Essay Abstract

The "Absurd Universe" as described by Michael Turner [1] represents the consensus characterization of the predictions of the most widely accepted physics and cosmology theories marred by their unresolved contradictions, inconsistencies, and paradoxes. This paper provides a new fundamental understanding of the Cosmological Constant and relativistic universe expansion as an extension to the widely accepted linear Hubble expansion. The current paradoxes and inconsistencies are shown to be artifacts of the missing (hidden) physics of the well-known phenomenon of spontaneous decay. A new Gravity Nullification Model for Universe Expansion (GNMUE) is proposed that integrates the missing physics of the spontaneous mass-energy conversion into a simplified form of general relativity. The model predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies and other data. The model provides answers to key fundamental questions and resolves paradoxes among general relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. It also bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories via revealing relativistic understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics. The impact of the new understanding on widely-accepted fundamental assumptions is discussed and a new wholesome perspective on reality is provided.

Author Bio

Dr. Avtar Singh is the author of the book - "The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality". He obtained his Doctor of Science and Master of Science degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. He has been involved in research and development in science, engineering, and cosmology over the past 30 years. He has published more than fifty technical papers and two monographs. He received the 'Best Paper Award' of the American Nuclear Society and several technical excellence awards in nuclear, defense, and space industries.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

  • Post #2

Dear Dr. Singh,

I have read your paper and have three questions about your theory:

1. How does the mechanism you explain in your paper-the spontaneous conversion of matter into energy that propels the remaining matter outward-fit in with the known fact that when matter is annihilated it produces radiation?

2. What observable effects does your theory produce at the scale of our solar system? In other words, what experiment can be done to test for a phenomenon that is not yet anticipated, as opposed to one that people already know about, like dark energy?

3. It appears to me that your theory predicts a violation of the cosmological principle because the average matter density for regions far away from us (and the galaxies they contain) would have to progressively decrease. As far as I know, no such effect has been observed. Any comments?

Sincerely,

Armin

    • [deleted]

    • Post #3

    Dear Dr.Singh,

    I am glad to see a beautiful essay submitted by you on resolving the cosmological constant and relevant issues persisting in the scientific world.

    Who am I? I am a cosmological variant, i is the cosmological constant.

    Singularity is not just a relative infinity, it is absolute equality and hence the whole. To the one who realizes the truth there is nothing else but singularity.

    Wisdom is more important that imagination is more important than knowledge,

    for all that we know is just an imagination chosen wisely.

    Please see the article that I have posted here in the contest

    Conscience is the cosmological constant.

    Love,

    Sridattadev.

      Dear Armin:

      Thanks for reading my paper and thoughtful questions. The following are answers to your questions:

      1. The mechanism of spontaneous mass-energy conversion fits really well with the emitted Luminous Radiant Energy (LRE) as mathematically described in Chapter 5, equation 5-50 (attached), in my book [15]. The LRE is equal to the total gravitational energy minus the rotational kinetic energy in the overall GNMUE model. This model of radiated energy is vindicated by the close predictions by GNMUE of the observed visible size of a galaxy by GNMUE as depicted in Figure 5-22 attached below.

      2. The spontaneous (instantaneous) mass-energy conversion is already evident in the well-studied and experimented phenomena such as wave-particle behavior, non-locality, entanglement etc. wherein mass-energy equivalence (E=mC2) or complementarity is exhibited. The conversion discussed here is does not occur over time but reflects simultaneous duality of behavior already seen in quantum experiments. No new experiments are needed since these phenomena are already well-established via past experiments. GNM simply fills in the missing mathematical description for the already established physical phenomena. Dark energy on the other hand is still unknown and mathematically indescribable phenomenon that remains a puzzle for cosmology theories. GNMUE resolve this puzzle as well.

