Einstein\'s Error by Anton W.M. Biermans

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 more sense and doesn't suffer the contradictions of classical mechanics, of big bang cosmology? Do the predictions a SCU produces agree with observations?

As the nine pages of the essay cannot remotely explain the insights I've come across in my investigation, you might take a look at my website www.quantumgravity.nl though I have to warn readers that I am, in fact an awfully bad writer, repeating things at some places whereas other parts of the text already is somewhat outdated as my thoughts still keep evolving, so it may be very hard to read. I must say that I actually am surprised that, as far as I know, no physicist ever tried to look at nature from a 'reverse-engineering' point of view.

@ Vijay,

By saying things like 'each photon contains one unit of non-destructible K-energy' and 'The affinity of space to possess K-energy' you in fact say that things can exist without needing an explanation for their existence, that a photon exists even if it doesn't interact, which it cannot if it moves at the speed of light, that is, if light can be said to move at a finite velocity which I argue it doesn't. The idea that photons are bullet-like particles buzzing through spacetime is founded on the delusion of classical mechanics, of big bang cosmology and relativity theory that we can determine in an absolute sense what precedes what, what is cause of what. Light, a photon, however is a quantum phenomenon, something the term causality doesn't apply to. The essence of my essay is that things do not just exist, independent from anything, but only exist if, as far and as long as they express that existence in physical interactions, so in a SCU things have a relative existence, agreeing with quantum mechanics according to which the observer affects the observed. In your universe objects still have an absolute kind of existence, as if it, but for practical difficulties, they can be observed from without the universe.

@ Vladimir,

In contrast to your 'Beautiful Universe', in 'my' Self-Creating Universe the 'speed' of light doesn't refer to a (finite) velocity, nor does a SCU expand or even have a beginning. As conservation laws say that a rationally understandable universe, i.e., a SCU does not exist as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, it cannot have any particular property as a whole. If in that case light cannot be ascribed particular velocity, then that must mean that the term velocity doesn't apply to light, that we somehow look skewed at nature, which I argue we do, so my SCU differs fundamentally from your BU. By imagining to look at the universe from an observation post outside of it, you actually make the properties of the objects you think to see incomprehensible. A universe only can expand, have a certain energy content, age and dimensions if there is something outside of it with respect to which it can have properties, that is, if such properties can be expressed in interactions with something outside of it, enveloping it, if it physically matters to that something whether a property has this or that magnitude. Your BU, like Hawking's universe is a universe created by some outside intervention, enveloped in, living in a realm not of its own making, and hence is a fictitious universe. More about this you can find in my site, www.quantumgravity.nl , though It may be hard to read, not only because I'm a lousy writer, but also because a SCU is so very different from the cozy universe bigbang cosmologists have made us familiar with: compared to a BBU, a SCU is truly alien, so needs some effort to even get used to.

Anton

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 they indeed do. The fact that we can observe things by the reception of the light they reflect or emit, for example, does not mean that we see things as they are. The point of my essay is that things do not have an absolute kind of existence in the sense that but for practical difficulties, we can observed them even from without the universe: that would only be the case in an a universe created by some outside intervention. There is nothing logical about the Big Bang hypothesis: though it is understandable that we assume that the universe has a beginning since science has evolved under the heavy shadow of religion, in particular the idea that it has a cause, i.e., was created by God so has a beginning, it doesn't make any sense if you don't believe in God. A universe which can be understood rationally must obey the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing adds to nothing: as a SCU therefore has no physical reality as a whole, it cannot have a beginning as a whole. To understand such universe requires a completely different way of thinking, a more hygienic way of thinking than present physics apparently is able to. Unfortunately, physics is still hooked to causality, which is a religious concept and has nothing to do with rationality.

As in a SCU particles 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. By speaking about 'the reception of light', we say that the light source is the autonomous cause of the light we receive. However, this is only possible if we can determine what in an absolute sense precedes what, if there is an absolute, cosmic clock outside the universe, if we imagine to look at the universe from a vantage point outside of it, which I argue we are not permitted to do. If there can be no such thing as cosmic time, then we cannot determine which is the cause of an energy transmission, the light source or the objects which are to absorb its light. In other words, in agreement with quantum theory, the observer affects the observed, so there is no objectively observable thing or phenomenon at the origin of our observations. It is because they cannot let go of their addiction to causality, the preconceptions inherent to classical mechanics why even quantum theorists don't understand why quantum mechanics works.

@ Peter,

Thanks for your comment.

I find it hard to comment on your essay as in my view the 'speed' of light does not refer to a velocity but to a property of spacetime, which, as I've argued, is something else entirely.

Anton

@ 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

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

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

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