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

Dear Mr. Barkat Ram,

We thank you for raised a very important point that is befitting the Foundational Questions Institute Forum. Most scientists running after name and fame and the benefits of Office ignore foundational questions and run after patch work. For example, though there are various interpretations of quantum physics that sometimes contradict each other, most quote general quantum theory without naming the specific interpretation and resolving the differences with other interpretations, but drawing from different theories what suits them to justify their view. Ultimately they end up in some conjecture like the flowers of the sky. They discuss everything about it such as structure, texture and smell etc. without proving its existence, but only assuring that one day it will be found. So we have big projects like LHC at public expenses with which the scientists can make merry.

We recommend you to read our essay and our comments here in earlier posts in answer to Mr.Perez and those of Mr. Buehlman, Mr. Akerlund, Mr. Biermans, Mr. Castel, Mr. Granel, etc.

Regards,

basudeba.

Hi dear Rodney,

Don't stop,never, you are creative.You just need to improve a little your foundamentals.I wan't discourage you.But I think it's important to show you the road of rationalism.The mass, the light, the time have their properties and they are universal you know.

ps the higgs has an external cause of mass, that's why they are probably and with a big probability false,because our fractal of mass is newtonian and purely irreversible.The cause of mass is intrinsic in all gravitational systems which evolve furthermore.

Best Regards

Steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks a lot for your kind words and encouragement. I won't stop ... not ever! I often want to, because I don't enjoy controversy at all. But I always end up finding another place where I want to promote my ideas. I guess human nature makes it impossible to give up when a person has no doubt he or she is on the right track.

Sometimes, what science accepts as fundamentals have to change. People once had a fundamental belief that the world was flat - and that space and time were absolutes which could never vary - and that traveling to the moon was simply fantasy. All those fundamental beliefs changed though, understandably, not without a fight (change is never easy). Now it's time for some more fundamental beliefs - both public and scientific - to change.

I hope Israel will forgive us for taking over his page sometimes. It might be a good idea to post any more of our comments on the page for my essay ("Steps Resulting From Digital Reality" -

Please visit my FQXi page

Dear Sir,

We cannot understand why scientists have to resort to weirdness to explain physical phenomena. Confinement and Entanglement are not quantum phenomena alone, but they have macro examples also. Superposition of states arises out of the mechanism of measurement, which has been sensationalized by imputing imaginary characteristics to it.

As we have explained in our essay, every particle in the Universe is ever moving with respect to something or the other. Measurement is conducted at a designated instant called "here-now" and the result of that measurement is used at subsequent times, when the particle no longer retains those characteristics, but has temporally evolved. Thus, only its state at the said instant can be known with certainty. It's true state before and after measurement, which is not a single state, but an ever changing state, cannot be known. This unknown state, which is a composite of all possible states, is known as the superposition of states.

When two objects retain their original relationship after being physically separated, such relationship is called entanglement. Suppose someone while traveling forgot to take one of the pair of socks. The individual sock of the pair is complementary to the other. They cannot be used in isolation. If someone asks, 'which of the pairs has gone with the traveler', the answer will be unknown till someone at either end finds out by physical verification. This is a macro example of entanglement. Before the verification (measurement) was done; which one went out was not known. It could have been either one (superposition of all states). After measurement the answer is conclusively known (wave function collapses). There is no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it. The quantum entanglement can be easily explained if we examine the nature of confinement and the measure the distance up to which entanglement shows up (generally, it is not infinite, but lasts up to a maximum of a few kilo meters only).

Not only quarks, but also all particles are confined. LHC has surprised physicists / cosmologists that the early universe was a 'perfect fluid' and not an 'explosion of gases' that is the basis of all current theories. Particles are nothing but confined fluids; that is described as the primordial field. The mechanism by which this fluid is confined will be discussed separately (using simple verifiable models and without Higg's mechanism). Just like only the atoms (molecules) and their combinations exhibit definite chemical properties, only quarks are the first particles to exhibit this property of confinement. Hence if we try to break their confinement, the applied energy leads to formation of other quarks not due to uncertainty principle, but due to simple mechanism of inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity). Even within the confinement, the up quarks change to down quarks and vice versa. This property is exhibited by all particles. For every micro particle there are macro equivalents. For example, Jupiter is the macro equivalent of proton.

Confinement requires a central stable point around which the mass (confined field) accumulates and the external limit of the confinement which gives rise to the stabilized orbits. There is space between these two positions. This gives a three fold structure. Since inside the particle, it is all fluid or locally confined fluid (sub-systems), it is unstable. If some force is applied to move a smaller portion of the fluid, it generates an equal force in the opposite direction. This is exhibited as the charge of the particle. Where this force interacts with other forces, it may become non-linear. Otherwise, it behaves linearly. The linear behavior is known as quantum entanglement. Electrons and photons are special cases of this confined fluid.

