The Universe - An Effect Without Cause by Philip Gibbs

Hi Philip, Very interesting essay, it is as if you are emerging from a deep thought, you and I fully agree, the end of infinie reductionism and the beginning of free emergent thinking, I hope you will have some time to read "The Consciousness Connection", which is my essay. Of course I do not have the proffessional scientific approach that you have, but it is just an interpretation that you may like. Good luck with your essay. Wilhelmus

Dear Philip Gibbs,

In a cyclic-universe the sequence of cause and effect is cyclic, in that, cyclic groups and subgroups are perceptible.

With best wishes,

Jayaker

Dear Doctor Gibbs,

Although I am a layman and did not fully understand many of the esoteric abstruse points of your brilliantly written essay, I would like to humbly offer an uneducated guess about causality. As best as I can tell, opposite physical and human mental states do seem to be attracted to each other. Similar physical and humanly devised imaginary states undoubtedly abide. Yet human theories and all physical conditions that seem to be on the point of becoming identical, after first attempting to swap constituencies collapse into forming a new state that has never existed before. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my essay Sequence Consequence, although there are clearly attracted physical states of space and matter, it is the similarity in the nature of stars and space that allows them to persist. Yet like snowflakes, no two stars of the trillions that have been observed in the firmament are identical, and no two of the intervening spaces between all of the stars can be identical. Although I doubt that they actually happen, before two stars collide in a supernova, they would have to be on the point of becoming identical. I think they would have to swap energies a moment before the actual collision that would allow a new star with differing potential to emerge. I do hope you are not a Rangers' fan.

I apologize for wrong quoting Dayson.It is belong to Lawrence Bragg.

Freeman Dyson writes on pages 221-222 of his 2008 book The Scientist as Rebel that the Heisenberg-Bohr based "entanglement" of the wavefunctions stems from the dualistic interpretation which

"Says that the classical world is a world of facts while the quantum world is a world of probabilities. Quantum mechanics predicts what is likely to happen while classical mechanics records what did happen. This division of the world was invented by Niels Bohr, the great contemporary of Einstein who presided over the birth of quantum mechanics. Lawrence Bragg, another great contemporary, expressed Bohr's idea more simply: 'Everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle'. "

Dr. Gibbs, interesting proposal. But from a purely logical and phenomenological honestly can not see it.

First, if the universe is acausal, not cause it generates, then, I would like, if I might respond: mathematical laws governing the universe are sequential algorithms with inputs and outputs are observable properties, etc.

Any algorithm, even if it is of quantum type (qbits), you need a first cause, which are the inputs that allow the calculation later. The latter requires computation times. Infinite qbits require infinite memory to calculations at time zero. Where to stay, and that machine turin, which is causal, this computation is developed hypothetical and impossible?

On the other hand, I find a contradiction, that one, not cause there is a universe with space and time and causality.

The key is in the computability: any computable algorithm, ie, that with inflows generate a throughput, calculations. And this process itself is the causality of any possible universe, as if no algorithm can not be calculated, and therefore neither observable nor any possible universe.

With all due respect, is how I see it

It seems the cause every new cycle of the Universe are fragments of Big Crunch from previous cycle.

Yuri,

There is no escape from acknowledging two things. No one knows what cause is. The existence of cause for all effects is an inexplicable given. If the concept of acausal merely is recognition that our knowledge is limited to effects and that analysis and prediction depend only upon that knowledge of effects, then I accept acausal as meaning that cause is not naturally included in the equations of physics.

I was interested in Dr. Gibb's meaning of the word acausal. My own view is not necessary in order for him to explain why emergence is acausal.

James

It's a good quote and it shows how reluctant scientists are to give up the notion of causality. In the end most have given up that element of causality which was really determinism. I am sure that in time they will realise that other elements of causality can also be ditched.

Spinoza's philosophy very close to Einstein.

As a philosophy a religion of nature.

Nature - is the cause of itself(Causa sui)

It is tautology but right.

Thanks for so many comments. It is good to see so mnay people defending causality because it shows that I am making a point that says something worthwhile

Yuri,

"Nature - is the cause of itself(Causa sui)

It is tautology but right."

