A Physicist\'s View of the Universe: A Philosophical Approach by Israel Omar Perez

Dear Cristi

Thank you for your reply. Indeed you may classify me with those who believe in the aether. But there is a philosophical difference with Maxwell's view. Maxwell had a Newtonian notion of space, he believed that space existed as a vessel or container for bodies, and independent of them. Therefore, he also believed that the aether was filling space. In this sense space was for him something with no material properties. This belief can be still found today. Some physicists believe that space exists (or a background) and they fill it with the Higgs field or any other, certainly the context is quite different but the idea is almost the same. In contrast, I am saying that the aether, the vacuum, the space, the ubiquitous field are the same thing. I am not filling nothing. The notion of field that I have in mind is just a state of that subtle matter in the sense of Maxwell and some of this kind. On the other hand, currently most physicists think of a field as a quantity that varies in space and time and carries momentum and energy with independent reality of matter (of the standard model) and space and time. This notion is the legacy of mainly Oliver Heaviside and Einstein.

You: I couldn't go beyond the conclusion that, if space needs to be made of "something", that "something" must be made in its turn of "something2" and so on.

I: Yes I have an internal representation, and my argument is simple: Since I am saying that space is made up of matter, I cannot say, "so on" (please see the paradox of Aristotle in my essay). Matter cannot be made up of another thing, it is just made up of matter and that is it. I am considering matter as a primordial entity or substance.

You: Knowing that I am just a human being, with no capacity of knowing the true nature of things, I am happy to understand as much as I can from the relations between them. For me, these relations are logical enough when can be put in mathematical form. Even these relations I can't perceive as they really are, but only from my own limited, subjective viewpoint. And they require already much speculation, so going beyond them, to search the substance from which they are made, would be too much for me. I don't think we can study that substance, only our interactions with it, hence the relations. Please understand that I am just telling you what I am trying to do, and I am not implying that you should do the same.

I: I definitely agree with this paragraph. O. Heaviside said almost the same as you. He mentioned that one could only make conjectures of the nature of that primordial substance (aether) but one could never know its real nature. Believing or not in that substance has many implications in the logical consistency of a mathematical model that, in spite of its limitations, the model could be a better approach to reality than others, like for instance general relativity.

You: The two examples I gave you in my previous comment were not meant to appeal to General Relativity to contradict your conclusion that time is infinite, by contrary, I intended to show with them that even the Big Bang as it is understood in cosmological models based on General Relativity, is compatible with an infinite history.

I: Well, yes and no. This is why I have emphasized that one should be coherent as much as possible in both ordinary (baggage) and mathematical language (points c and f of my essay). Strictly speaking the Big Bang model says that there is a beginning of space and time and the question "what was or happened before the Big Bang?" is not legitimate. It cannot be asked. In this sense there is a contradiction with my essay. If one appeals to the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology it may not be the case.

You also argue that one can play with the coordinates and change the scale of time to the past infinity, but if you do this you will probably contradict the observations based on nucleosyntesis, etc. and the whole model will be in problems.

As an ad: Very recently I have been analyzing the physics of the Special Relativity (SR) and Maxwell electrodynamics. And I think I have found a serious paradox that clearly suggest that electrodynamics is not compatible with SR concerning the exclusion of a privileged frame. As you may recall electrodynamics was formulated to be valid in a privileged frame of reference. Right now I am working in this paradox that if I succeed, it would make us entertain the validity of SR. If you are interested in this we may keep in touch to discuss these matters beyond this forum.

Israel

Dear Israel,

Since my essay is available, I hope you will understand why the question of SR vs. Ritz is of rather marginal interest to me. I consider just one argument of Ritz still valid: Future does not act back on the past.

I agree with you. The word vacuum must not be interpreted as just nothing. Guericke demonstrated the pressure of air, not an absolutely empty space. Nonetheless, I would be cautious equating field and aether. While the latter is thought to be a medium, electric or magnetic fields can be superimposed. They can even be taken away.