      3. As seen in figure 8 of the paper, mass increases with size up to about 10 billion light-years. Hence, mass is being created (rather than dilated) in this region, which helps reduce the rate of decrease in density with size. As shown in attached figure 5-5 from ref. [15], the predicted density ratio (actual to critical density) is higher than 1 during this region wherein the mass is being created until it reaches a maximum. After that the mass density decreases below the critical density as the mass begins to decrease at higher sizes. You are correct in noticing that in the current cosmological theories, the average matter density is assumed (without any observational evidence) to be constant at critical density for a flat universe, which is predicted only at the maximum mass in GNMUE.

      Sincerely,

      AvtarAttachment #1: Figures_for_Armin_Questions.pdf

      Dear Sridattadev:

      Thanks for reading my paper and comments. I will read your paper.

      Regards

      Avtar

      • [deleted]

      • Post #6

      Hi Mr Singh,

      It is interesting.Congratulations.

      But you know the expansion is just a step.My model tells us that we have an expansion, so a maximum volume, and so we have after a critical density, a contraction ...towards the perfect equilibrium between quantum and cosmological spheres.

      The cosmological constant is relevant that said.

      ps I invite you to insert my equations about the light and the mass.

      E=m(c³o³s³)and mcosV=const.

      ps2 intersting tool for the taxonomy of our evolutive space time ....we can see the polarity m/hv ....

      Regards and good luck for this contest.

      Dr. Singh,

      In my essay, I simplistically deal with Armin's (above) question regarding the discovery of the Earth's magnetic field and other interactions trapping anti-matter in the atmosphere. What is your perspective on this?

      Jim

        Dear Jim:

        I enjoyed reading your paper. Thanks for reading my paper and asking a question. The following is a response to your question:

        Anti-particles: One of the fundamental assumptions made by quantum mechanics and quantum cosmology is that the net mass-energy of the universe is zero (Please note that there is no sound and credible basis for this assumption). The artifact of this assumption leads to the presumed existence of anti-matter to cancel out the net positive matter energy in the universe. The existence of still allusive anti-particles in the same amount as the real matter is yet to be observed to prove the correctness of quantum predictions of anti-matter. GNMUE predicts spontaneous annihilation (as well as creation) of matter (mass-energy conversion) without invoking the unverifiable assumption of anti-matter.

        The annihilation of matter is nothing but simply spontaneous (without any external force or stimulus) and instantaneous conversion of mass-energy allowed by the mass-energy equivalence principle. GNM model in my paper derives the missing physics and governing equation for this mechanism using relativity theory. The model is shown to predict annihilation or dilation as well as creation of matter without any anti-matter, which is simply an artifact of the missing understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics. GNM reveals this inner understanding and resolves many of the puzzles of QM including the artifact anti-matter, dark, matter, and dark energy etc.

        Sincerely,

        Avtar Singh

        Dear Avtar

        You have worked hard on your ideas and presented them in a highly technical way that I could not always follow, particularly because the reasoning behind many of your claims are in outside references. Even so I find myself agreeing with some but not all of the statements. I doubt that mass decay is responsible for the expansion of the universe, but you have reasoned it out and I am only guessing.

        The links between cosmology and Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have elicited many fascinating ideas and yours is another interesting approach.

        I wish you the best of luck.

        Vladimir

          • [deleted]

          • Post #10

          Dear Jim and Dr. Singh,

          Conscience or soul is at the root of spontaniety (both creation (birth) and anhilation (death)).

          Love,

          Sridattadev.

          Dear Vladimir:

          Thanks for reading my paper and thoughtful comments.

          It is not mass only that is responsible for the expansion, but the wholesome mass-energy-space-time continuum constitutes the various relativistic states of the apparent and so-called expansion of the universe. What is missed out in the current theories is a wholesome relativistic conservation of this continuum. This omission is the root cause of the existing paradoxes and inconsistencies leading to the prediction of an "Absurd" universe.

