The Universe - An Effect Without Cause by Philip Gibbs

Hi James:

Thanks for your reply, comments, and questions. Below are some responses:

Your Comment 1: "This appears to me to be a mechanical perspective. Is your approach to free-will basically a theoretical physics model? I understand it to be lack of preciseness in predictability."

Response:

Cosmic Free Will is neither mechanical nor EM. It represents a self-existent degree of freedom in nature as evidenced by the self-existent and non-causative universal laws that are eternal and omnipresent. As evolving human beings we are trained to think mechanically and in cause-effect terms, hence we tend to ignore the eternal universal Free Will and our theories also miss out on this degree of freedom existent in nature. No new and additional predictability or experiments are needed to prove the non-causal and free-willed existence of the well-known universal laws such as the laws of conservation.

Hence, Cosmic Free Will is a degree of freedom in nature that must be allowed in any physical theory for it to be valid universally. This is what I have tried to show in my paper via a physical model of the free-willed or spontaneous decay into or birth of particles from a Zero-point state. This allows a natural creation or dilation of matter without an extraneous nucleo-synthesis model. The black hole singularity experienced by GR is caused by the lack of this degree of freedom. The singularity disappears when the mass is freely allowed to dilate or evaporate (Hawking Radiation) as shown in my paper -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe". No need for an assumed superluminous inflation or big bang. Similarly, the observed accelerated expansion (supernova data) is naturally predicted without any need for the paradoxical and mysterious dark energy. In fact, many of the current paradoxes (multi-verses, multi-dimensions, multi-particles/strings, and dark matter etc.) and inconsistencies are shown to be the artifacts of the missing degree of freedom in the current theories but that exists in the universe.

Your comment 2: "I cannot tell where intelligence enters into this description. I presume that your meaning of cosmic consciousness means a form of probability? Perhaps that which has occured at the beginning, which itelf is unpredictable? In other words, it is due to mechanical effects that are not yet predictable?.... Do you view human free-will as a mechanical abberation?"

Response:

There is no probability attached to the well-established and self-existent, eternal, and omnipresent laws of the universe. Does science claim that there is xx% probability that laws of conservation exist? Science itself would be impossible without the definite existence of the fundamental universal laws. Can we imagine a gravitational law wherein it is uncertain whether the apple would either fall or rise from a tree? What is the probability that an apple would fall under gravity? Again, science would be impossible without the certain laws of conservation, so on. The Heisenberg's uncertainty, which is the foundation of QM, is only an artifact of the measurement error due to the incapability of the measuring devices. This uncertainty is not in nature but in the measuring method. Cosmic consciousness, as evidenced by the proven deterministic universal laws, is not a probability. Any apparent probability is only an artifact of the deficient human interpretations based on deficient and uncertain measurement method and measuring devices. As shown in my paper, the unpredictability also arises from the deficient theories missing the self-existence degree of freedom in the universe. Hence, probability, uncertainty, and unpredictability are in the deficient human scientific measurements and incomplete theories; they are not in the nature or universe.

The so-called human free-will or biological consciousness and intelligence of the brain is formed and constrained by the biological evolution. It represents a bounded or imprisoned version of the truly free, eternal, non-causative, and omnipresent Cosmic Consciousness or Free Will represented by the self-existent universal laws that are basic foundations of science. Sadly though, science has taken the laws representing the cosmic free will for granted and so far ignored them as a universal reality that must be included in its theories to resolve their current paradoxes.

It goes without saying that so long as science keeps ignoring this fundamental reality, it cannot achieve a universal TOE as evidenced by the fact that the current widely accepted theories (GR and QM) fail to predict 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the observed universe in spite of their flamboyant worldly successes. The prevalent ignorance of the universal degree of freedom not only brings discredit to science but also purposelessness and meaninglessness to the universe and life in it.

This is my first-time participation in this forum, which I am really enjoying. I am trying my best to raise awareness of the scientific community to the crucial missing physics rather than focusing on isolated wrong assumptions, which appears to be the main theme of many of the forum papers. We must cure the root cause of the truly FUNDAMENTAL disease (missing physics) rather than focusing on the artifact symptoms if a sustained and meaningful progress in science is to be achieved.

Regards

Avtar Singh

Philip,

Reading through your essay and may be getting a grasp of how I could interpret your concepts into my essay.