What about TEM and longitudinal em waves, the latter do not propagate faster.

Anyway, I expect you taking issue concerning my admittedly rather indirect support for uncommon ideas.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Dr. Perez,

Thanks again for visiting my essay "Steps Resulting From Digital Reality" (subtitled "Science Out Of The Straitjacket: Rethinking General

Relativity, E=mc2 ... and String Theory"). Just as Oskar Klein prepared a quantum version of Theodor Kaluza's 5-dimensional spacetime in 1926 and Leonard Susskind wrote a string-theory version of Gerard 't Hooft's holographic principle in 1995, I had a dream that I was writing a quantum or string-theory version of your essay in 2011. Well, that may not be the case, but it prompted me to get out of bed and type a few of the points on which our essays agree and disagree.

First, we both believe "... some of the most fundamental problems in modern physics might turn out to be fictitious." I'd say dark energy and the multiverse are the most prominent examples. Maybe you'd like to hear my thoughts on these. Before I go any further, I should acknowledge your materialistic view of the universe and warn you that the next paragraph disagrees with this view -

DARK ENERGY - Page 180 of "The Grand Design" says "Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative." Since there was no gravitation in our universe prior to the Big Bang (we didn't even have a universe), this sentence can be combined with the "backward causality" (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others to explain that gravity's negative energy gives us no reason to think that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere - as Professors Hawking and Mlodinow put it "Bodies such as stars or black holes* cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can." Maybe it's only playing with words, but I'd regard gravity as repulsive instead of attractive (its energy would then be positive like matter's and the universe could be more than a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; it could, as #8 (in my essay) proposes, be a unified whole that has particles and waves built into its union of digital 1's and 0's (or its union of qubits - quantum binary digits). And the article "Gravitation" by Robert F. Paton in World Book Encyclopedia 1967 agrees that gravity is repulsive - "Einstein says that bodies do not attract each other at a distance. Objects that fall to the earth, for example, are not 'pulled' by the earth. The curvature of space time around the earth forces the objects to take the direction on toward the earth. The objects are pushed toward the earth by the gravitational field rather than pulled by the earth." Repelling gravity would cause the universe to expand - as astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) confirmed in 1929 - and adding repelling gravity by continual "creation" (actually, recycling) of matter via the small amount from a preceding universe which is used to initiate expansion of its successor (or by dreaming and our brains using negative energy and antiparticles in them to do work effortlessly and to accomplish feats that would be thought of as miracles while we're awake) would cause it to expand at an accelerated rate - this acceleration was discovered in 1998 by observations carried out by the High-z Supernova Search Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project, has been confirmed several times and is claimed to be caused by mysterious "dark energy".

Regarding "our brains using negative energy and antiparticles", I'm reminded of Professor Roger Penrose's ideas on microtubules and the quantum functioning of the brain. However, my own ideas are inspired by the previous page of "The Grand Design". On p. 179 of "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (Bantam Press, 2010) it's stated

"One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive ..."

and "... if the energy of an isolated body were negative ... there would be no reason that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere."

The only problem with those sentences, in an "everything is everywhere and everywhen" universe, is the word isolated. There can be no such thing as isolated in our cosmic-quantum unification. Does this mean you and I (plus all things in time and space) are a union of both positive and negative energy, able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere? Page 179 also says "(the positive energy of a body) means that one has to do work to assemble the body." Does this mean the positive component of the Cosmic-Quantum Union refers to an actual computer performing work by sending out the binary digits of 1 and 0 (in hyperspace) while its negative component refers to the universe being like a dream, and to binary digits that are transmitted by "telekinetic independence from technology" (see the end of #9 in my essay). In 1928 English physicist Paul Dirac (1902-84) proposed that all negative energy states are already occupied by (then) hypothetical antiparticles (particles of antimatter) - "Workings of the Universe", a book in the series "Voyage Through The Universe", by Time-Life Books 1992. This has ramifications for the subatomic particles called mesons which bind protons and neutrons together to form the atomic nucleus, in much the same way that gluons are said to bind together quarks which are said to be the constituents of protons and neutrons. Mesons are always composed of a quark-antiquark pair i.e. of a positive energy-negative energy pair. So when we're dreaming and our brains are using negative energy, they're not merely using a much lower degree of positive energy to do work but the antiparticles in them are receiving greater expression, allowing us to do work literally effortlessly and to accomplish feats, like appearing "anywhere and everywhere", that would be thought of as miracles while we're awake.