          Sincerely,

          Avtar

          14 days later

          Avtar,

          I'm delighted to have now read your well written essay, and found an extraordinary degree of commonality, as you suspected, though also significant divergence.

          I particularly agree with some areas which i didn't really cover here, except with some oblique references in my end notes, i.e.;

          "The actual mass increases with increasing size of the universe until a maximum mass is reached at about 10 billion light-years, beyond which, mass decreases again with size."

          I have estimated this at a little more time, perhaps some 15-18Gyr, but with a scale invariant process applicable to galaxies over some 6Gyr. This implies recycling at 11-12Gyr. Does your model fully constrain a longer period for the Universe?

          I have different and I feel more mechanistic resolutions of some of the same and many different effects you refer to. I suspect and hope we may be mutually informed and converge. Do you think so?

          Best of luck

          Peter

            Dear Peter:

            Thanks for reading my paper and thoughtful comments. I have read your interesting and delightful essay and agree with you that our papers address common concepts and themes.

            However, I did not see any explicit predictive calculations of cosmic observations such as mass evolution, Hubble expansion, nor did I see any comparison against actual data in your paper. So, it is hard for me to comment on the basis of your numbers - 15-18Gyr or recycling at 11-12 Gyr. My model does not predict any recycling but predicts a quasi-static universe with only inferred relativistic expansion that matches the observations of the so-called accelerated expansion based on Supernova data.

            I do not have any constraints at all on time period or size of the universe; it is an open-end universe with no beginning or ending. My paper includes only a few mechanistic details due to 9 pages size restriction. A complete model with much more mechanistic details and equations is described in my book - ref. [15].

            Regards

            Avtar

            Dear Avtar Singh

            you ask me to comment on your essay. It is based on a combination of Newtonian gravitational theory (equation (5)) and special relativity, combined with assumptions about particle decay. It nicely develops consequences of those assumptions. However I happen to believe the General Relativity Theory is a better theory of gravity than Newtonian theory, and this is supported by solar system tests such as observations of the perihelion of Mercury and gravitational lensing observations, as well as by the necessity of the use of GR corrections in GPS devices. Effects in your theory such as the lack of black holes follow from the use of an incorrect theory of gravity (i.e. one not supported by experiment).

            Additionally you state as regards the cosmological constant that no such extraneous fudge factor exists in your theory. However there is no cosmological constant in (6) but there is one in (8). How did it get there? It was put in by hand (equation(7)). It did not follow from equations (1)-(6). A further arbitrary fudge takes place between (9) and (10) where you add a new relation between Lambda and H that is not implied by equations (1)-(6). This is later (equation (11)) proclaimed as if it is a deduction from the theory, but it is not, it is an a priori assumption. So your later results do not follow from your initial assumptions, but from these extra assumptions that are unmotivated from any physical basis.

            Finally I am unable to see how your model as states in (1)-(6) causes a reformulation of quantum theory, as claimed in section 6. But in any case as stated above, your choice of gravitational theory is Newtonian theory; General relativity is a better fit to the solar system data, which are very well attested, and hence is preferred by the data.

            George Ellis

              Dear George:

              Thanks a lot for reading my paper and providing thoughtful comments as well as questions. Responses are provided below. I would greatly appreciate your feedback if I have adequately addressed all your questions/comments:

              1. I completely agree with your statement - "....... I happen to believe the General Relativity Theory is a better theory of gravity than Newtonian theory, and this is supported by solar system tests such as observations of the perihelion of Mercury and gravitational lensing observations, as well as by the necessity of the use of GR corrections in GPS devices. Effects in your theory such as the lack of black holes follow from the use of an incorrect theory of gravity (i.e. one not supported by experiment). "

