Karl: as to "the "origin" of the universe": A self-creating universe has no origin, nor does it need one as it doesn't exist as a whole: it by definition has no origin, no cause as a cause implies that it has passively been produced, created by some outside intervention. If particles create themselves out of nothing, out of each other, then they are each other's origin. Since they owe their existence to each other, to their continuous energy exchange, they are each other's cause.

As to: "in order for anything to "exist," the undifferentiated universe needs to be partitioned into subsystems that can be relational and interact with each other": I can agree with the idea that subsystems exist with respect to each other (and possibly define each other?), but also that they have some autonomy. However, if particle are subsystems, then this line also betrays our ineradicable belief that they would exist even if they wouldn't interact at all. Though particles certainly can keep existing even if nothing changes, they only exist to each other, to the world at large, for as long as they keep exchanging energy. If we somehow could cut off this exchange, then everything would stop to exist, vanish without trace, like the image on a TV screen would vanish if we cut off the electricity. The line suggests that the subsystems have an existence outside any exchange or interaction, as if besides the interactions it is programmed to execute, it has an additional existence, properties which are independent of anything, which is impossible. It is the classical belief that particles, have such an independent existence, an idea which, together with the idea that the universe is an object which has properties as a whole, lies at the root of the present problems in physics. In insisting that the universe has properties as a whole, in ascribing particles such extracurricular preoccupations, to have an autonomous existence outside of any exchange or interaction, we push them into the realm of metaphysics and make their properties incomprehensible.

Dear basubeda

As to your question whether there's: "perpetual chaos; so that the Universe recreates itself perpetually, or a one time phenomenon that lasts till the Universe reaches thermal equilibrium": As the universe doesn't exist as a whole, it cannot be in any particular state whatsoever: in a self-creating universe, particles have to create themselves out of each other, so they exist, have reality only as far as they interact, exchange energy. A particle, then, does not exist outside of its interactions: if we could cut off its energy exchange with all particles within its interaction horizon, we would annihilate it. The assumption that the universe as a whole exists, has a physical reality, is the single, most damaging misconception in physics as it places the origin of all matter and energy outside of it, and reflects a purely classical, metaphysical approach to nature. In this assumption, we make nature's mechanics incomprehensible, ascribing particles supernatural powers and properties, as if they passively have been created by some outside intervention. From my own struggle I know how very hard it is to even grasp, let alone accept this very fundamental idea that the universe only exist as seen from within, to an observer who physically is part of it.

As to: "opposites cancel each other": If we were to define the 'nothingness' we assume everything to come out of, as an infinite reservoir of potencies, which all together cancel, then we might, perhaps, associate this 'reservoir' with empty spacetime.

Such an (approximately) empty spacetime, however, cannot exist without its opposite, the extremely rigid state in the black-hole like objects at the center of galaxies. Whereas the freedom for (virtual) particles to behave as they like is at maximum in the empty spacetime between clusters of galaxies, a freedom so great that all different kinds of behavior cancel and no particles become real, that is, manage to set up an energy exchange to prolong their existence, in holes there's almost no freedom at all.

As to the: "one-time phenomenon that lasts till the Universe reaches thermal equilibrium": As there's no time outside the universe, nor can the universe exist, be in any particular state as a whole, in our out of equilibrium, this question makes no sense. This only would make sense if we would live in a Big Bang universe, which we certainly don't.

As to: "Obviously you are advocating a closed Universe. But everything closed must be enclosed within something": There's no need for something to enclose the universe in as it doesn't exist as a whole, as 'seen' from the outside. As a self-creating universe wouldn't know how to stop creating, there's no inside border to limit that creation either.