Writing these views is not intended to merely transfer my essay to this page, because THEY ARE NOT PART OF MY ESSAY. I had intended to include them but as you point out "Unfortunately, the size of the essay is limited". For example, I do agree with you entirely that the universe is infinite and eternal. However, I don't need to go into long explanations here since my reasons for believing this can be found within my essay.

Also, you tell me that "Time travel is not possible ..." My essay goes into a lot of detail explaining how to travel into both the future and the past. Neither future nor past can be altered (a blow to our belief that we have the free will to shape the future) and my explanation of travel to the past requires re-interpretation of the concepts of "multiverse" and "parallel universes". It also requires the ability to travel billions of light years INSTANTLY. This sounds like pure fantasy, but I outline an approach based on electrical engineering, General Relativity, and Miguel Alcubierre's 1994 proposal of "warp drive" that makes it logically possible (personally, I think it's not only inevitable but our descendents are doing it right now ... that's how a person thinks when he or she is totally believes non-materialism and cosmic-quantum unification are "done deals".

Good luck with your essay,

Rodney

Dear Israel,

Let me briefly add something concerning my understanding of the notion field. What about your comment on my essay, I will reply there as to just once answer questions, which others might share with you.

To me a stationary electric field as well as a magnetic field can either attract or repel. I am in position of switching them on or off at will. Gravity is also stationary but always attracting at least on earth. I see abundant indications conforming my suspicion that negative energy, backward causation and the like go back to unjustified generalization of mathematical results. Electromagnetic fields are also peculiar: They propagate always forward even if they appear as standing waves for instance due to repeated reflection from end to end in a waveguide. In all, I see various possible fields that can fill what you seem to understand as the field. Correct?

Is it a too naive shot of mine in the dark to consider the electromagnetic result of all actually superimposed photon fields their own aether?

Regards,

Eckard

Hi to both of you,

Dear Rodney,

Are you serious??? The relativity never says that it's possible to travel in time.The concept of space time is a concept of evolution, relativistic.

The only thing you can, is the check of the internal duration of your motion system,we can thus go in theory in the future but we can't return at home.Thus why??? Furthermore the technology is so not possible and useless.

The past can be seen only by interpretations of our datas and analyzes,we see our past in the stars, there also it's just a problem of human evolution, we are indeed young at the universal scale.

I understand your confusions just in seeing your methods.You use too much theories without real phsyical senses.The multiverses, the strings,the reversibilities of time.....all that is false and implies, thus in your line of reasoning, many confusions as this time travel.The rationality is the sister of our foundamentals. Our constants are our constants!!!

Best Regards and good luck for the contest.

Steve

Dear Israel and Steve,

First, what I understand by time. Space and time only exist in our experience. They are emergent properties, like wetness and mind. We experience wetness because it emerges from the building blocks of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms which make up water. We experience mind because it emerges from the building blocks of neurons composing the brain. And we experience space-time since it emerges from the building blocks making up the universe. These units are a combination of electromagnetic pulses (forming a cosmic computer which includes randomness and thus the potential to escape rigid preprogramming, and have a small degree of free will) as well as a cosmic hologram (this combination unifies general relativity with quantum physics). Every physical and nonphysical part of the universal hologram would be a receptor for the downloading of data from the cosmic computer which not only exists in the hyperspace of the large-scale universe but also in the hyperspace of each subatomic particle. (In other words, the holographic universe or spacetime we know is a screen for invisibly displaying data from the 5th-dimensional computer).