Regarding Relativity, we have proved in other posts that it is a wrong description of facts and that Einstein's mathematics is wrong. Since it is very lengthy, we are not reproducing it here. Those interested may read our post below the essay of Mr. Castel and Mr. Granet.

Regards,

basudeba

Hi to both of you,

I thank you dear Basudeba, I just received your book yesterday, apparently 15 days were necessary for the travel India-Belgium.It's nice in all case.I thank you still.It's cool to have friends from all over the world.

I find your book very intersting and relevant.I see you use the word sphere, I am happy to see people focus on my theory of spherization or have some convergences, spherical.I like also the omnipresence and omnipotence.

Best regards and good luck in this contest to both of you

Steve

Dear Israel,

As to the 'epistemological coherence' of your essay, a real consistent view exposes string theory to be the product of some fundamental misconceptions. If the universe creates itself without any outside intervention, then particles have to create themselves, each other. The consequence is that fundamental particles then are as much the source as the product of their interactions. Since they obviously need to acquire some kind of backbone to prevent their properties to vary continuously as the circumstances vary, their properties, energy, the energy interval within which they are stable, must be quantified. If particles are as much the source as the product of their interactions, then so is the force between them, so a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive. This means that though particles, within the conditions they are stable, may act as if they either attract or repulse, as their energy also is the product of their interactions, they have no absolute charge or mass which can give rise to infinite interaction energies at infinitesimal distances, so there's no need for string theory. Since the mass of particles similarly is the cause as well as the effect of their interactions, of their energy exchange, we need no Higgs particles either. A universe which finds a way to create itself, can hardly stop creating: it is this continuous creation process which gives rise to the observation that masses contract, the effect of which is that spacetime between the mass concentrations expands. For details see my thread 838.

Regards, Anton

Israel,

Sorry not to have replied earlier. I'm not sure how i missed your response. I think we are largely in agree ment that Big Bang theory is a serious mistake, growing from that assumption that space and time have physical properties which would allow them to be shaped. I go into a possible explanation for how light might otherwise be redshifted in my essay.

One of the various arguments I do use against Big Bang proponents is that the idea of space expanding from the singularity is belied by the fact that the speed of light is stable. In other words, while the metric defined by the redshift is presumably expanding, the metric defined by lightspeed is not. So if it's an expansion within a stable metric of space, we would have to be at the center of the universe for it to appear as it does.

Dear Israel,

You write: ---If the universe or the particles create themselves out of nothing they are violating the conservation of energy. This is not allowed even by the principle of Heisenberg."---

My point (see my essay) is that since the energy of a photon in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next, there's no law violated as energy is created out of nothing. In the 2-split experiment, no energy is liberated as two photons annihilate, nor has their source lost any energy by emitting them. As positive as it is negative, energy doesn't have to obey conservation laws (which is why it can create itself out of nothing in the first place): it is the expression of all such laws, their enforcer.

The uncertainty principle, in the form dE . dt = 1, shows that energy and time create, define each other, so an energy quantum creates itself the time necessary to exist, to manifest itself. In other words, there's no authority outside/before the universe who's looking on his/her/its watch to monitor whether something pops up which might violate conservation laws: the universe doesn't exist IN time, but produces time itself.

Regards, Anton

Hi to both of you,

Dear Israel, it's cool.

Dear Rodney,you are welcome,...... never indeed !

Best

Steve

Dear Perez

As I haven't explicitly described a creation mechanism in my essay, I try to do so now: One of the uses of the uncertainty principle is to describe how the energy of a particle varies as the bosons it emits to express its properties only on average equals the number it absorbs, so its energy varies in time. Instead of interpreting the uncertainty principle as saying that a temporary deviation of its textbook energy lasts shorter as the deviation is larger, I propose that fundamental particles borrow and lend ALL of their energy from and to each other. So if a virtual particle by popping up with a positive energy, creates an identical particle with a negative energy, then they don't borrow energy from the universe, but from each other. However, as soon as their time is up, they'll disappear to randomly pop up elsewhere, unless in the time they exist, they can set up an energy exchange with other particles which find themselves in a similar quandary. By alternately borrowing and lending each other (part of) the energy they need to exist, particles can force each other to reappear after every disappearance again and again at about the same position. As the energy, the frequency they exchange energy at (the frequency they pop up, disappear and pop up again) is higher as their distance is smaller, they can increase each other's energy by contracting. So this is a scenario by means of which virtual particles may promote each other to real ones. Unlike a battery which only is a source of energy, the energy of particles then is as much the source as the product of their exchange. By regarding the energy of fundamental particles to be much like that of a battery, as if it only is the cause of interactions, we implicitly assert that they have passively been created by some intervention from outside the universe, thereby corrupting physics to metaphysics. If particles, their energy and properties are as much the source as the product of their interactions, then so is the force between them, so in a self-creating universe where particles have to create one another, a force (at least at quantum level) never can be either attractive or repulsive. As particles contract, the frequency of their exchange increases as does the gravitational field of the particle cluster. As the field slows down in time events inside of it, an energy increase tends to preserve itself above a decrease, which is why gravity seems an attractive force. I hope this may help to understand my tale.