It says nothing meaningful unless you define cause and nature. If your use of nature means that you accept a self-justifying universe, then I say you are avoiding the matter. It can't be avoided so long as I am available to resist explanations that are not explanations. Nature cannot be the cause of itself unless nature includes both cause and effect. What is cause within your definition of nature? Taking this a step further: What is the cause of our ability to interpret photon data and attach meaning to it?

Dr. Gibbs,

I recognize that I am drifting off of discussing your view. If Yuri answers, then I will invite him to discuss this further either at his blog or mine. Thank you for your patience.

Respectfully,

James

Unitarity is represented by a complex function e^{iHt} and so forth, which is analytic. The loss of unitarity does not mean there is a complete loss of everything; in particular quantum information can still be conserved. A simple analytic function of this sort describes standard quantum physics. Gravity as we know is given by a hyperbolic group, such as SO(3, 1) ~ SL(2,C), where the latter has a map to SL(2,R)^2. The functions over these groups have posed difficulties for quantum gravity, for they are explicitly nonunitary. The trick of performing a Wick rotation on time or with τ = it is a way of recovering the compact groups we know in quantum physics.

It does turn out I think that we can think directly about quantum gravity by realizing that the SL(2,R) is related to a braid group with Z --- > B --- > PSL(2,Z), and that the braid group is contained in SL(2,R). Braid groups have correspondence with Yang-Baxter relations and quantum groups. The group SL(2,Z) is the linear fractional group, which is an elementary modular form. An elementary modular function is

f(z) = sum_{n=-∞}^{n=∞}c(n)e^{-2πi nz}

which in this case is a Fourier transform. In this case we are safely in the domain of standard QM and QFT. In general modular functions are meromorphic (analytic everywhere but infinity) and analytic condition is held on the upper half of the complex plane.

Of particular interest to me are the Eisenstein series of modular functions or forms. These define an integer partition function, which is an acceptable partition function or path integral for a stringy black hole. I include a graphic here illustrating an Eisenstein function. This has a certain self-similar structure to it, or what might be called an elementary form of a fractal. In this picture unitarity is replaced with modularity. In this more general setting the transformation do no promote a field through time by some operator, but that the operator simply computes the number of states or degrees of freedom in a way that is consistent. Unitarity is then a special case of this, which happens to fit into our standard ideas of causality.

Gravity is as you say entropy increasing with the concentration of degrees of freedom. Gravity must then of course have some quantum aspect, for it is ultimately an accounting machine for degrees of freedom. These degrees of freedom are quantum field states, which means for gravity to be a "counter" of quantum states it must also be quantum.

I did not bring this part of my work in the paper I submitted here, except only with some sparse mention. My main thrust has been to argue how locality of quantum fields and unitarity are emergent.

Cheers LCAttachment #1: Eisenstein_14.jpg

Dear Philip:

I enjoyed reading your well-written and comprehensive paper on non-causality in the universe. I completely agree with your statements below that are thoroughly vindicated by the model and results presented in my posted paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe". (Please pardon me for a rather lengthy vindication below in two parts.)

PART 1:

Statement 1:

"The first big challenge to causality from within physics came with the rise of quantum theory. According to the laws of quantum mechanics a nucleus of a radioactive isotope can decay at any moment in a fundamentally unpredictable fashion. It is as if nothing is causing the decay. It just happens. Einstein was particularly disturbed by this discovery because he thought it threatened the principle that every effect must have a cause. He felt that there must be some hidden cause that was not being observed. It could take the form of hidden variables that determined the moment of decay in a perfectly deterministic way. If only we could detect them, sanity would be restored."

Response:

Yes, sanity has been restored via developing a deterministic model, GNM (Gravity Nullification Model) described in my paper, of the spontaneous (free-willed, no-cause) decay of particles at any moment and integrating into a simplified form of general relativity to provide a GNM based Universe Expansion (GNMUE) model, which predicts both the observed linear Hubble expansion in the nearby universe and the accelerating expansion in the distant universe as evidenced by supernova. The integrated model resolves many of the paradoxes and inconsistencies haunting physics and cosmology today. The proposed model eliminates singularities from existing models and the need for the incredible and unverifiable assumptions. Predictions of the model show a close agreement with the recent observations of the universe. The integrated model is also shown to resolve inconsistencies between quantum mechanics and general relativity. GNMUE provides consistent answers to key fundamental questions:

• Did the universe have a beginning - the Big Bang? Does it have an ending?