Steve, it might be helpful to visualise time as a CD or video tape. The entire disc or tape obviously exists all the time. But our physical senses can only perceive a tiny part of the sound and the sights. I believe space and time are infinite, so it might be more accurate to visualise time as that huge number - in this case, of CDs or tapes - which some versions of string theory propose (at a minimum, 10 exponent 500). My essay tells you how to travel to the future, how to return home, and how to travel into our past. I believe relativity suggests the possibility of time travel - but even if it doesn't, we can go far beyond it (and far beyond today's very limited technology).

Now back to your reasons why time travel is not possible, Israel.

First, "one should have to explain the grandfather paradox."

The solution to the grandfather paradox is - instantly directing matter, energy and forces anywhere in the universe at any point in the past, present or future; the hyperspatial computer would be a spaceless and timeless basic reality from which space-time would emerge (since the universe is a unification possessing zero separation; every bit of the matter, energy and force directed by the hyperspace computer would feed back into the computer and be simultaneously directing IT, ensuring that history and the future could never be changed and the "grandfather paradox" is no problem after all).

"If time were a line we would have observed travelers from the future."

I can't say I know the answer to this one, but I can think of 3 possibilities - 1) maybe they have used synthetic biology to develop ghostly, non-physical bodies.

2) it's possible that every person we see is ultimately from the future, though they'd be totally unaware of it. They'd be unconscious of their true place in this eternal universe since their job is to contribute, in whatever way they can, to development of the fantastic future awaiting everyone. They'd be less inclined to build the future if they had awareness of it already existing.

3) maybe they are dark tourists who resemble dark matter by remaining invisible yet are capable of exerting gravitational, or other, influence. My essay suggests the universe is a Mobius loop and is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would make this statement ridiculous). Then each fermion and boson would also be composed of the 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th dimension of time, and the 5th dimension of hyperspace. Detectors like the Large Hadron Collider would be unable to "see" the time and hyperspace components of particles, erroneously assuming particles are what physics calls strings. But just as dark matter could be ordinary matter whose 3 space dimensions are invisible to us, dark tourists from the future might have discovered a way for only their 4th and 5th dimensions to enter the world we perceive (similar to a 3D circle appearing to be a dot when it first enters the 2D world of Flatland - the examination of dimensions in the 1884 book by Edwin Abbott).

Dear Israel,

I thought that I had replied to this thread, but I do not see it so I'll try again.

I suspect you are right that we are merely talking about the same thing with different names. I see reality as a field that distributed energy over all space and concentrates energy is locations we call matter, particularly mass. You could therefore say, I suppose, that the field is a form of matter.

I do not know what preceded the field, so I do not speak of emptiness and do not have a conception of 'no motion'. I agree that 'explosion' is not a good word, but I do think that the Big Bang followed by inflation is the best way I've found to explain today's universe, so that's what I'm stuck with. I have tried, but I simply can't get my mind to grasp an 'always existing' universe with no beginning and no end. I understand the words, just as I understand the word infinity, but I can't make these words real to me. As I said, I don't know what was "before" the Big Bang, and I don't think we can know. I definitely don't believe in 'bouncing universes'. It makes more sense to me that time came into existence with our universe, so the question is not appropriate.

I'm still confused about your item 17, and your comments about it. As I see it, the gravitational field 'fills' space, in that there is no space that does not 'contain' gravity, and hence energy. I believe that the C-field (The Maxwell-Einstein gravito-magnetic field) is 31 orders of magnitude stronger than their simple derivation argued for, as Martin Tajmar and others seem to have measured, as as I have calculated, based on reasonable[?] assumptions. In this case there is more 'dark matter' from the stronger field, and also an inflationary effect due to the fact that the Lorentz force in such a field can produce an effect that is opposite to the local gravity.