As to: "The term past is often misunderstood and misused.": I agree, see UPDATE 2 - TIME, which may help clear some confusion about "the" past. Why there's no "outside clock the pace of which doesn't depend on what happens inside of it and so doesn't belong to the universe itself"? Well, if only the universe itself can produce time, then how can we say that as a whole it evolves in time? Doesn't this suggest that there already exists some kind of time before/outside the universe? That is: something which exists completely independent of whatever may or may not pop up in it? That time seems to proceed in equal increments, that we experience time to pass at a constant pace is hard to investigate if there's no parallel time, no independent, outside clock we can use to compare the pace of inside processes with. Anyhow, if it depends on the strength of the gravitational field an event happens in and is observed from at what pace it is observed to proceed, then we cannot say that time passes everywhere at the same pace. This is only possible if there's a Clock outside the universe which directs the pace of everything inside of it, if the universe passively has been created by some Outside Intervention, if there exists already a Frame of Reference before, outside of it.

As to: "Planck's law is applicable only at Planck scale": No, Planck's law just acknowledges the obvious fact that energy and time define, power each other. Nature itself doesn't show any special phenomena at the so-called 'Planck-scale'. This misconception is, again, the consequence of the assumption that particles have been made to specifications by some outside creator. As in that case they only can be the source of their interactions, this leads to infinite interaction energies at infinitesimal distances. If, however, they also are the product of their interactions so the force between them cannot be either attractive or repulsive, then it requires energy to decrease their distance, to increase the frequency they exchange energy at. Since (the indefiniteness in) their distance is inversely proportional to their exchange frequency, their distance only decreases if we give them the energy to do so.

As to: "We also use inertia and equivalence principle. But these are different from your interpretation. We also hold gravity as a composite force that stabilizes - not contracts.":

Well, the electric repulsion between two protons is said to be about 10^38 times greater than gravity. However, if a force only can be as great as the counterforce it is able to evoke, and this counterforce only can come from the inertia of the particle, so that force brings to expression its mass, in a manner which is indistinguishable from how it reacts to being accelerated by an elevator, for example, then to say that one force is much stronger than the other makes no sense at all. What we call 'electromagnetic' phenomena actually refer to events in which the energy exchange of a particle changes. Whereas its exchange is spherically symmetric when at rest, by accelerating it we disturb this equilibrium, affecting the directions in which its mass is expressed. Besides, the exchange by means of which particles secure each other's properties which I've called 'strong gravity' and which is as attractive as it is repulsive, should not be confused with the weak gravity involved in the combined contraction to mass concentrations and the expansion of spacetime between them.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #8

Dear Sir,

We cannot understand your logic. We believe that every physical theory must correspond to reality that can be tested and result of such experiment remain invariant under identical conditions. We do not believe that theory should exist independent of observation. Can you give one example of self creating mechanism, where "particles have to create themselves out of each other". Can any body create himself or herself. Whether creator can be creation. This violates the principle of causality, which is proved true from everyday experience. If "there's no inside border to limit that creation either", how can it be "seen" from "outside"? What does the sentence represent?

You say: "There's no need for something to enclose the universe in as it doesn't exist as a whole, as 'seen' from the outside". If it does not exist as a whole, how does it exist? By whole if you mean the new creations, then we can never know the whole? How does one define or describe or theorize something that cannot be known? Is there any corroborative evidence to what you describe? Or is it simply one postulate you present for public scrutiny? In that case, the postulate should deal with foundational questions and not flights of imagination.

We have given our views elaborately in various posts under different essays. All our theories are complete and simple and verifiable. We do not believe in high sounding words or propagation of the cult of incomprehensibility.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Basudeba.

Thank you very much for your questions as they help me formulate and explain what I mean. As my ideas have been developing over a long time (and still evolve), to me some conclusions have become so self-evident that I sometimes forget that they must be very strange to the unprepared reader. My problem is how to formulate these new insights in a language which in many of its terms refers to concepts which to me have become so far outdated as to loose any significance. For example, is nature really so inefficient as to create mass-challenged particles, Higgs particles to provide them with mass, and subsequently gravitons to express that mass? In a universe where particles create each other's mass, express and preserve it by exchanging the energy corresponding to that mass, we don't need Higgs nor gravitons -nor string theory, for that matter. To me these theories are the product of sloppy reasoning, of the mixture of truths, half-truths and inconsistencies physics has become. The problem of the reader is that to see whether my ideas make sense, he needs to distantiate himself from the ideas he's familiar with, ideas which though they're generally accepted, nevertheless may be wrong. Just like when you fit new clothes, you have to shed the old ones, you simply have to get used to the new ideas by trying them out, by looking at the world through this new kind of spectacles.

