Essay Abstract

A number of key principles that allow goal-oriented systems to develop in the Universe can be identified. All are closely linked to Physics and the Mathematics that describes how it works, but none is more essential than the fact that the energy in the Universe has a wave nature and is able to form stable three dimensional standing wave structures that persist over time. We know these structures as particles.

Author Bio

I am a senior software engineer from Melbourne Australia. Theoretical Physics is and has been by interest and hobby for many years.

Download Essay PDF File

You have come very close to the Scalar Theory Of Everything model (STOE). It also has energy being pumped into our universe through Spiral galaxies an sunk (if there is an "input" there must be an "output") in elliptical galaxies. I also endorse the fractal and feedback principles, and the emergent principle. The exception is the STOE's need for an agent to form the gravitational field that can support wave action.

    Hi John,

    Thank you for your comment. Actually I too assume a field that causes gravity and the effects of Relativity. Please refer to my first FQXi essay in 2012 titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity" for my ideas on that. I have not heard of STOE, though I am intrigued now. I don't see the need for a source and sink for energy in the Universe - it simply exists and changes form over time. That is not to say I exclude a possible creation of energy somehow, but there is no evidence for it and remains probably the biggest mystery in Physics - where did and how did the Universe come to exist rather than just nothingness?

    I would be supprised if you had heard of the STOE. It is radical by the establishment standards. I was a published author in peer reviewed jounals, then the development of the STOE start and I wrote in the arxiv. When examining the pioneer anomaly, arxiv dropped me.

    You can see short videos on various topics at

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw

    paper references are given at the end of each segment.

    I'll look up your 2012 essay.

    In section 3 of my essay contribution has the how of the entropy issue you address. The entropy of the universe remains nearly constant (I'm hard pressed to find that reference now) Yet, entropy is constantly increasing as you note. The universe cannot be adiabatic. The CMB paper shows how the temperature is what it is - no other model does this.

    Where the universe came from is a mystery science has yet to find a model. I'm confident in a few thousand years there may be a model.

    Hodge

    Thanks for the link.

    How did you get to publish in the first place. Every attempt I have made to good peer reviewed journals has been rejected, even when it is new, original work and quite a concise proof that makes sense and brings clear insight to how the physics works (for example: explanations for Relativistic mass increase, length contraction, time dilation, or Fresnel dragging, or wave functions for the electron/positron). All were rejected and I had to publish online in little known peer reviewed journals or on Vixra. Do you have to be an academic working in a University to be recognized as worthy? Or is it simply whether you are in full agreement with the established line? If so then how will any new idea get any traction?

    Your latter view is the correct one. The establishment considers itself threatened. Consider they are old, unlikely to relearn. So they use their hard won status to hold the status quo. They get funded by larger experiments rather than smarter experiments. Its why thinking has to be done by the retired, unconnected to the Ol' Boy's network.

    The powers that be use their power to stay at the top of the heap. Been going on for all of recorded history. Perhaps that is why power centers change and the old guard is killed. Remember Galileo, after the Church's persecution of science, scientist moved north and England conquered. When England and Germany became stagnate in the early 20th century, Science moved to the US. The Us is stagnate. So science seems to be moving west again - that is. short of a revolution.

    Declan,

    Welcome to the contest. The zero'th law was a nice touch. All in all it is a good effort. Having said that, you relied upon emergence as a magical property to produce intelligence. Emergence is a shared theme by many of the essays this time. Don't take that as a criticism ... I did not even attempt to address the issue and instead focused on eliminating the "arrow of time" requirement of time evolution. Your initial step of an available long-term energy source seems to be a novel concept thus far in the contest. Essentially, you create local order at the expense of a greater amount of large scale disorder. The weakness of that is that there is order at large scale in the form of galaxy clusters and super clusters.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

      Hi Gary,

      Thank you for the welcome and positive comments. We can perceive order in the form of galaxy clusters and super clusters, but is this really order in the Thermodynamic sense? On the Wiki page on the laws of Thermodynamics it states that a system "will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium". While stars in galaxies are still burning, equilibrium has not yet been reached.

      Regards,

      Declan

      Declan,

      You misunderstand the thermodynamic meaning of both entropy and equilibrium. It might as well be argued that no equilibrium ever truly exists and therefore thermodynamics is meaningless. Nonetheless, thermodynamic predictions are accurate when applied correctly.

      Best Regards,

      Gary Simpson

      • [deleted]

      Gary,

      But entropy "is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations that a thermodynamic system can have" (wiki page on Entropy). In a galaxy comprised primarily of stars/hot gas/plasma there is high entropy due to the fast moving, essentially random motions of the particles; even though on a large scale there appears to be an organized structure.

      Regards,

      Declan

      • [deleted]

      Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

      you mentioned in 2 nd paragraph............ but only the structures that can persist in their environment will survive ..........