• What is the true nature of time and space? Is the universe expansion accelerating?

• Could the speed of light be exceeded? What is C? Do the universal constants vary with time?

• Are there parallel universes and multi-dimensions beyond ordinary three space and one time dimension?

• Is uncertainty or randomness the fundamental property of the universe?

• Is photon mass zero?

• Why the cosmological constant is so small as compared to that calculated by quantum mechanics?

• Is there non-locality in the universe?

• What is quantum gravity? Does quantum gravity have an absolute time?

• Is there dark matter or anti-matter? Do black holes exist?

• What governs the creation and dilation of matter?

• What governs the quantum versus classic behavior and the inner workings of quantum mechanics?

• What is the ultimate universal reality? Is it digital or analog or else?

In summary, all the above questions and the related paradoxes and inconsistencies paralyzing physics today are shown to be mere artifacts of the missing physics of the spontaneous decay of particles from the current widely-accepted theories.

PART 2

Statement 2:

"I think it is clear that space and time will be the first casualties of this revolution. They will become emergent properties of a deeper reality. That is the easier part but with them, locality and causality must also fail......... So let me state my thesis. I don't think that science needs temporal causality at the most fundamental level. The universe does not need a cause at the beginning of time."

Response:

Yes, indeed. Time, space, locality, and causality are shown to completely dissolve or dilate at relativistic speeds (V~C) and remain limited to only the non-relativistic Newtonian frame of reference (Velocities much smaller than speed of light C). My paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe" shows that the observations of the universe and galactic expansion can be predicted without an absolute cosmic time and without any past, present, or future evolution of the universe. The fundamental assumption of an absolute Cosmic Time or clock (and hence, past, present, and future) is shown to be WRONG since it does not support the universe and galactic observations and leads to unexplainable paradoxes and inconsistencies. The current operational (Newtonian) definition of an absolute time and space is only good enough for the worldly and solar system related physical phenomena and not valid at the universe scale. The paper also demonstrates that the operational worldly definition of time can reveal only 4% (material-only) reality and unable to explain the majority 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universal reality. The classical time is the time that is experienced in the Newtonian frame (V much smaller than C) and no-time or fully dilated time is observed in the relativistic frame of a light photon (V=C). In between these two states, there are infinite number of intermediate clocks and times (V between 0 and C). Moreover there is no synchronicity among these clocks, hence any moment (past, present, or future) of time in one clock does not have any correlation or relevance to a moment in any other clock or frame of reference.

In summary, past, present, and future moments (even though experienced as a stubborn reality in the classical world), and hence "Causality", have no meaning at all from a universal point of view. Causality seems to represent a limited concept that is shown to be valid only in Newtonian or classical frame of reference. Numerous successes of the widely accepted theories - quantum mechanics and general relativity, against experiments limited to the worldly and solar system have blinded us to misapply or impose an absolute operational time and causality on all observations causing the current paradoxes of physics and leading to an absurd universe.

Statement 3:

"Even in theories of cosmology, models that preserve causality are now becoming prevalent. Eternal inflation, cosmic evolution, baby universes, colliding brane-worlds, a quantum fluctuation from nothing, Cycles of time. All these fanciful sounding ideas are constructed to avoid the initial event at the big bang where otherwise time seems to start from nothing. Cosmologists don't want to accept a universe that begins with no cause."

Response:

Yes, indeed. In my paper, the fanciful ideas - Big Bang, Eternal inflation, cosmic evolution, baby universes, colliding brane-worlds, a quantum fluctuation from nothing, Cycles of time etc. are shown to be mere artifacts of the missing deterministic physics (GNM) of the spontaneous decay of particles. The universe observations can be predicted on the basis of a NON-CAUSAL free-willed or spontaneous decay of a particle.

Statement 3:

"Causality gives way to consistency.