Kind regards, Anton

Israel,

These are awesome links:

"Eq.(12)showsthataninitialdistributionoftheenergyasfunctionofkwillchangeintimeinthesensethatthe

amplitudesoftheshorterwaveswilldiminishfasterintimethantheamplitudesofthelongerwaves.Thiswilllead

toredistributionoftheamplitudesandtoachangeoftheapodizationfunctionofawavepacketthatissubjectto

evolutionaccordingtoJeffrey'sequation.Thereforeageneralshiftofthecentralwavenumbertowardslonger

waves(smallerwavenumbersk)istobeexpected.Inthecaseoflight,thisiscalled''redshift''."

"Physically speaking, the effect is related to the fact that dissipation damps the higher

frequencies stronger and causes the maximal frequency of the packet to shift to lower

frequencies (longer wave lengths). The redshifting is a property of the packet. No actual

dilation of the different harmonics is needed as in Doppler effect. This means that even a

shghtest dissipation in the interstellar medium will result in a persistent (cosmological)

redshift of the light propagating throughout the Universe.

The important trait of the new model is that the Hubble constant depends on the initial

width of the spectral line investigated. Then, two sources, that are in a close proximity

in cosmological sense, can have different redshifts depending on the width, d, of the

spectral line (as represented by the parameter fi °^ d^^). A more active (hotter) source

(smaller /3 or wider spectral line) will appear to the observer as much more redshifted

than a more quieter (cooler) source (larger /3 or thinner spectral line). This conclusion is

in very good qualitative agreement with the actual experimental observations."

It makes me really scratch my head as to why the entire cosmological community is out chasing multiverses, when they need to be reviewing the details.

An interesting link Dan Benedict posted in his footnotes:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale/1

Dear Israel,

I must have been a bit absentminded when I addressed you with your surname- my apologies. What I meant to say with my previous reaction is that we've always assumed a particle to be like a battery, its energy and voltage in this case varying about the value specified by the manufacturer (implying particles to have been created). We've always assumed that the cause of this fluctuation in its energy is that the battery-particle, to communicate its existence, emits energy, which if it is to preserve its own existence must be repleted by absorbing as much energy from its environment, so you'd expect its energy to fluctuate about the specified 'voltage'. However, fundamental particles aren't like this classical battery-particle. The real McCoy is a quantum object which, in battery-speak, alternately discharges and recharges completely. Unlike a classical battery which keeps existing even if it is empty, the quantum-battery reappears and disappears at the pace its energy 'swells and fades'. A quantum particle only exists in its action and cannot be distinguished from its effect: for a particle 'to be' is a verb, not a noun, a continuous action rather than a state. This is unlike macroscopic, classical objects, where we can distinguish between an object and its properties, its effects. The discharge in this case is equivalent to, indistinguishable from recharging with an opposite charge, the energy of the particle equal to the frequency of this alternation. The energy it alternately emits and absorbs is absorbed and supplied by every particle within its interaction horizon, so all particles by continuously exchanging 'charge', keep creating and un-creating each other, possibly repeating (to some extent) every phase of their evolution over and over again. This would be a quite effective way of preparing the environment physically for their reappearance, to enforce the laws of physics to apply on the area where they are to reappear. If the indefiniteness in the position of a particle in this context may be regarded as a measure of its dimensions, then in the phase its (rate of change of) energy is minimal, it is everywhere, so it is itself part of the spacetime it is to reappear in, and in doing so, helps preserving (the properties of) spacetime itself.

Regards, Anton

Perez,

Your brain works perfectly and you ask all the right questions. Now, you could be open to the right answers (imho). If so,read and understand my essay. ..If understanding is what you want.... There may be a price for understanding ...

Let know if ... in my thread.

LeBel