Rethinking the Universe by Richard J Benish

Richard Benish

Essay Abstract

Human ideas of how life and consciousness relate to mathematics and physics are conditioned by the fact that we have lived our lives on a 5.97 x 10^24 kg ball of matter. These ideas would arguably be different if we had evolved instead inside a large rotating world far from astronomical bodies. Contemplating the latter perspective provides some insight on how prevailing views may be in error and how to correct them.

Author Bio

Born in Milwaukee, WI and having done independent research on gravity in California's Bay Area and in Eugene, OR, my continuing mission is to generate interest in performing a gravity experiment that Galileo proposed in 1632. Various accounts of and reasons behind these efforts can be found in documents linked at my website: http://www.gravitationlab.com/

Download Essay PDF File

Richard Benish

On page 7, "Figure 5" should read: "Figure 6."

The corrected document can be accessed here:

http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0034

Satyavarapu Gupta

Nice essay Benish,

Your ideas are good...

1. The accelerating expansion of Universe

2. Martin Fairweather contemplates the dismal eventualities of pre-1998 big bang cosmology: Inevitable big freeze, or equally deadly big crunch.

3. Solving problems by trial-and-error and playfulness go with each other; they both involve processing information; they both have survival value. If one thing doesn't work, rethink and try something else. Stretch the imagination till some-thing works. Intent, choice, self-awareness these are characteristics that differentiate complex life forms such as humans from primitive ones. Consciousness clearly tends to accelerate the course of evolution.

4. Rotonians Again..... Imagine a civilization of humanoid beings who have evolved on a huge rotating cylindrical world called Roton.

5. Rotonians have also measured the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), whose tempera-

ture they _nd to be in nearly exact agreement with the Earthian's COBE results. {Sir......... you may please have look at my paper on CMB .... - SNP.Gupta : FQXi-2013, for 'It from Bit or Bit from It' ...Accepted paper "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background" on Apr. 26, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT, see

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

}

6. Rotonian attempts to understand the gravity of a planet like Earth have led to a whole new cosmology: A Universe in which the arrow of time only increases because the arrows of space and matter also only increase; a Universe which, in its eternal unfolding, must surelybe teeming with life

Etc., are wonderful discussion.

As you got lots of perspective of Cosmology, I am also proposing a fundamental property of Universe. It is reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe. As you are interested in fundamental questions, I request you to please have a look on my essay here with a different type of fundamental ideology...

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Dizhechko Semyonovich

Dear Richard J Benish,

You wrote an essay as a great thought experiment with the Roton state in which they live Rotonians. The idea of rotation of the space close to the New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the identity of space and matter. You write: "Briefly described, the model involves a (deSitterï¿½like) exponential expansion--not only of discontinuous (or empty) space, but of space and matter combined such that the average density is a constant"

In New Cartesian Physic void is identified by the assertion that in nature, no rectangular bricks, of which you can lay completely space. Therefore, parts of space are in constant motion to fill these emptiness.

Then you write: "In the end we get a variety of suggestive relationships crowned, perhaps, by these equivalent ways of quantifying the local/universal acceleration of volume per mass":

In New Cartesian Physic gravitational mass is the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration through a closed surface particles. The gravitational constant in this case, factor of its translation in inertial mass.

I will appreciate your essay if you also rate the New Cartesian Physic.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Richard Benish

Dr. Dizhechko,

Thank you for restating two passages from my essay.

As I've noted in the comment section of your essay, the most important quality of Rethinking the Universe is that it can be tested by performing a simple, feasible experiment. As far as I can tell, your model does not come with any such clearcut test. It seems, rather, to be a virtually untestable reinterpretation of standard physics. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Does your model come with a decisive, feasible experiment by which it can be tested?

This critique applies quite broadly. It is remarkable how very many virtually untestable variations of standard physics can be found in the literature. By "standard physics" I mean those models that assume the validity of General Relativity as a first approximation--which means assuming the validity of Newtonian gravity as, shall we say, a second approximation. What makes this assumption remarkable is that all models based upon it remain untested with respect to the most ponderable half of the gravitational Universe, under our noses, inside matter.

This tacit prejudice for exterior observations is reflected, for example, in the title of Bernard Schutz's scholarly book,Gravity From the Ground Up. Until we finally get around to testing gravity from the ground down, academic physics and cosmology seem destined to remain in their present singularity-ridden state of multiversally hologrammed, inflatonically Planck-scaled, amplituhedronally emergent stringbrane cartoon-Hollywood math-geekery.

As argued in my essay, this confused and unrealistic state of physics and cosmology negatively influences our attempts to make progress on the more complicated questions concerning life and consciousness.

The simple experiment whose result the Rotonians rest their hypothesis on was proposed by Galileo nearly 400 years ago. With respect to this proposal, virtually all physicists have relinquished the scientific ideal of empirical evidence (Galileo who?) by merely pretending to know what the result of the experiment would be if it were to be performed.