If causality is not the basic principle of science then what is? The answer has to be purely consistency"

Response:

Yes, indeed. The new physics of spontaneous decay provides CONSISTENCY of applying the universal laws of conservation of mass, energy, momentum, space, and time to reveal a consistent set of all relativistic states of reality in the universe without the need for many fancy, incredible, and unverifiable concepts mentioned above as well as many others such as - multiple universes, multiple dimensions, anthropic principle, unknown and unproven particles/strings/anti-matter etc.

In summary, the framework of a universal theory proposed in your paper is strongly vindicated via a real comprehensive theoretical model - GNMUE described in my paper.

I would greatly appreciate your review and welcome any comments on my paper -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe".

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Dyson continued his rebel way:

"I like Bohr's division, because it allows the possibility that gravitons may not exist. If the scope of quantum theory is limited, gravity may legitimately be excluded from it"

"I feel the same way about gravitons"

Freemen.Dyson The scientist as rebel Random Hause Inc.p222

Philip,

A question regarding causality:

Say I throw a ball, accepting my throw is acausal to the trajectory of the ball, isn't the ball traveling the earlier part of its path causal to the continued travel of the ball? As Newton said of inertia, "A body in motion stays in motion, unless acted on by another force."

Now take that to the LHC: With those particles traveling around that track, wouldn't the same issue arise? Isn't their trajectory and momentum causal to their continued travel? Isn't the collision causal to the spray of subatomic particles and their paths of travel?

It just seems to me that if we eliminate causality, then any coherent function is just happenstance and we are dealing in a realm of mystery far beyond logic.

It seems more likely there is an acausal break in your chain of reasoning, given the amount of debate the issues raised tend to engender.

James,you asked:

What is the cause of our ability to interpret photon data and attach meaning to it?

I think that the more accurately and generally the question posed by Einstein:

"What I am really interested in is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom."

As translated in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 124

I hope the science will find out the answer.

Yuri,

Thank you for your response.

James

Our universe exhibits a very strong causal nature as you describe but the point is that this is emergent rather than fundamental. We observe that past causes have future effects but this is not built into the laws of nature. It is a statistical phenomenon governed by the second law of thermodynamics which is an emergent law valid for macroscopic processes. It works only because of the influence of the past big bang singularity which was constrained to have a low entropy due to fundamental symmetries in the laws of physics. The entropy of the universe then increases with the flow of time away from the big bang.

If we lived in a universe with an equally big singularity in the future then it would be a very different place. We observe influences from the future as well as the past and it is unlikely that life could evolve in such a universe. As it happens the cosmological constant means that the universe expands rather than collapsing in the future so the universe works in a way that is suitable for life.

Our brains are computers that have evolved to suit our environment and the nature of physical law is built into the software of our mind. We have string intuitive notions of time, space, causality, locality etc. This makes us think that these things are fundamental and cannot be different. To understand the universe properly we must strip away these programed concepts and build our picture of the universe from scratch using only logical consistency and observation to understand how it works. Of all the programed concepts causality is the one that is hardest to put aside, yet with clear thinking we can easily see that it is not part of fundamental physical law and is emergent.

David Hume and others who influenced him or were influenced by him were deep thinkers who could understand the necessity to seperate our programmed thinking from what we really experience. Hume recognised that we really just observe correlations and that causality is emergent, even if it is a very strong illusion that influences everything we do. It is remarkable that he could understand this long before the laws of thermodynamics and the nature of space and time were better understood. It is rather sad that although the laws of nature support his thinking, most people still do not recognise that causality is a concept programed into the mind and only exists as an emergent law of nature.

Einstein was influenced by Hume when he gave up the absolute nature of space and time. He realised that Hume was right that these things are programed into our thinking. We can overcome this programming by using only logic and careful observation to establish that space and time are not absolute. Physicists who have come to understand relativity in an intuitive way have succeeded in reprogramming their minds to some extent.

However, Einstein did not get what Hume said about causality and most physicists still fail to understand it. This is fine for most scientific endeavours but if we want to understand the foundations of natural law we must overcome this way of thinking and not be misled into imagining cyclic universes or evolving cosmoses. These do not come from observation or from logical thinking. They are just a product of thinking influenced by software that runs our brain which evolved to fit the emergent nature of the universe.