Isn't it amazing that two people who think that they may be in agreement still have trouble deciding. [Except that we probably don't agree on the 'everlasting' universe...]

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Cristi,

In general I agree with your discussion of 'circular reasoning' about what 'fills space'. But in my earlier essay Fundamental Physics of Consciousness I asked, Upon what must a fundamental theory of physics be based?

"This question, if asked of humans, should be formulated in terms of human reality, not abstract formu足lations. Either it is based on directly and immediately sensed reality or it is based on some abstraction that is claimed to represent reality. Current theories are based on physics abstractions such as:

Gravity, String theories, Electromagnetics, Quantum field theories, Strong and weak forces, Dark matter and energy, Extra dimensions, Extra universes, Consciousness

Of these, only two, gravity and consciousness, are immediately sensible and directly experienced by humans. I am directly aware of gravity and I am directly aware that I am conscious. I have no direct, immediate, awareness of any other physics on the list (with the exception of a small range of electromagnetic radiation)."

For this reason, that of direct perception, I move gravity from the 'abstract' level, which must in turn be justified, as you say, by a 'lower abstraction' (in the sense of a 'more fundamental' abstraction.)

This seems to me to me reasonable, and I employ this logic in my essays.

Thanks for the stimulating conversations.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi again,

I had a lot of trouble writing down an answer to what I understand by time. I think I might be able to do better than I did yesterday. So here's the last third of something I spent today writing.

My essay suggests the universe is a Mobius loop and is contained in, or unified with, each of its particles (relying on physical senses or 21st-century scientific instruments would make this statement ridiculous). Then each fermion and boson would also be composed of the 3 spatial dimensions, the 4th dimension of time, and the 5th dimension of hyperspace. Detectors like the Large Hadron Collider would be unable to "see" the time and hyperspace components of particles but could only see the small (maybe 5%) 3 spatial dimensions (the time and hyperspace components would be what we call dark matter), erroneously assuming particles are those tiny fractions of a Mobius loop that physics calls strings. We can visualise the Mobius loop as composed of a hyperspace computer which generates information on how things change from one undetectably tiny fraction of a second to the next (we call this time, and it's comparable to the frames in a movie) and transmits the data (transmits dark energy?) to the insignificant portion of length, width and depth that makes up subatomic particles ... and the universe.

Preceding the Big Bang (which created this local section of the infinite, eternal universe ... or if you prefer, this subuniverse of the megauniverse) there would have been no space, matter or time in this subuniverse and all would have been hyperspace. No transmissions of dark energy (creating time and space/matter) would have occurred - therefore the dark-energy content of the universe would have been zero, increasing to the present 72% as more and more matter was created. How is matter created? Perhaps as cosmologist Alan Guth once suggested -

"You might even be able to start a new universe using energy equivalent to just a few pounds of matter. Provided you could find some way to compress it to a density of about 10^75 (10 exponent 75) grams per cubic centimeter, and provided you could trigger the thing ..."

At the time the Cosmic Microwave Background was emitted (less than a million years after the big bang), results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe say the dark-energy content of the universe was negligible. Space/matter has been increasing since the big bang so transmissions from hyperspace (dark energy) which create them are increasing while the volume of the Mobius loop occupied by time/hyperspace (dark matter) has been shrinking as a result - according to the WMAP satellite, from 63% when the CMB was emitted to 23% today.

Regarding travel beyond our start and into the past ... it can't be denied that these paragraphs imply the possibility of humans from the distant future time-travelling to the distant past and using electronics to create this particular subuniverse's computer-generated Big Bang. An accomplishment such as this would be the supreme example of "backward causality" (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others. However, realising that we live in a cosmic-quantum unification with zero-separation and recalling Isaac Newton's inverse-square law and what it says about the force between two particles being infinite (does infinite mean 10 ^ 500? - see previous post) if the distance of separation goes to zero means there's still room for God (as Creator) because God would be a pantheistic union of the megauniverse's material and mental parts, forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification.

