• [deleted]

  • Post #19

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'. "

Conservation of what? Conservation of nothing? Your belief is not rational. It lacks any scientific support.

"A SCU is a perpetuum mobile which yields as much as it cost: nothing.

You assign properties to nothing? Perhaps you do not see that you have something that you are merely misunderstanding as nothing.

"...Only if we believe that there is a God who created the universe (which I don't) such conservation laws do not hold."

A completely irrelevant statement with no logical support.

"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 , ..."

Pure conjecture with no scientific support. There is no evidence for an inside versus outside. Your reference to "...we seem to crave an absolute kind of existence..." is irrelevent to physics. You appear to have a craving of your own for pulling religion into discussions in a futile attempt to give the appearance that you are clear thinking.

"...wishing for Someone in Whose eyes we exist, for our existence to transcend the universe itself, to be immortal, as if we have a gene that encodes a longing for God. "

Your disdain for religion and God has nothing whatsoever to do with your lack of logical and scientific support for your model of a nothingness that gives us everything. The ultimate free-lunch program is definitely not superior to religious stories.

"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."

If you do not have cause then you have nothing. If you have nothing then you are finised before you begin. Your pretense that calling something nothing is superior science when compared to calling something something falls flat because it is flat.

James

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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #21

    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

    23 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #22

    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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #23

    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

    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

      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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #26

        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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #27

        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, that it is a self-referencing system to achieve the illusion of a classical world. This smells very like some kind of teleology and i must admit it is excactly what i assume to be the reason for QM's weird features.

        I don't think of this teleology in terms of an omnipotent personal God, but i think there's something in between a personal and a transcendental consciousness which is at the bottom of "all that exists".

        I read most of all the essays here which try to explain the weird features of QM either in classical or in geometrical or otherwise terms. But either those explanations fit all experimental data or there are some assumptions built into them that are, at least for me, questionable or highly speculative or contradict other assumptions. Surely my approach is also speculative, but from my point of view, it makes sense and i think it neither contradicts the yet made observations nor does it contradict logics, free will or SR.

        As to your question if i consider the speed of light as being whether a property of spacetime or a velocity: The information which comes to us via light (whatever light "really" is), has in my opinion a finite speed, it needs time (the "speed" of "light"). Personally, i am not someone who insists to have understood what "light" really *is*. Even Einstein did not, so how could i - a non-professional? Anyway, i only take for guaranteed (as long as no contradictory indications arise) that Einstein was right with his constant "speed" of "light" and with his SR. I am not sure, if he was also right about his GR, because i think such a concept as a "curved spaces" for me is just another explanation for "there is a curved planet". These are all classical pictures of a mystery, namely what are "forces and energy" in nature and how do they propagate? For me it isn't sufficient to explain the medium of propagation via spacetime-ripples caused by the "energy" of the "light". This would be more classical pictures and the question would arise what it is that propagates between the light and the space (as a medium)?

        As you can infer from my essay, i don't believe anymore in such classical terms and in classical forces but believe in causes that aren't anymore physical but nonetheless are causes in the sense of "reasons". This is, i use another category for the "thing" that we usually call "forces". It may be that this "thing" is some "quantum computational" dynamics (in which case i would assume that it is non-deterministic), but it could well be some other organized system that enables us to think in classical terms and to experience "causality" and the illusion of an absolute time.

        Best wishes,

        Stefan

        Hi Eckard,

        It surely takes less effort to download the thing and read until you're satisfied that it's a crackpot tale indeed than writing a post? That said, I admit that the title sounds pretentious, even if I do not promise more than I deliver, though, as it is hard if not impossible to squeeze the results of a study (a work in progress, see www.quantumgravity.nl) into a 9 page essay, the essay may not meet expectations.

        I think it's legitimate to choose a catchy name to draw attention to your essay if it is to be read among 288 others, a title which also was intended to tease as geniuses are idolized to the extent that one barely dares to disagree with their statements, a humility which hasn't brought physics a single step forwards these last eighty years. Judging his words ''Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth'' (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Einstein), Einstein himself would be abhorred by such worship.

