Essay Abstract

Will an "ultimate theory" giving us an understanding of the nature of reality be simple? So far nothing has been simple. While general relativity's equivalence of gravitation and acceleration is easily understood the resulting field equations are extremely complicated. Richard Feynman used simple arrow diagrams as a basis for QED that required decades of work in path integrals to refine. It seems to be a tacit assumption that any new discovery in theoretical physics will be followed by a complex solution. Even the path of reductionism leads to quarks sometimes thought to be composed of irreducible strings, ironically landing on some of the most intricate mathematics of all in string theory. It is easy to see how this mindset would be difficult to escape. I show how the assumption that a solution should be complex may underestimate the possibility of a simple solution - even one devoid of mathematics or formulas.

Author Bio

Born in the year the neutrino was discovered, I am a non-professional with an interest in cosmology. I studied some mathematics and physics at the university level.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

  • Post #2

Thanks for sharing your essay! Also, I really like the professional look of the diagrams.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #3

    My pleasure and thanks for the compliment! I used Rhino 3D for the diagrams.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #4

    Peter,

    You have an interesting eye for seeing patterns. I agree in that the equations can be so complicated in that they obscure some simple helpful analogies. I recently posted a sketch in addition to my essay and would like your opinion on what I could do to clarify my arguments.

    Regards,

    Jeff

    Jeff,

    Thank you! I cannot offer any suggestions to your work since it involves the equations of general relativity and they are well beyond my scope. I studied physics and matrix algebra at the 1st year level, advanced calculus 2nd year and partial differential equations at the 3rd so you can see my position. However, this was enough for me to follow my own interests and not be intimidated by the complexity in physics - I at least have a rough understanding of various concepts. I must say that I am flattered that someone at your level would offer support considering the radical departure of my work, but I think you are someone who can appreciate the "anything goes" approach when it comes to making sense of thorny cosmological issues. Perusing your essay and sketch I found myself admiring your brainstorming style and you are not afraid to offer fresh ideas. I wish you the best in obtaining your doctorate!

    Cheers,

    Peter

    14 days later

    Peter,

    Interesting essay and marvelous graphics! (I know others have remarked about this, but it is certainly worthy of one more acknowledgement.)

    My view is that simple physical ideas do sometimes lead to horribly complicated mathematics, just because the less you assume, the more you have to explain. On the other hand, if you assume a lot of special structure at the beginning, the mathematics does not necessarily become so bad. Since I think that the physical ideas should be simple and convincing (concepts like cause and effect), I'm willing to accept that the math may have to be hard in order to get the job done.

    For example, the usual models of spacetime involve manifolds, which assume a great deal of special structure, but are also mathematically convenient. If you stop taking the manifold for granted, you might be in for some difficult mathematics, but perhaps you can have more confidence that the physical ideas themselves are based on solid ground.

    Anyway, I enjoyed reading it! Take care,

    Ben Dribus

    Ben,

    Thank you for reading my essay and your appreciative remarks! I read your essay and was impressed by your boldness in challenging assumptions in general relativity. Being weighted in mathematics, as you are, should serve you well in providing fresh insight in the field of physics. I am reminded how one of my math professors joked that engineers have to build things, physicists have to write things down and mathematicians just think. I read somewhere that Einstein himself lamented that he wished he were weighted in math.

    I also liked your statement pointing out "the need for creative ideas about what experimental phenomena to search for and how to search for them." By the way, you have an excellent writing style.

    Wishing you well in completing your PhD and a successful career!

    Peter

    7 days later

    Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

    Thank you - your evaluation of my essay is appreciated!

    I read your essay and I find that we share some similar ideas. For example, in opposition to the standard view that the space between galaxies expands forever, you prefer a universe that expands and then collapses. My model agrees with that view. The standard view that the universe will "freeze out" into a flat state is based on the fact that the universe is now expanding at an accelerating rate. Yet the possibility exists that at some time in the future it will stop expanding and begin collapsing. I don't like the idea of a universe that freezes out because it violates the law of conservation of energy on a cosmic scale. Stephen Hawking at one time proposed a model of an eternal cyclical universe before moving on to other ideas.

    You said the Creator will teach us with practical measures - in my idea it is the mere shape of an apple that may be the Creator's way of familiarizing us with the structure of the universe.

    Hope all is well in Vietnam,

    Peter

    5 days later

    Dear Peter Bauch,

    Your diagrams are beautiful and must have taken considerable care to produce on top of the time it takes to put together an essay for a contest such as this. They are well done. I don't have much interest in models of how the universe began as I think that it is much more plausible that it always has been. So forgive me if do not speak enthusiastically or critically of your proposed mechanism. Its great to have the opportunity to read such a diversity of ideas in this contest, including your own. Kind regards Georgina : )

      Dear Georgina,

      Thanks for taking the time to read my essay and your supportive comment! I enjoyed your essay and like your illustration that looks like it belongs in a textbook.

      You make a good point in saying that the universe always has been. It's one of only two possibilities and I think it's wise to explore both. My model tries to answer one of FQXi's foundational questions: "What happened before the Big Bang?" The cosmic microwave background suggests that the universe was at one time a compact proton plasma and the extrapolation beyond that to a singularity seems logical but I think if the universe's birth occurred at that time it would result in a symmetrical distribution of matter and there would be no gravitational clumping to form stars of different sizes. A groundwork for asymmetry may have had to precede the Big Bang.

      My model is reductionism taken to an extreme but I think that if enough layers of complexity in reality are peeled away the game may change from chess to checkers. It may be a theory only its mother could love, but as you pointed out in your Max Tegmark quote, even weird theories should be considered. Einstein said, "If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."

      We can only throw more spaghetti against the wall and hope some of it will stick.

      All the best,

      Peter

      If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

      Sergey Fedosin

      Peter

      Your toroid model seems fundamental, elegant and simple. I also of course like it as it is close to my own 'fractal' toroidal cosmology and particle basis. Discussed more in last years essay than this. Nice essay, and shouldn't be so low, so a little boost coming. I hope you'll read mine, which this year tries to explain the very simple kinetic basis or deriving SR from QM, but very difficult to assimilate due to the deeply held assumptions challenged. It's doing well, as many glimpse the ontological construction but only the less indoctrinated seem to grasp it. That may give you a head start! I hope you do read it, and enjoy it at whatever level.

      Well done, and Best wishes

      Peter

        Dear Peter,

        Thanks for your positive feedback and support! Being an architect it's no wonder you can make any sense of my model since it requires extensive visualization. Although simple, it does contain a complex topological shape - the torus - as you pointed out. I was an architectural draftsman at one time, which may explain my penchant for illustration.

        I'm not too familiar with the content of your essay (somewhat over my head) but I must say it's extremely well laid out overall and cannot be more interesting. Judging by the response to your essay so far, perhaps your mechanism will not be ignored after all. I like the importance you place on astrophysical phenomena in formulating your ideas.

        Best of luck in the contest,

        Peter