Doesn't the spirit of Galileo deserve more than this? Why don't those with access to the resources needed to do so at last build and operate humanity's very first Small Low-Energy Non-Collider?

Richard Benish

Dizhechko Semyonovich

Dear Richard J Benish

My model of the physical world is a continuation of the model of Descartes. It is tested that was able to explain the formula for mass-energy equivalence by the opening pressure of the Universe. Through the surface of each corpuscle passes the flow pressure forces of the Universe equals the speed of light on Planck's constant - ch. This flow of force from the Universe is balanced by the flow of the centrifugal force of rotation of the mass inside the particles, the total energy is equal to mc2.

From New Cartesian Physic great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in his essay I gave materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural. Probably, I made a mistake that has bound New Cartesian physics with the paranormal and supernatural, because it does not attract the attention of others. Hope you rate my essay as high as I am yours. Don't let the New Cartesian Physic in abyss of the unknown.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

George Kirakosyan

Hi dear Richard

You have presented one nice and serious work devoted to physical essence of gravitation. It is my favorite theme (that is why I have stopped on this, despite it is little out of the contest!) I just advise you to open my essay (it is not about the gravity!) and look there Ref. [3]. You can find there formula (3.38) that gives the theoretical value of G = 6.673 * 10^-11 . I hope You understands what it is mean. If you will see interest here then we just will obligated to analyze and mutually to evaluate our works. I hope on your response in my page.

Best regards

Branko Zivlak

Dear Mr. Benish

Very interesting essay. To me, Rotonians vs Earthians, 1: 1.

Of course - Humans are semi-autonomous physical things produced by the Universe.

If (4) is true, where is the calculation. Calculation for G you can see here: http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0018.

You have a typo, (4) or (5).

Cosmic everything chart is very good attempt. I do not understand why the ratio of the densities is connected with alpha.

You may find helpful in further work, a very important attitude R. Bošković:

"The primary elements of matter are in my opinion perfectly indivisible & non-extended points, ... "

Try the usefulness of this attitude to realize in my essay.

Shortened and simplified version of my essay, you can see:

http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0152

Regards

Branko

Richard Benish

Dear Dr. Zivlak,

Many thanks for pointing out the typo. In my original posting, subscripts for rho on the right side of Eq. (4) are in error.

The corrected equation should read as follows:

[math]$G = 8\left(\frac{\rho_{\mu }}{\rho_{\textrm{{\tiny N}}}}\cdot\frac{c^2\mathrm{a}_{\textrm{{\tiny 0}}}}{m_{\textrm{{\scriptsize e}}}}\right) = 4\left(\frac{\rho_{\textrm{{\tiny M}}}}{\rho_{\textrm{{\tiny N}}}}\cdot\frac{c^2\mathrm{a}_{\textrm{{\tiny 0}}}}{m_{\textrm{{\scriptsize p}}}}\right)\,.$[/math]

Concerning the density on the Cosmic Everything Chart (Figure 6), given the base atomic/molecular density

[math]$\rho_A$ [/math]

(mass of proton within Bohr radius sphere), the empirically measured nuclear saturation density is very nearly equal to the theoretical (alpha-determined) value given on the Chart.

The latter density is very nearly equal to one implied by Emilio Segre's theoretical argument involving components in the strong nuclear interaction (Nuclei and Particles, 1977, p. 895). In my paper [link:vixra.org/abs/1503.0138] Space Generation Model of Gravity, Cosmic Numbers, and Dark Energy[/link]. I have argued that simplifying this implication by omitting explicit dependence on the Compton wavelength of the charged pion results in a possibly more meaningful fiducial value for nuclear saturation density.

The fine structure constant enters because the mass of the charged pion is only slightly less than

[math]$m_e (2/\alpha)$. [/math]

Under the assumption that the closeness of the theoretical and empirical values is not an accident, other key densities--the base multiplied by simple factors and powers of alpha--emerge in the pattern made evident on the Chart.

In the paper you have linked to you have written:

"'Matter dominant Universe' and 'radiation dominant Universe' coexist in every point in time, so there is no room for weird understanding of their change during the history of the Universe."

From this it appears that we agree that average cosmic matter and radiation densities are constants. I have difficulty following your arguments leading to this conclusion. Also, the equation you give for the value of G appears much too complicated and contrived. Most importantly, unless I have missed it somewhere, your model does not come with an empirically testable prediction for distinguishing it from other models.

A corrected version of [link:vixra.org/abs/1703.0034]Rethinking the Universe[/link] has just been uploaded to the viXra archive.

Thanks again for catching the typo!