Dear Israel,

With pleasure I will try and explain hopefully more understandably my first paragraph. I just am not yet sure what paragraph you are referring to. Do you mean my essay. There the first paragraph is called 1 Realism of analog vs. merely continuous vs. digital modes. If you meant something else, tell me please the first three words.

I looked into Budko's paper and was disappointed. He wrote: "... the main body of the waveform appears to go inwards or back in time". Of course this is not new at all, and I consider it rather misleading to claim: "Budko has shown experimentally and theoretically that in the near and intermediate zones fields propagates inwards." I am fed up with Nimtz.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Sir,

We congratulate you for the brilliant essay. We fully agree that "Coherence in the physical interpretation" is very important "when we try to decode the mathematical language."

You ask "What experimental evidences support the existence of ten dimensions?" "What powerful epistemological reasons do we have to believe in extra dimensions?" We hold that incorporation of dimensions is not just a mere mathematical artifice. But the term dimension has been misused and interpreted wrongly that leads to the present problem. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For relating it to the external fixed coordinates, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the object. Based on the positive and negative directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x,y), (-x,y), (-x,-y) and (x,-y) that also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures. These are described in detail in our book "Vaidic Theory of Numbers".

You discuss the statement that "thought is the result of the evolution of the universe and under this premise physical theories are created". We hold that mind functions mechanically and thought is the inertia of mind. Just like inertia takes over after an action and at the similar velocity in a field that gets modified after interaction with other forces, thought starts after an impulse acts on our organs of sensory perception and drawing from our memory field similar previous experiences moves in the same subject that get modified after interaction with other impulses. You come to a conclusion that "there are limits to knowledge", with which we fully agree. Yet, we hold that theory of everything is possible. In fact, we have such a theory.

We agree that "a field is some kind of M in certain state". We also agree that one of the properties of M is mass. But we do not agree that "mass is a source of gravitation and, at the same time, is some kind of energy". We hold the opposite view that gravitation is a composite force that has two functions: structure formation and displacement. We derive electromagnetic field from gravitational force at the micro level and derive gravitational field from the electromagnetic force at the macro level.

We do not agree that space and time are physical entities. We hold that these are mental constructs based on alternative symbolism. Both are related to sequence. Space describes the interval between (or sequence of arrangement of) objects. Time does so for events, i.e., changes in the states of objects. Since intervals are not physical entities by themselves and are not describable by themselves, they are described using the objects as their boundary conditions.

We agree that "that something cannot be created out of nothingness". We also agree that "the universe is, exists, has always been and will exist indefinitely and infinitely", but we disagree that "the universe will never become into nothingness". The term "nothingness" relates to not only its existence, but also its knowability and describability. While the first factor is eternal, the last two are not. To that extent, the universe may become "temporally nothing". We advise you to go through our essay on the subject.

We agree that the whole universe made up of one single entity and there are no arguments to propose dark matter or dark energy, as they are defined at present. Yet, they exist in some other form. We have a detailed model on the creation of the universe and evolution of various forces and fields. We will soon publish those.

basudeba

After reading your posts, I thought perhaps you guys should read my essay Discrete and Continuous Realities According to Fundamental Laws of Nature. I'd be obliged to answer your questions if you have any.

i wonder that the way we have developed our Physics thus far, based on the concepts of space and time, may have some inadequacies! I wonder if these two concepts can isolate multiverses that may well exist. Distortions in space and time are well possible, specially at the start of a new universe like ours. But then has it come out of a Big bang that may well have been an outcome of earlier universes colliding!

Physical constants and space time inhomogeneity may well pose problems. Constants may not be constants for all times and space too. If space can be expanded behind a space ship and compressed in its front, it may well propel the vehicle to exceed the speed limit of 'c'e

Dear Israel,

The paper by Christov is almost unreadable to me because I am unable to flip it into the usual position.

May I ask you once again for telling me what paragraph you were referring to?

Eckard