From “Absurd” to “Elegant” Universe by Avtar Singh

Dear Jim and Dr. Singh,

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

Love,

Sridattadev.

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 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 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

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

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 Avtar

i would be grateful if you read my posts to Philip Gibbs essay

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

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

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