Richard Benish

Michael Manthey

Hi Richard Benish -

I really enjoyed your piece - both for its inside-out physics and its science-fiction-ey entertainment value. And well-written - always a pleasure! On the other hand, GR has always given me a headache thinking about it, so I've stuck to recasting QM as distributed computation instead! ... cf. my essay "Causality and Teleology".

You commented there that I am depending on standard assumptions about space and time for it all to work. In physics circles this is a cogent kind of objection, but in my particular case it's wide of its mark. The semantics of the Zed3 = {0,1,-1} geometric (Clifford) algebra I use are taken to be identical with their interpretation as a distributed computation, ie. no physical principle is invoked.

The development can be viewed as a purely mathematical exercise, tho it's much easier computationally ... the key observation being that co-occurring events contain information by their very existence, the argument for which proceeds from their time-like indistinguishability, cf. the "Coin Demo" in references [1] or [2] in my essay).

The fundamental connection to physics lies in the concept of exclusion, that certain states literally exclude the simultaneous existence of certain other states. That's it - the rest is just inevitable mathematical conclusions. The resulting structure - mathematical, computational, and physical - is the unique result of discrete combinatorics, and U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3)xSO(4) is a great place to land.

This can all work in your favor, it seems to me, in that here is an explicit mechanism that you can explore, in the understanding that every experiment is therefore a computation.

-Mike Manthey

Richard Benish

Dr. Manthey,

Thanks for your compliments on my essay.

I would like to reply to two of your other comments:

First, I don't see how "recasting QM as distributed computation" helps to relieve your general relativistic "headache." Is it relief by avoidance or because you have somehow subsumed GR in one fell computational swoop?

Even if it's the latter, the problem with GR's huge empirical gap remains. The interior solution is far from being adequately tested. So subsuming GR may turn out to be the wrong strategy.

Second, I can accept that "every experiment is therefore a computation," but not necessarily the converse. Any computation is only as good as the assumptions upon which it is based (the fewer the better). The assumptions dictate the outcome. Experiments based solely on mathematical laws are thus quite limited with respect to what they can tell us about physical reality.

The Standard Model may seem to be based on a reliable set of assumptions, but we have this huge absence of physical data for the problem of gravity-induced motion through the centers of massive bodies. The Rotonians (and I :)) would argue that the Standard Model represents but a small portion of the proverbial newly-encountered Elephant---covering at best, the least ponderable half of the gravitational Universe.

The beauty of an actual physical experiment like operating a Small Low-Energy Non-Collider is that it is virtually assumption-free. We simply observe how a small and large body behave in the simplest conceivable configuration in which their interaction is wholly gravitational---because, by design, no surfaces get in the way to obstruct the motion. (And no energy input is needed to initiate the motion, as for circular orbits.)

The experiment proposed by the Rotonians (following Galileo) is thus about as pure and direct a dialog as could be arranged with Nature about the essence of gravity. The information gleaned therefrom may well require drastically recasting future gravitational computations because the experiment has the potential to reveal that many of the prior assumptions---generally accepted as sacrosanct---had been in error.

Cheers,

Richard Benish

Edward Kneller

Richard,

Thanks for the essay. I liked your Cosmic Everything Chart showing mass vs. density.

You may be interested in the plots in my essay, The Cosmic Odyssey of Matter, which show mass vs. abundance for a much more limited set of forms, specifically those that fall along the ρA horizontal line in your chart.

link to The Cosmic Odyssey of Matter

Regards, Ed Kneller

Edwin Klingman

Dear Richard Benish,

I very much enjoyed your essay, it's format, and your intention of revisiting and revising our ideas of gravity. You invented an excellent vehicle for this purpose, the Rotonians.

While I do not necessarily agree with every point you made, I agree with your conclusion, that a new conception of gravity may lead to a new kind of unification that make standard ideas of unification look rather fragmented. After the contest closes you might find time to look at The Nature of Quantum Gravity , but before it closes I hope you might find time to read my current essay and comment.

You ask "Why is gravity so weak compared to the other forces?" The Rotanians answer: "Gravity appears so weak because the universe is so large."

I would turn that around - the Universe is so large because gravity is so weak!

If all forces had the strength of the strong force, the universe would be one balled up little knot!

And I agree with your focus on mass density instead of mass. I am impressed with your figure 6 based on mass density. It is my own focus in rethinking gravity. [My current essay does not directly discuss gravity.]

While I would be surprised if your experiment (and Galileo's) actually produce the results you claim, I fully support your insistence that the answers only come from experiments, not preconceptions. My own focus of late has convinced me that the Stern-Gerlach experiment, arguably the seminal experiment of quantum mechanics, should be done with modern technology. As I'm sure you are finding out, people have little interest in performing experiments when they "know" what the results will be. That's really too bad. Even your reinterpretation of Newton's constant as "acceleration of volume per mass" offers a new perspective.