My essay is basically stating that any multiple of the metric [math]g_{\mu\nu}[/math] (i.e. Lambda or Omega or what have you) is technically mutually exclusive to the Einstein tensor [math]G_{\mu\nu}[/math] if we do not relax the assumption that [math]R_{\mu\nu}=0[/math]. Thus, in the case I present of [math]\Omega g_{\mu\nu}-L_{\mu\nu}[/math], if [math]L_{\mu\nu}= 0[/math] then there would be no structure to spacetime and thus no concept of "time". Would you view this as an emergence of time?

Regards,

Jeff

Dear Avtar Singh,

Your reply was very informative about your view. Thank you for your detailed response and to Philip Gibbs for my use of his forum for this purpose.

James

Dear Phil,

You wrote:

"Complete symmetry will be an important element "

And further:

"The difficulty is to show that such structures can underlie string theory.

I think that recent work on the holographic principle and higher spin symmetries indicates that this may be possible."

Do you think that complete symmetry could happen if the big bang produced "fully entangled CP symmetric copy universe bubbles at a long distance"

Entangled even down to the Planck scale?

Then our universe is not any more unique and even humans have to deal with a shared consciousness with our anti-matter copy brothers and sisters over there ( inside the raspberry shaped multiverse)

See:

The Bouncing CP Symmetrical Multiverse, Based on a Massless but Energetic Oscillating (Non SM Higgs) Vacuum Particle System.

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Vuyk_13121461.pdf_The_bounc_1.pdf

or:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1412

Leo Vuyk.

Phil

I put a new improved version of an essay that is very different from that which in vixra.

Please read it with additional posts ..

Thanks for the shelter of crazy ideas.

Yuri

Dear Phil,

Beautiful essay. Definitely causality changed after the discovery of relativity, but after the advent of quantum mechanics, it truly became something else :)

I concur with your affirmation "Correlations and consistency are all that can be counted on if we want to understand the foundations of physics."

About the survey aiming to prove correlation between smoking and tooth decay, maybe the common cause is a careless behavior. I was amused when I heared about another research, claiming that reading while sitting on the toilet causes constipation -- the converse seems a much simpler explanation :).

Congratulations for the deep and well-explained observations about causality.

Cristi Stoica

I don't necessarily agree with the idea, but the essay was a very good read.

Interesting that you include 'consistency with experiment'. There is the Rub ! That justifies singlets for right handed fermions, in the absence of some algebraic reason for it, but leaves one wishing there were an explicit algebraic reason. Perhaps the emphasis on Lie algebras has drawn attention away from the algebra that the Lie algebra lives in. Hamilton had a lot to say with quaternions without knowing about SU(2). The really peculiar thing is that useful statements can be made with quaternion arithmetic to add up "force vectors" - but the gross oversimplification was essential to the evolution of physics. Ditto for Maxwell. Anyway, I suspect that this Consistency business ultimately depends on the design of the universe being some algebra. I don't know whether a notion of 'emergence' clarifies or confuses the issue. At least algebra leads to asking important questions. Like - what does it mean that in real Clifford algebra the +--- signature is in a different algebra than the -+++. And complex octonions have both. To make things more confusing, consider a direct product of octonions - because it includes direct products of quaternions you get Clifford algebras ! Maybe sometimes the Lorentz signature does not necessarily refer to spacetime - it might have multiple meanings, like pauli matrices and Spin - or Weak Isospin. Oh well - it is sort of amusing that the universe is such that Hamilton did not have to derive classical mechanics from chromodynamics, or we would be in worse shape than at present.

Ed,

''Quantum measurement predictions are consistent with relativity for macroscopic observations, but there is no consensus on how to explain this consistency in fundamental terms.''

My essay is a sketch of a much more extended investigation about how a universe might create itself out of nothing (see my website www.quantumgravity.nl). In this study I have proposed a mass definition based on the Uncertainty Principle (UP): the less indefinite the position of a particle or the mass center of an object is, the greater its mass is. If forces upon a particle can be stronger as they are more exactly equal from all directions, and they are more precisely equal within a smaller area as these forces are stronger, which they are as the mass of the particle is greater, then its position is less indefinite as its mass is greater and vice versa. As the force on it and definiteness in its position also depends on the mass its environment and its distribution, its mass in this definition automatically is a relative quantity.