              However, in spite of the well-known successes of the General Relativity (GR) Theory in all those near-field (solar system) areas you noted above, it has been unable to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe without using a Fudge Factor - Cosmological Constant that still remains unexplained (dark energy) on a mechanistic basis. Similarly, on galactic scale, the observed flat rotational velocities and its unknown source -dark matter remain unexplained by GR. Both these unexplained Dark Energy and Dark Matter presumably constitute 96% of the universe that still remains mysterious and paradoxical. The Gravity Nullification Model based Universe Expansion (GNMUE) theory proposed in my paper provides a solution to these paradoxes via including the missing physics of the spontaneous particle decay. The predictions of the proposed GNMUE theory successfully predict the observed data on galactic rotational velocities (figure 9) as well as the accelerated universe expansion exhibited by supernova data (figure 5), which GR fails to predict without a non-zero Λ. These successful predictions vindicate the GNMUE theory on a universal scale, in spite of the demonstrated correctness of GR at solar scale.

              Secondly, the so-called Big bang Singularity is caused by confining the entire mass of the universe in a point like (zero) volume leading to an infinite density. GNMUE demonstrates that the root cause of this singularity is the missing physics of spontaneous mass decay or evaporation that dilates mass as the size decreases and radiates the resulting energy as described in the Hawking's Radiation mechanism. While I agree that the Newtonian gravity model used as part of the GNMUE is not as sophisticated and detailed (event horizon) as GR, it is sufficient to demonstrate the impact of the physics of the particle decay in eliminating the singularity paralyzing cosmology today.

              Thirdly, in "The New Physics, edited by Paul Davies, Cambridge University Press, 1989", which uses a similar Newtonian mechanics based universe expansion model, it is stated (p. 54) that - "...we will derive the value (critical density) in the context of Newtonian Mechanics, but the answer we will find will agree exactly with the answer implied by Einstein's general relativity."

              2. Clarification of the Cosmological Constant:

              Below is a response to your comments.

              The cosmological constant Λ was proposed by Albert Einstein as an extraneous addition to and modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary. Equation (7) in my paper does not represent an extraneous addition to the original GNMUE equation (6) but only a translation or restatement of the particle decay kinetic energy in the form of a pre-defined constant Λ=3H2/C2 (equation 7) to demonstrate the governing mechanistic physics behind Λ. The kinetic energy term is simply replaced by the term (ΛmC2R2/6) to demonstrate their physical equivalence. While Einstein added an extraneous fudge factor term to his GR equation, GNMUE only replaces the equivalent terms keeping the original governing energy equation (6) intact, howsoever in terms of Λ. Hence, equation (10) is simply translation or restatement of the kinetic energy of the particle decay from equation (6) into the coordinate of the constant defined as Λ=3H2/C2. Hence, KE from equation (6) translates (without any extraneous addition of extra fudge term) into equation (7), which then translates into equation (10) following the definition of the constant Λ=3H2/C2.

              In summary, equation (10) is a derivative of equation (6) without any extraneous addition or fudge term. The need for Λ is shown to be entirely eliminated via substituting equation (10) into (6), wherein the universe mass m can be described in terms of radius r and H as in the attached pdf version of equation (6-A) without the need for any extraneous cosmological constant Λ.

              3. Response to your comment - "Finally I am unable to see how your model as states in (1)-(6) causes a reformulation of quantum theory, as claimed in section 6."

              There is not enough room in the paper but detailed mathematical descriptions of the extended wave-particle model, wave-function collapse, Heisenberg uncertainty, and inner workings of quantum mechanics resolving its paradoxes such as the measurement problem, multiverses, antimatter, quantum gravity etc. are described in Chapter 4 thru 7 (see attached Pdf for Contents of the book). GNM bridges the gap between GR and quantum mechanics explaining the inner working of quantum mechanics in relativistic physics.

              Thanking you again for your time to review paper and provide comments. Please let me know if I answered all your questions satisfactorily.

              Regards

              Avtar SinghAttachment #1: Attachmt_to_Resp_1_G_Ellis_Comments_onAS_Paper_73012_R1.pdf

              • [deleted]

              • Post #16

              Dear Avtar,

              Apologies for not reading your very interesting essay and commenting on it much sooner. I have been too easily overwhelmed by an embarrassment of riches in terms of having so many interesting essays to read and to attempt to understand, insofar as possible.