      Why you require structures, how structures are formed, is it something like radiation dominated era you are talking about...?

      But anyway,

      When stars are there , there are cold places also exist as we see....

      You mentioned energy to matter conversion as very important........... please check Dynamic Universe model's paper in viXra on this subject, where a mechanism was shown to convert energy to matter.

      Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

      you mentioned in 2 nd paragraph............ but only the structures that can persist in their environment will survive ..........

      Why you require structures, how structures are formed, is it something like radiation dominated era you are talking about...?

      But anyway,

      When stars are there , there are cold places also exist as we see....

      You mentioned energy to matter conversion as very important........... please check Dynamic Universe model's paper in viXra on this subject, where a mechanism was shown to convert energy to matter.

      Sorry I did not notice I was logged out, I think FQXi computer system logs out automatically after sometime. That's why I repeated my post with the name visible...

      Dear Satyavarapu,

      Structures form due to electromagnetic bonds forming (I did mention that the Electromagnetic force was the main force at play on the particle level). This can only occur, however, if the environment is not too hot or being bombarded by too much radiation, as these things will destroy structures and break the bonds between particles.

      I will have a look on viXra - do you have a link to the paper you are referring to?

      Regards,

      Declan

        Dear Mr. Traill,

        Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

        Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

        One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible "A number of key principles that allow goal-oriented systems to develop in the Universe can be identified."

        The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

        A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Dear Mr. Traill,

        Although all but one of my essays have previously been rejected without being sent out for Peer Revue by the editors of reputable science journals, my latest essay, THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE was sent out for Peer Review by the editor of the Indian Institute of Science Journal of Current Science on December 20, 2016.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        4 days later

        Your post on my paper's page:

        ...And so who made God?

        God is not a solution, only another question...

        Declan T

        Dear Declan,

        That is a good question, but it does not mean that God is not the solution as to how the universe and life were created. It would just be the next logical question to ask once you came to the conclusion that he did create them. We know now that the universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, so if God created them it would tell us that he at least was in existence before the creation of them in order to have created them. According to man's current estimate of the beginning time of the creation, he would have to be older than 13.8 billion years. Given that age it would not be too great a stretch to believe that he has always existed. After all, it was not that long ago that scientists thought the universe had always existed, so if that could be believed by man why not believe that God who created it always existed? Of course, we can only know for sure, if he has told us in one way or another. In the Christian Old Testament at Isaiah 57, 15, God says that he inhabits eternity. In The New Testament at I Timothy 1, 17 God is said to be eternal and immortal. Of course these things would only be evidence to you if you believe that God is the source of these scriptures. To a great extent I was convinced that he is, by the information that is contained in them about the structure of the world that we can observe, which goes beyond what man currently understands. Of course, it also contains information about parts of the creation that we can't presently observe, such as the heavens and the hidden framework behind our world that generates the outputs that make up the world that we see and are parts of, etc. As I looked deeper into the scriptures, I found that it contains much information about many other things also that explains how things in the world work, etc. There are many things in the structure of the world that are images of things pertaining to God also. I hope that helps you.

        I looked at your paper and found that although it is very short, it is one of the better ones that I have seen in this contest so far.

        Your zeroth requirement is explained in my paper. It also explains how the wave nature of energy photons works.

        There are multitudes of energy sources present in the universe.

        What is a survivable environment depends on what it is that is to survive in it. As an example, this planet is currently survivable to living creatures that have a limited life time of generally less than 120 years and have built in repair mechanisms to repair the damages caused by entropy interactions, but if you were to consider whether it is survivable to parts of a living creature over very long periods of time, such as billions of years while all of the necessary parts were formed one at a time by chance until they were all formed and then would somehow provide an environment, such that all those parts could somehow come together and form the first living creature, it would not have been stable enough at any given location to allow that to happen because entropy interactions would surely destroy the first parts long before the last ones would be made. In nature the most survivable structures are those that are the closest to the motion amplitude equilibrium point. These are the structures that are created by the one way chemical reactions or are the elements that are in the middle atomic weight range, etc. Building complex molecular structures is like stacking many bricks on top of one another. It does not take much to make them fall and, thus release all of the potential energy that was stored in them. On the other hand if you lay all those bricks side by side flat on the ground they can't fall from there, so that structure is very stable and is, therefore, much more survivable than the other one. If survivability is the important driver then complex structures would never form.

