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

      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

        Dear Avtar,

        Your model of the universe at first sight solves one problem of the so called standard model, the infinite energy contained in the Big Bang. But I think it only shifts the infinity problem.

        Even if your quantity M0 is finite, it is contained in a volume of size zero in the beginning, no matter if you call it potential energy or something else. Besides the approximation of kinetic energy by a purely radial motion is an oversimplification. To describe the universe as a sphere in the classical sense with a radius changing with time does by no means agree with our experience. The curvature radius of space, as proposed by Einstein, was perpendicular to every of the three spatial directions.

        In spite of my criticism I hope that your essay will stimulate further discussion. It can help to get a better understanding of the question of energy content of the universe.

        Best regards,

        Ernst

        Dear Earnst:

        Thanks for reading my paper and offering thoughtful comments. Below is a response to your comments:

        Comment: "Even if your quantity M0 is finite, it is contained in a volume of size zero in the beginning, no matter if you call it potential energy or something else. "

        Response:

        In the limit as the volume goes to zero, mass m also goes to zero converting to radiant energy radiated to space via fully evaporating the mass. Hence, there is no singularity in the limit to zero volume.

        Comment: "Besides the approximation of kinetic energy by a purely radial motion is an oversimplification. To describe the universe as a sphere in the classical sense with a radius changing with time does by no means agree with our experience. The curvature radius of space, as proposed by Einstein, was perpendicular to every of the three spatial directions."

        Response:

        As your paper shows, spherical symmetric gravitational collapse is used to show a final equilibrium state of finite density. In my paper, the spherical radial expansion is shown to predict the observed far-field supernova expansion; hence what is the basis for your statement that it "does by no means agree with our experience." Further, Einstein's general relativity theory fails to predict the observed accelerated expansion without a non-zero cosmological constant fudge factor. Also, it fails to predict the observed flat radial velocities of stars in galaxies without dark matter. Hence, general relativity is not the proper benchmark for deciding the galactic or universe expansion geometrics. GNMUE, on the other hand, predicts both fairly successfully. Hence, leaving all prejudices for the general relativity, GNMUE better predicts the observed experience data for the universe as well as galactic expansion without the unverifiable assumptions of dark matter or dark energy.

        Regards

        Avtar

        Dr. Avtar Singh

        Copying a quote that I believe was attributed to you in Vesselin Petkov's blog:

        "We have unambiguous experimental evidence that gravity is not a force - falling bodies DO NOT RESIST their (apparent) acceleration, which proves that no gravitational force is accelerating them downwards; a force would exist only if the bodies resisted their fall (the force would be needed to overcome that resistance).

        I don't recall reading this in your essay or postings. Did you say this and if so, what unambiguous evidence? Objects don't fall at infinite speed, so, I wonder about the meaning of the quote. If it was not your words, then please disregard this. Thank you.

        James

          Dear James:

          No, the above statement is not mine but in Vesselin's paper.

          I do not agree with this statement as discussed in my blogs under Vesselin's posing. I am including them here for your convenience:

          ----

          Hi Vesselin:

          I enjoyed reading your paper and agree with your conclusion: "...quantum gravity as quantization of gravitational interaction is Impossible.."

          However, I do not completely agree with your reason that gravity is not an interactive force just because general relativity says so. Since general relativity has failed to predict 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe and has been paralyzed with the Big Bang singularity, it can hardly be acclaimed as a universal theory and it would be not only be premature but also incorrect to declare the Newtonian interaction as non-existent. Also, I have demonstrated in my posted paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe", that integrating the missing physics of spontaneous decay of particles with Newtonian gravitational energy plus specific relativity, the ills of general relativity can be cured and observed expansion of the universe and galaxies as well as quantum/classical behaviors can be predicted without any singularities. This approach also resolves quantum mysteries and explains inner workings of quantum mechanics eliminating the need for quantum gravity.

          I would greatly appreciate your comments on my posted paper -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe".

          Best Regards

          Avtar Singh

          --------

          Hi Vesselin:

          Thank you for your comments.

