing cannot split unless there is something. Your energies may add to zero but the cause for splitting must exist as non-zero or as not-nothing. You are sneaking in something while keeping the reader's eyes on nothing.

These conservation laws are not free either. They represent the pre-existence of very sophisticated means of control. You acquire, without justification, the most important somethings while relying upon a zero null point of something as the beginning of everything from nothing. Your zero is not nothing. You are using it as a cover to hide the real 'everything' from the reader's sight. You are beginning the same as everyone else must do. You are beginning with everything.

There is nothing that has ever occurred or will ever occur in the universe that has not been provided for by whatever the original 'Means' is. Before it becomes necessary to debate what that original means was, it is inescapably necessary to acknowledge it. Your 'escape' is only a an illusion.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 09:31 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Thanks for the compliment, and, yes, your essay goes somewhat in the same direction, the all-important difference being that you look at the universe from an imaginary observation post outside of it.

I wonder whether you agree with my proposition that the 'speed' of light refers to a property of spacetime, not to a (finite) velocity, as it would partly contradict some statements in your own essay?

I ask this because it makes such a huge difference to physics whether it is a velocity or not, as I argue more extensively in my study at website, www.quantumgravity.nl

Anton

Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Anton,

Yes, i think "understanding" QM and its possible implications, i am forced to change my point of view to an observer "outside" of the universe.

Surely i am by no means outside of the universe and therefore my conclusions could - as i wrote at the beginning of my essay - surely be false.

My impression of QM and its features (as known and understood up to date) is,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 09:35 GMT
Dear James,

The uncertainty principle interpreted to say that virtual particles can appear by borrowing the energy to exist from the vacuum, for a time inversely proportional to their energy. From the UP it is but a small step to a Self-Creating Universe where real particles can be thought of as virtual particles which by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist, force each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance, at about the same place. In this universe when one particle pops up with a 'positive' energy, borrowing that energy from another particle which then pops up with an equal 'negative' energy, so they pop up in counter phase, out of nothing or, if you wish, out of each other (quotation marks because the energy sign of a particle is a relative quantity).

I'm not sneaking anything in behind the reader's back: as far as I'm concerned, the only (and sufficient) ''means of control'' a universe 'has', consists of the first law of physic: the law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing. Again, a SCU only exists as seen from within, and has no beginning as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say. Perhaps things may become clear to you if read my more extensive study (which is a work in progress) at my website, www.quantumgravity.nl

Anton

Bookmark and Share


James Putnam replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 15:39 GMT
Dear Anton,

I guess the major difference between my reading of your explanation and your own view of it is that when you use the word 'nothing' I presume that you mean nothing. Instead it appears that you refer to a null point of an existing variable property as 'nothing'. It appears to be a 'starting' point of creation for you. I look at what you write and I see you relying upon conclusions resulting from analyses of theoretical interpretations of a great deal of empirical information.

The principles, laws, etc. that you find most useful appear out of nowhere to be applied for free to a meaningfully variable property that you appear to claim is physically not in existence when its positive and negative parts neutralize. I think your position is clear to me.

You say that something is nothing because there is a point at which that something is graphed at the value zero. Then, since this null point is known to not be permanent letting the graph move, for unjustified reason, into both the positive and negative values, all principles, laws, etc. that are known to apply to the operation of the universe become available without justification. Presumably, this single variable property that 'begins' at its null point also pops into existence with all the potential needed to bring forth the rest of creation.

Certainly you are free to use the word 'nothing' to mean what you define it to mean. For me 'nothing' means nothing.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 10:23 GMT
Dear James,

If two identical virtual particles A and B pop up with an opposite energy sign, then there is no energy needed from the outside for their creation: though they create each other out of nothing, ,the drawback is that in that case they only exist to each other but have no reality to other particles, P and Q which may already be present in the universe they appear in. That is,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


James Putnam replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 13:55 GMT
Anton W.M. Biermans,

Thank you for your extensive detailed replies. I hope that others enter into discussions with you. I would be interested in reading opinions by theoretical physicists. I think that your approach is as relevant as many of the approaches I see put forward by theoretical physicists. Looking back at some of my messages, they seem more confrontational than I intended them to be. Printed words alone are sometimes inadequate. Your thoughts are interesting. Good luck in the contest.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 11:47 GMT
Dear Anton,

In your essay you discuss < The idea that particles only are the source, the cause of forces and interactions.> It is one of the main ideas in the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay). But the cause of forces at one level of matter are particles of low levels of matter which generate field quanta. There is equilibrium of nucleons in atomic nucleus. There is Gravitational torsion field between nucleons and the spin torsion field counteracts to their strong gravitation. Due to the effect of Gravitational induction nucleons in nucleus are rotated quickly changing their spin and force in the equilibrium. It is a special case when gravitation has attractive and repulsive action at the same time.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 05:18 GMT
Dear Anton,

Thanks for interesting essay. You says that the basic paradigm of physical science must be changed. I am agree with you and have attempted to do it. How is it successful and productive - you can judge from mine work. I hope you will find time to check it. I have apprised your work.

link essay

Best wishes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.