        The natural world does not contain the intelligence to be able to favour anything. It operates in accordance with its built in structural information, which generally operates in only the direction that works toward the averaging of internal motions in all entities involved and the equal dispersion of all entities in space except where controlled by gravity. It is true that this can be modified if external energy is added. Although the addition of external energy can make it possible to make chemical reactions occur in the opposite direction, there is no evidence that the self-assembly of complex structures such as the molecular protein machines, RNA molecules, and DNA molecules, etc. that are needed to operate inside of the cells of living creatures have ever occurred naturally in nature. The problem is not just to get amino acids to join together to make a protein. A certain type of protein that a living cell needs to function contains a chain of amino acids that can be 300 or even as much as 1400 amino acids long. There are about 80 amino acids generally found in nature. Each one comes in a left handed and a right handed variety for a total of 160 possibilities that could be joined together to make a protein. Only about 20 of those are used in living creatures. Each position in the protein chain must contain a specific amino acid type of the twenty. You should begin to see the problem of random protein self-assembly. If you start with a simple protein that contains a chain of 100 amino acids, each position in that chain must contain the right amino acid out of the 160 possibilities. If you put the wrong amino acid into any one of its 100 positions the protein is ruined. If you assemble proteins randomly you would have to make an extremely large number of them to have any likelihood of producing the one that you need. Think about the chance of picking out the right numbered card out of a stack of numbered cards that has 1 X 160 ^100 different numbered cards in it. If you could assemble quintillions of them per second you would not come close to producing that one specific protein in 13 billion years and you would need to produce at least 200 specific types of proteins to build the simplest possible living cell. Living cells can make the right proteins as they are needed because they have already been preprogrammed to do so. The right sequence of amino acids for each of the proteins that the living creature uses is recorded into its DNA. When a certain protein is needed a transfer RNA molecule reads the code from the proper storage place in the DNA and transfers it to a protein building machine, which is itself a protein. This machine reads the code from the RNA molecule and picks and positions the proper amino acid into the next position in the new protein molecule. It would then read the next position code and pick the proper amino acid to place in that position of the new protein. This would be repeated 100 times to complete our basic protein. A cell is essentially a very complex completely automated molecular based protein production process control assembly facility. In addition to that it also performs its normal life functions. In addition to all of this many proteins cannot exist long enough outside of the cell to allow a nuclear magnetic resonance image to be taken of them. This would mean that they would all need to be assembled in a very short time and once produced these proteins would have to be assembled into a living cell in a very short time. Living cells are basically an organic computer controlled device that contains stored information that controls its functioning and built on a molecular size scale. Man cannot come close to making such a complex structure. Can you imagine a completely automated car plant that can move around to find all of the basic materials and energy it needs to build cars and can then process all of them into the needed finished materials, such as plastics and metals, etc. into the form that they need to be in and then cut and shape them all into the right parts and then assemble them together to make cars and at the same time it automatically repairs any failures that develop in it and every so often completely builds another car plant from the materials that it gathers as it moves around. When I began to understand the true complexity of the structure of living creatures it became apparent that it would be ridiculous to consider that it could in any way come about from natural random processes. And the example of the car plant came from a comparison to a single celled creature. If you talk about more complex structures like man, the complexity expands more exponentially. Just think of the cell differentiation problem that would start with a single general purpose cell and as cells would divide they would need to slowly differentiate in many stages into all of the different types of cells in the body with each cell in the right place when it is done. All of this would need to be controlled by all of the possible differentiation forms being stored in the DNA in some way. When each cell divides it would need to know its differentiation position in the body and the proper code to pull out of the DNA to use to make the next cell so it would also have its proper differentiation from it. There is no way to get around the fact that it would take an intelligence much more complex than man's to figure out all of these things and then build it, let alone first constructing the universe they are to live in out of combinations of basic motions and building it up to the hierarchical level that would allow the possibility to create the proteins and other complex molecular structures needed to build living creatures.

        One of the greatest problems with the concept of evolution is that if you select a DNA error rate and a positive result rate that is quick enough to produce all of the different types of living creatures that have ever lived in the time allowed, (about 13 billion years) starting from just the one first creature, evolution increases exponentially along with the increase in the populations of all of the existing living creatures. This means that today with the tremendously large world population of living creatures we should be seeing a great number of evolutionary changes occurring all around us, but we don't.

        Standing wave structures just like all other cyclical motion structures require external structure to generate the interactions that periodically reverse motion direction in all dimensions that participate in the standing wave motion. In my description of the structure of the energy photon I use a standing wave motion that oscillates between the barriers at the ends of a very small dimension. An interaction with the end of that dimension changes the motion's direction information to the opposite direction, but blocks the transfer of motion amplitude to the barrier because the barrier cannot receive motion amplitude input. This creates a one dimensional standing wave structure that operates at 90 degrees to the direction of travel of the energy photon, thus producing its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic variable mass wave effects. To produce the three dimensional wave structure of the matter particle I use a more complex structure that also requires an additional dimension that interfaces with the other dimensions in such a way as to create an inter-dimensional cyclical motion flow. You can find more details in my current and other papers.