        Thanks, by the way, for alerting me to the existence of the cosmologystatement.org site: I hadn't read it but have my own reasons for rejecting the Big Bang tale, reasons which, as far as I'm aware of, I think nobody ever thought of, so might be worthy of your curiosity. However, if I've learned one thing in these FQXi discussions, then that is that my findings are very hard to communicate, to understand, that to appreciate the ideas, one has to let go of some pretty comfortable, but ill-conceived assumptions about reality. It's not that the ideas are complicated or far-fetched, but because they show our universe to be so alien, so fundamentally different from the cozy picture Big Bang Cosmology has familiarized us with. The ideas set out in the essay may upset readers in a way not unlike how people must have felt on learning that the Earth wasn't, after all, the center of the universe, or rather, that they were no longer at the center of Gods attention.

        I certainly don't hold Einstein responsible for the Big Bang tale, at most for agreeing to it: what impeded his own investigations is that he didn't recognize that the speed of light doesn't refer to a (finite) velocity (even though it certainly is a limit to the velocity massive objects can move at) but to a property of spacetime, which, as I argue, is something else entirely, in which case BBC doesn't make any sense.

        Though intended to replace a naïve genesis tale, Big Bang Cosmology unfortunately continues its naivety as it assumes that it is legitimate, scientifically, to look at the universe from an imaginary observation post outside of it. By looking over God's shoulders at His creation, so to say, BBC implicitly states that the universe has been created by some outside intervention, in which case you might as well study theology to understand its creation.

        Anton

        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, unless both A and B also interact, exchange energy with P and Q, we cannot even say that A and B live in the same universe as P and Q. Du moment A and B start interacting with P and Q, they pop up, 'out of nothing', in P and Q's world, as do P and Q in A and B's world. 'Out of nothing' between quotation marks since 'to exist' means 'to interact', to exchange energy, i.e., to alternately borrow and lend each other the energy to exist. (And, by the way, in a SCU energy is not some stuff you put in the 'tank' of a particle: it is something which only exists in its expression, in its change. It is not some object-like stuff, unlike gasoline is at macroscopic scale, but a quantity which is greater as its rate of change is greater, the frequency it is exchanged at.)

        Since particles only exist to each other if, as far and as long as they interact, since in a SCU 'to exist' = 'to interact' I totally disagree with Hermann Weyl who said ( in ''The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time'', 2nd ed. p 165, HD Zeh):

        ''The objective world simply is; it does not happen''*

        a quote which I think represents your view.

        If memory serves, in my essay I say somewhere that there is no objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations, with the emphasis on 'objectively'.In classical mechanics the existence of objects is thought of as a passive state, as if their particles, once created, stay created no matter what, as if their existence is a self-evident fact, a static state requiring no effort of the particles, as if they would keep existing even if they wouldn't interact at all. This is different in a SCU: here particles express and at the same time preserve each other's mass by continuously exchanging energy, so would vanish if we could cut off this exchange, and with it the macroscopic objects they form, so in a SCU the world we see is the result of this continuous activity. Whereas in CM, in Big Bang Cosmology, in Weyl's view 'to exist' is a noun, it is a verb in a SCU.

        ''The .. laws, etc. that you find most useful appear out of nowhere to be applied for free ... ''

        No, not for free; it is not I who find these laws 'most useful': as in a SCU particles, particle behavior c.q. properties evolve in a trial-and error process, so do the laws describing their behavior, laws which I suspect are related to all possible different ('orthogonal') ways they can move and spin with respect to one another since here these different combinations of directions of motions and spin affect the frequency they exchange energy at, the properties they have according to one another. How this evolution might proceed is one of the subjects of my website study.

        As to 'null point': the non-existence of electric charge, for example, can only be established with an instrument sensitive to charge, that is, an object which contains at least one single charge. Without the existence of such detector, there is no 'null' value to be observed, no conservation law to violate. To me 'nothing' refers to the fact that a universe which can rationally be understood has to obeys the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, meaning that the universe is a perpetuum mobile which yields as much as it costs: nothing, so exists only as seen from within.

        Anton

        • [deleted]

        • Post #30

        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

        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

        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

        5 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #33

        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

        Write a Reply...