          If you read my paper, you will know that my model has been vindicated by several sets of data from quantum to galactic to cosmic scale observations. Hence, you cannot prejudge it to be wrong just based on the isolated example of falling bodies. Then again, you are discounting all the numerous well-known data that supports Newtonian gravity model including the solar system motion.

          Moreover, if there was no resistance to motion provided by mass inertia, the experienced acceleration of falling bodies would be infinite (due to zero mass inertia) and not limited to a constant gravitational acceleration.

          I would welcome your reading and commenting on my paper.

          Regards and best of Luck

          Avtar

          ---------

          9 days later

          Avtar

          Red shift emerges as a dark energy function, so expansion is reducing, apart from locally at one end of the 'axis' of the CMBR anisotropy where it seems an 'active universal nucleus' may be accreting and emitting, in the same way as an AGN.

          Yes, the 9 page limit prevented discussion, but I touched on it in the end notes. The main paper on recycling model is still in review, but an early coceptial webarchived paper on some elements is here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

          The cycle is clearly calculable temporally by the great peak of AGN and quasar activity at ~z=1.7, (~6bn yrs) previously screened by the stellar locus. From the secular evolution pattern that emerges we can estimate the Milky Way as in ~middle age. (The estimated age of the sun supports this).

          Some stellar mass remains in the oblate spheroidal dark matter halo from the previous iteration, so just the odd rare far older star is implied. The 14 hypervelicity stellar ejections on the toroid axis are also then explained, along with far too many other phenomena to go through here, but do look up my recent post to Hutchinson's essay blog on falsification.

          Recycling is purely a phase of the eternal universe. It is very 'green'!. The evidence is all there and clear once we know what to look for. A solution to the re-ionization problem also emerges with all the other rationalisations.

          The model is not yet perfect or complete by any means. We must all be prepared to evolve our ideas for sure. do you agree?

          Best wishes.

          Peter

          4 days later

          Dr. Singh,

          Thank you for the kind comments on my paper.

          I am not intimately familiar with some of the subjects within your paper (although I did notice some formulaic similarities), and so your first equation (1) threw me for a loop. I was very much under the impression that a particle at rest in it's own inertial frame had a rest mass of m0 such that it has no momentum as you note. I was not aware that there was any theory which allowed for a portion of this rest mass to be changed (as by your mass delta or TE) within that rest frame, even through a conversion to energy. I am sure that this is just a product of my lack of understanding Hawking radiation. Can you recommend some references for me to catch up? Perhaps a certain section of Reference 8?

          Regards,

          Jeff Baugher

            Dr. Singh,

            I think I am understanding the basic premise of your essay, which is an intriguing concept but leaves me with some questions for you.

            It seems your hypothesis for dark energy (accelerating expansion) is that mass in the universe is spontaneously being converted into kinetic energy of the remaining mass. While I can see the attraction of accounting for extra kinetic energy from a known source (baryonic mass) instead of vacuum energy, I don't understand how this would cause the kinetic energy of remaining mass clumps to increase. I note that in Einstein's dentition of GR, all energy (even kinetic) curves spacetime, so the local curvature should not be affected by the transformation to TE.

            As the mass is being converted, why would the accelerating expansion increase? Since empirical evidence shows that the positive acceleration started uniformly across the universe (and so should not be causally connected from one point to another), it would seem that there must be something intrinsic to physics at each point which would cause the mass to start converting to kinetic energy. If so, any idea what would cause this?

            In addition, can you state how you view your Fig.2 in relation to the cosmological principle and to the scarcity of baryonic matter? Doesn't equation (5) depict mass as a point?

            I do note that this contest and forum is for exploring fundamental ideas so please take my questions as being from ignorance of your concept and not from a position of criticism. Perhaps my questions will cause others to re-examine their own preconceived concepts.

            Last but not least, many of the essays in this contest are philosophical or vague, meaning they are difficult to form any convincing counter opinion for a third party. Even if I am initially unsure of your hypothesis, your boldness in laying out a specific mathematical argument from well known equations should be something we all aspire to.

            Regards,

            Jeff Baugher