Essay Abstract

Addressed here are the features of physics and cosmology theory that represent core outcomes central to undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability, namely the absence of measurable data associated to cosmological and physics theory. The central aim of this essay is addressing and resolving the "absence of data" in physics and cosmology theory despite physics and cosmology theory warranting the data to be there, "somewhere". This process is undertaken through investigating each of the key problems in physics and cosmology theory leading to such incursions of theory and associated absence of data. More specifically, this essay addresses the basic theoretical problem in physics and cosmology that has landed on 7 key data-beaches: dark matter, dark energy, the Horizon problem, the Flatness Problem, the Monopole Problem, the Hubble Constant Problem, and the Cosmological Constant problem. Such data-incursions will be brought to bear on one common underlying ingredient, namely the idea of mass as inertia. A proposed solution is forwarded to this underlying incursion of theory, dealing out all "hoped for" physical data and replacing it with a theory that stays within the "known" universe and associated data, presenting a list of key axiom requirements for the establishment of a true data-valid pan-theory of physics and cosmology.

Author Bio

Stephen Jarvis, Founder and Director of Equus Space (www.equusspace.com), whose professional background is in Medicine/Surgery (University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine), is the author of 17 papers (http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3869-7694) central to a new approach to both physics and cosmology theory, employing the use of a new mathematical algorithm that adds more granularity to the measurement of time and associated nature of space, directly solving the current problems in physics and cosmology theory, while also arriving at a more substantiated and practical set of predictions for space research and exploration.

Download Essay PDF File

"The Monopole Problem ... the enormous energies that would have been produced by the Big Bang should have created a magnetic particle as a monopole, not a dipole, a unique entity, and yet there is no evidence for it." I have suggested that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and the Big Bang, while string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies that supersymmetry does not occur and the Big Bang needs to be replaced by Wolfram's Reset. What empirical evidence refutes the following?

The Seven Sagacities of String Theory with the Finite Nature Hypothesis: (1) There is a profound synergy between string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. (2) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology -- on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence (implying dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5). (3) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (4) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (5) The idea of Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos that atomic time is different from astronomical time is correct. (6) There is genius in the ideas of Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino concerning the hypothesis that the speed of light in a perfect vacuum steadily decreases as our universe ages. (7) Quantum information reduces to Fredkin-Wolfram information, which is controlled by Wolfram's cosmological automaton in a mathematical structure isomorphic to a 72-dimensional, holographic, digital computer.

    6 days later

    Stephen You present an interesting perspective on a pan-theory. In my essay I introduce a pan-theory that is very different, additive to current theories with measured results and allows physics/cosmology to "keep" all of the the work that provide accurate measurements of the universe and its physical contents. As I state in my revised essay "This (theory) allows the different disciplines to use what works for them and incorporate the new more fundamental SSC paradigm in problem areas and when they need to connect/unify/work with other disciplines. This is like physics adding Einstein's relativity theories while keeping and using classical physics when it works (and is easier to calculate)." I would appreciate your comments on my essay. John Crowell

      Thank you John for your comments. To address your question and to provide an overview of your essay, I had two papers on my short list for the competition, both quite different in that one presented what the case for Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability is, how that exists in physics and cosmology, and the other as the solution to the problem of Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability; two possible essays, one half-empty, the other half-full so to speak. I went with the half-empty, the one posted, as I thought it more important to address the actual issue of the Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability of physics and cosmology than to simply replace it. To address your comments therefore, if I may add the link to how I would judge what is the "solution" to the Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability issue, as most of the papers presented in this competition address what is considered as a solution to the Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability while not focusing on the actual core problem itself of Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability in physics and cosmology, and what that means. The link is as follows:

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340574420_Scientific_Principles_of_Space_Time_and_Perception

      This alternative paper is shorter than the one posted here, yet it addresses how I would comment on your paper, and other papers that present a pan-theory approach, as it presents the required core logic to a pan-theory of "any" type.

      11 days later

      Vladimir, thank you for spending the time to look at my work. Do have work of your own?

      To answer you question though, the petition is a noble cause yet it falls flat I think, it has zero effect without the proper proposal. The problem is that its just as useless as the big bang theory itsef if it offers no conclusive theory and associated proof as to why the big bang is pure philosophy.

      My suggestion is that a new petition should be signed questioning why in fact the stars are assumed to be solar systems in the first place, or why indeed "inertia" as a concept can explain the ideas of space and time as though mass as inertia is more fundamental an idea than space and time? Philosophers believed in a thing called "first matter", and physics is still doing the same with inertia as mass-gravity in its theories, trying to explain the more fundamental concepts of space and time with "inertia", which is quite ludicrous. The Big Bang is a secondary ludicrous story compared to inertia.

      11 days later

      Thanks a lot Stephen! I really like your philosophical and scientific views, deep ideas aimed at overcoming the crisis in the conceptual-paradigmatic basis of fundamental science. I wish you success in your research and new ideas. See also my ideas of the universal ontology.

      With kind regards,

      Vladimir