If a larger distance between particles is a less definite distance, and particles can only exchange energy (see below) at a frequency the definiteness of which corresponds to that in their distance, then this frequency becomes less definite, shifts to red at larger distances, agreeing with the proposition in my essay that in a SCU clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant, even when at rest.

In another chapter ('The color of light') this definition is shown to be consistent with relativity theory. Though this is just a first, qualitative analysis, I suspect that it must be possible to derive the equations of relativity theory from the UP, using the proposed mass definition. As in a SCU particles are as much the product as the source of the force between them, here forces never become infinite, so we don't get the infinite self-energies of QED not the singularities of a BBU-based GR.

If, as I argue, c doesn't refer to a velocity but to a property of spacetime so the contact between particles at different spacetime points is instantaneous, then they are at all times informed about each other's state and motion, the info consisting of the frequency they exchange energy at and its polarisation, info which is refreshed, updated in every cycle. So the hidden variables Einstein wanted to exist to avoid indeterminism, can be identified as the energy exchange by means of which particles express and preserve each other's properties, its instantaneousness making self-evident things like the EPR paradox, entanglement and double-slit experiments.

However, the unpredictability Einstein wished to eradicate remains since (in a SCU) particles are as much the effect as the cause of their interactions. It is because the exchange of energy, of info between particles is unobservable as long as they are in equilibrium that we have been able to remain ignorant of it: because we've always assumed that particles have passively been created, so only are source of forces: their exchange only becomes observable when their equilibrium is disturbed and energy is emitted or absorbed.

In a SCU real particles can be thought of as virtual particles which by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist, manage to force each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance, so here they create and un-create each other time and time again. The smaller their distance, the greater the force between them, the higher the frequency they exchange energy at, the higher their energy is. In this view the origin of mass is obvious, as is the equality of inertial and gravitational mass, so unlike a Big Bang Universe, a SCU doesn't need Higgs particles, nor string theory, bigbang, inflation or dark energy to explain observations.

Well, I just wanted to give you some reason to take a look at my study as the essay was too short to elaborate my arguments in full.

Anton

Phil,

A very interesting discussion but how do you use "consistency" in in discovering the properties of or explaining how gravity works? The example of the discovery of the the Higgs boson speaks of the Standard Model and quantum physics. Gravity is a strange and mysterious bird. I could only refer to empirical evidence and a few studies to even begin to explain it.

Jim

Dr. Gibbs,

"Yes, emergence is acausal. I find it hard to give a more elaborate answer because I dont know if or how you see it as causal."

My meaning of causal is that the theorist is not permitted to interject something new for free as if it is a gift of the universe and whose mystery and existence begins when first noticed in empirical evidence. I will look back at your essay to remind myself or perhaps to finally find the means by which effects are demonstrated to be allowed to be unjustified. Unjustified as I am using it means 'has no natural requirement for explanation'.

James

True enough, Phil, but how do you identify a consistency with GR in light of dark energy, black holes, and a gravitational force too weak to fit into the Planck world?

Jim

Dear Philip,

What is your opinion about SPF symmetry and Scale dimension , which are found in the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (subject of my essay)?

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Philip,

You touch upon a fundamental topic, that of actually putting in question causality as foundational, as it has been done for other properties such as as locality and reality. If I understand you don't reject causality as a property of reality but you do so as a fundamental property, in other words causality is an emergent property given the emergent property of both space and time from general relativity. I couldn't fully get whether "complete symmetry" was perfect symmetry, and how the process of symmetry breaking is explained in your proposal, such as chiral properties at various levels of organisation of matter. I explain quite well several concepts that deserve attention, such as the holographic principle and the theories of information around black hole theoretical research.

Hi Phillip,

I really enjoyed your thoughtful essay, and its emphasis on the import of symmetry and consistency. In my journalistic work I've written quite a bit about the holographic principle as well as the potentially fractal distribution of large scale structure and am always intrigued by connections drawn between the two. If you are not already familiar with it, you may find Jonas Mureika's work interesting.

My essay here deals with holography in an entirely different context, but in case it is of interest to you, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Regards,

Amanda

Dear Philip I hope this finds you well

----

Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Philip,

I am just asking you to check mine work if you can find time

essay (Vixra.org)