              You wrote, "Science today is at the crossroads searching for resolutions to some serious paradoxes and puzzles paralyzing its leading theories. The mission of science to achieve a unified theory is founded on the basic premise that there exists a single universe and one set of universal laws that the theory would reveal to explain the observed universe. This mission is marred by the uncertainty and confusion of the multiverse that presumes parallel universes with their own varying sets of laws."

              For whatever it is worth, I am in total agreement with you on these points. There is abundant evidence that physics and cosmology have reached a point which Thomas S. Kuhn described in his book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' as a "crisis." This FQXi essay competition is an excellent example and illustration of exactly this point. If Kuhn is correct and if previous experience is borne out, we eventually will emerge from this period of intellectual turmoil and ferment with some good new ideas and a new consensus.

              With regard to parallel universes with their own varying sets of laws, is this not simply a re-defining, for the sake of convenience, of the term "universe"? If these hypothetical parallel universes are things we can contemplate, then they certainly are part of our one, comprehensive intellectual universe.

              Regarding detailed comments on the specific technical details of your essay, Avtar, I regret to say that I am not sufficiently well versed in the technical nuances and subtleties of these topics to comment meaningfully. Far better for both of us if I leave such comments on technical specifics to those whose expertise far exceeds my own, of whom there are many.

              Regardless, good luck in the your future work and good luck in the essay competition.

              jcns

              Dear JCNS:

              Thanks for reading and commenting on my paper.

              You have asked - "With regard to parallel universes with their own varying sets of laws, is this not simply a re-defining, for the sake of convenience, of the term "universe"?"

              Parallel universes are brainchildren of quantum mechanics and they represent standalone and un-connected universes separate from our universe. This is simply an unverifiable and entirely theoretical postulate that offers a last-resort explanation for many observed weird quantum phenomena.

              In my paper, I offer an explanation for the parallel universes that represent simply various different relativistic states of the mass-energy-space-time continuum of one universe.

              Regards

              Avtar

              Hello Avtar, my friend;

              It is good to see you in this contest, and to read your excellent essay. I thought it was well set out, but I would likely only give you a B plus or A minus letter grade. Having heard your talk at CCC2; I can understand the basis for some of the comments above by folks who failed to understand - and tell you what could have been highlighted more greatly, though. Your whole argument hinges on the following point, which needed to be stated with more force early in the paper.

              While some quantum particles and large black holes may have an incredibly long lifetime, and it's an easy simplification to assume that this is essentially infinite, those are not the facts. Almost all real-world particles are seen to decay, and even a proton presumably has a definite half-life - so it is only a matter of when, and not if it will decay. Nor will every black hole that forms be a huge monster in the middle of a vast feeding ground - which would keep it around for a long time. Therefore, many of them will decay.

              So there is always some conversion of mass into energy, and this affects the ratio of matter to energy in the universe - which influences its expansion rate. This is the crux of your argument, from what I can tell or remember.

              I enjoyed our conversation at the banquet dinner for CCC2, and I look forward to some interesting idea exchange here too. I wish you luck in the contest.

              all the best,

              Jonathan

              A further comment -

              A crucial piece of your argument is that whenever bits of matter or black holes do convert from mass-bearing matter to energy, this makes some of the total mass in the universe go away! And in its place there is more background energy.

              This is the mechanism by which its Gravity is Nullified.

              All the Best,

              Jonathan

                Hi Jonathan:

                Thanks for reading my paper and helpful comments. I will make sure in future versions of the paper to emphasize strongly the key argument about matter-energy conversion as you suggested.

                I also enjoyed talking to you and others at the CCC2 and would welcome any further constructive comments to enhance the message delivery to others.

                Regards

                Avtar