In reviewing your essay at the moment I cannot locate it, but I believe you also remarked about the exterior, and the interior Schwarzschild solutions; the interior of course have never been tested. I have a friend who has been redoing the Oppenheimer-Snyder calculations and he has concluded that the Schwarzschild radius is always located within the matter, hence the very definition of the exterior or "vacuum" solution fails to be physically met.

Finally you open with an appreciation of the FQXi contest itself "What a perfect expression of life and consciousness: to invite creative ideas from around the world regardless of criteria like academic stature." I believe that first paragraph on page 2 should be read by everyone and FQXi would do well to display it in a prominent position on their website.

I do not know why your rank is so low (other than the '1' trolls that work under the bridge] but in my opinion your essay rates a 10. It is novel, original, well-developed, factual where it can be, interpretational where it is appropriate, and generally an ideal formulation for rethinking physics. While I do not agree with all of your ideas or necessarily accept your conclusions, your essay meets the standards of FQXi in spades. Even though it seems that raising your rank will draw the trolls out, I do so anyway. Congratulations on an original work that I will have to read several times to absorb. There should be no implication that every new and well expressed idea in this contest be correct in every instance. Thinking new thoughts, giving new perspectives, tieing it to known physics, linking to appropriate references, and presenting it well should be more than sufficient. You do all these very well.

Physics needs new ideas and new perspectives, and I think your invention of the Rotonians is just the type of idea needed. It is the same type of effort as Edwin Abbott's 'Flatland'. It deserves praise. Congratulations.

With best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Richard Benish

Dear Dr. Klingman,

Thank you very much for your kind and generous comments. Given how radical my proposals are, praise is rare, and your comments are without doubt, the most insightful praise I've ever received.

A few more specific responses:

According to standard physics and cosmology, cosmic largeness and gravitational weakness (smallness of Newton's constant) do not necessarily go with each other. Near the alleged birth of the Universe the cosmic scale factor was of essentially zero size (initial singularity). Furthermore, in standard cosmology the ratio always changes, as chunks of matter grow ever more remote from one another.

Whereas in the ("Rotonian") Space Generation Model, the size and strength remain proportional because they reflect a state of saturation, analogous to the conditions inside atomic nuclei, whose densities are constant due to saturation of forces.

One of my key points is that absence of tests of the interior solution is not at all a matter "of course." Schwarzschild's interior solution predicts that the rates of clocks decrease to a central minimum. This clock rate prediction corresponds directly to the kinematic prediction that a test object will oscillate through the center. The arguably more intuitive expectation that clock rates should increase to a central maximum (by symmetry) corresponds, kinematically, to the test object never passing the center. The kinematic prediction is quite testable, so of course it should be tested.

A possible point of confusion may be that the interior solution referred to here has nothing to do with the Schwarzschild radius---which is the limiting horizon of the Schwarzschild exterior solution. If one accepts the general relativists' practice of allowing division by zero, then one becomes susceptible to believe that, within this horizon, space turns to time, time turns to space, and matter disappears (or becomes infinitely dense) at the center. As Kip Thorne explains:

"The atoms of which a star is made are destroyed at the center of a black hole... The matter is gone, but the mass, in the sense of mass and energy being equivalent, has gone into the warped space-time of the black hole." [link:www.space.com/17086-bizarre-black-holes-kip-thorne-interview.html]

Prior to the repurposing of physics to an entertainment industry, holdout physicists like Peter G. Bergmann (once assistant to Einstein) could be found objecting:

"A theory that involves singularities and involves them unavoidably, moreover, carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction." [Some Strangeness in the Proportion (Addison-Wesley, 1980) p. 156.]

Perhaps other holdouts still exist out there somewhere.

I persist in my endeavor to generate interest in performing the experiment that Galileo proposed in 1632, not only because it has not yet been done, not only because I predict a revolutionary result, but because I am an optimist about humanity. You have validated this optimism with your supportive comments.

Now all that remains is to connect with someone who not only sees the sensibleness of living up to the Galilean ideals of empirical science, but who has access to the resources needed to see the project through to its completion. I now feel all the more optimistic that this connection will someday take place. The experiment will someday be carried out.

Thanks again to FQXi for facilitating this outreach.

Bayarsaikhan Choisuren

Dear Richard J. Benish,

I have read you essay and there is something interesting for me.

Particularly these phrases are nice for me

"Rotonian attempts to understand the gravity of a planet like Earth have led to a whole new cosmology: A Universe in which the arrow of time only increases because the arrows of space and matter also only increase; a Universe which, in its eternal unfolding, must surely be teeming with life. The very existence of life in an edgeless and eternal.....

It seems to be a cosmic fact that critical junctures will arise, at which certain other facts about the physical Universe--utterly key pieces of the puzzle--must be discovered and put properly into place, to enable further progress"

With Best Regards

Ch.Bayarsaikhan