        Sincerely,

        Paul

        Wow, I think that comment is another essay!

        I do not wish to start a Science v's Religion debate.

        I do want to dispute a couple of your points though:

        You assert there is not enough time for life to have evolved, but there is an enormous amount of material that is all reacting and undergoing change at the same time - thus a massively parallel computer in effect. This multiplies the available time for reactions to take place by a truly enormous number. Also there may be certain fortuitous events (such as certain materials acting as catalyst in reactions) that short-circuit the processes and allow certain reactions to occur much more easily and quickly, given the right conditions.

        Also, there is some evidence that has been detected (by Roger Penrose's team a few years ago, I think) of the echoes of previous Big Bangs that occurred before our most recent one. This could indicate that the Universe is much older than originally thought, or even of infinite age (i.e. has always existed).

        It depends on your point of view: If one were to say that the Universe IS god then there is no need for it to have been created, and it might have always existed. This might be a good way for Science and Religion to unite in some fashion.

          Declan,

          I fully agree with your concluding paragraph about the wave nature of particles. But I'm curious about your thoughts on entropy which you lead with in your paper. Do you have an idea how entropy fits into WSM (wave structure of matter)?

          Jeff

            Hi Jeff,

            The consideration of entropy really only applies to atoms/molecules rather than fundamental particles. It expresses the order/disorder of bulk atoms/molecules. The entropy reduction is required so that composite structures can become ordered and not torn apart by random heat 'noise' that tends to destroy such ordered structures.

            Having said that, the original formation of fundamental particles from random wave activity could be considered as involving a reduction in entropy - thus ordered 3D standing wave structures form from disordered wave activity. In this case it is the mathematics of the stable standing wave, wave-functions that brings order to the chaos of random wave motion, thus allowing stable fundamental particles to form and persist.

            Regards,

            Declan

            Dear Declan,

            I guess I just got carried away. To me, the source of the universe and all things in it is the most important understanding to obtain because everything else expands from that and there is so much to it, so I can go on for a much longer time than I did to explain everything, but for your sake I will try to keep this comment shorter.

            I was not talking much about the evolution part of the problem in my previous comment except to point out that, since the DNA error rate and the positive result rate would increase exponentially with the population rate increase, we should be seeing many evolutionary changes all around us now, but it is not happening. Mainly I was talking about the difficulty in naturally producing the first living creature. The problem is that it is estimated that the simplest possible living creature would need to contain about 200 specific protein machines to carry out the minimum life functions of a living creature. In real living creatures these machines can have a chain of 300, 600, or even as much as 1400 amino acids, all of which must have the proper amino acid placed into each of those positions in the chain. I used an example of a protein with a chain of only 100 amino acid positions in it. Given the 160 different amino acids in nature, that would allow about 2.58 X 10^220 possible different proteins that could be built. Out of all of those possibilities you would need to get the 200 that you needed. Since it is estimated that there are only about 10^80 elementary particles in the universe and each protein machine would require a large number of them, you could only make a very small percentage of them if you used all of the universe's matter particles to do it. It is estimated that if you completely filled the universe with protons it would only hold about 10^128 of them and that is still a very small percentage of 10^220. The chances against any random self-assembly of just 1 such protein machine are so great that it could never happen, let alone making 200 of them that way. The massively parallel argument is a good one to start out with, but it only works for the production of the first protein because that one could be formed anywhere in the universe, but after that the other ones would all need to be formed on the same planet and in the same local area of it, so that once they were all formed, all of the machines could somehow be quickly brought together and somehow be brought to life before any of them was destroyed by entropy interactions. The smaller the area, the greater the chance that they could all come together once produced, but the fewer resources would be available limiting the quantity that could be produced in a given time frame. Catalysts facilitate a reaction between chemicals to speed it up, but they don't have the ability to choose the right specific amino acid and place it in a specific position in the protein chain. Even if you could speed up the random production of proteins, it would not help because you could not produce a large enough number of them to likely make the right one if you used all of the matter in the planet to do it.

            If any big bangs occurred followed by big crunches as some suppose, everything that had been done to produce protein machines or anything else would be destroyed by the big crunch, so this would not help to produce living creatures. It would only result in repeating the production and then destruction of the same proteins over and over again, so life would never be produced. The problem with an endless universe that always was is that it is subject to entropy and it can be seen that it will ultimately effectively cease to exist or at least cease to operate.

            In a sense you may be right in that God has always existed and he took a small part of the motion of which he is composed to make the universe and all that is in it. Therefore, all of the motions in the universe have always been in existence, they have just not always been put together in the current form. Would that be acceptable? That is why the total motion content is the one thing that is always conserved and can't be destroyed. It also explains why God has always been in existence and can't be destroyed.

            Sincerely,

            Paul