---"If it does not exist as a whole, how does it exist? By whole if you mean the new creations, then we can never know the whole? How does one define or describe or theorize something that cannot be known? Is there any corroborative evidence to what you describe?"---

---"We do not believe that theory should exist independent of observation."---

I obviously cannot prove that the universe doesn't exist as a whole, I can only investigate what 'to exist' may mean. The universe is not an object which can be observed from the outside, not so much because it is impossible for an observer to depart his universe to look at it from the outside (if there can be such a thing), but rather because any observation requires the observer to physically interact with the observed. This means that the particles the observer is made out of, the laws of physics they obey, must be the same as that of what he observes. Whereas a magnet, for example, doesn't exist to a blind observer who's made out of cork, it does to a blind iron observer -though this example is a bit off as the cork and magnet consist of the same fundamental particles. It is because the observer is made of the same stuff and laws as everything in his universe, that he cannot leave it without disintegrating, annihilating himself. A hypothetical visitor from an alien universe obeying completely different laws of physics, built from stuff which is unable to physically interact with the matter here, cannot in any way observe our universe, nor can he and his universe exist to us. He also wouldn't be able to find us as our universes don't share a common space. Since any universe produces its own spacetime, there's no reference frame which can encompass both universes. Some alien made out of the same stuff as us, would be incorporated into our universe as soon as he observes it, so he also cannot observe it objectively, without being affected by it. So there also is no frame of reference outside our universe we can use to describe what happens inside of it. The total of everything which is and may happen inside of it, including space and time, physically must add to zero if the universe is to obey conservation laws, that is, if it is to exist without having been created by some outside intervention. So though it has no physical reality as a whole, things inside of it exist to each other only as far as they interact; 'to exist' is 'to interact'.

---"This violates the principle of causality, which is proved true from everyday experience."---

One problem is that since the properties, the existence of macroscopic objects doesn't seem to depend on anything, we assume the same to hold for their particles. However, a quantum particle coincides with its function: it cannot be distinguished from its action. It has no superfluous, irrelevant properties like the color and shine of a bullet are to its function and which make the bullet visible. This is unlike a fundamental particle the existence of which only can be inferred from its effects as this is the only rationale for it to exist in the first place. Particles are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, agreeing with the fact that a self-creating universe obviously can have no cause.

If we understand something only if we can reduce it to a cause, and we can understand this cause only as the effect of a preceding cause etcetera, a chain of cause and effect to which ends at some primordial cause which, as it cannot be reduced to a previous cause, by definition cannot be understood, then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. So a universe in which particles create one another requires a circular way of reasoning: though it exposes and quantifies relations between things, it doesn't waste time on useless questions as to what is cause of what -never mind that we certainly can cause events to happen. To understand a universe which has no cause, a perpetuum mobile which yields as much as it costs, requires us to learn to handle its paradoxical logic, to get used to it. Instead of indulging in a righteous indignation and reject ideas which seem weird, we need to reconsider our own logic, whether it's fits nature's logic -which is what we try to unravel. Our idea of what is and isn't logical doesn't spring from some platonic truth which transcends our world: it is but the product of a trial-and-error evolution which at best produces a poor reflection of nature's logic. After all, the progeny of those of our distant ancestors who didn't see the logic of putting perfectly edible seeds and tubers in mud, we today can visit in the zoo.

---"Can you give one example of self creating mechanism, where "particles have to create themselves out of each other". Can any body create himself or herself.---

Mathematically, such a creation out of nothing is like a zero splitting itself into positive and negative numbers: though their sum always remains zero, if their sign would refer to the electric charge of particles, then these 'numbers' exist to each other only as far as they communicate that property. If the universe would contain only a single charged particle so it cannot express that charge, then it cannot be charged itself, so a property, any property, is something which exists only in its sharing, its exchange. To insist that it nonetheless is charged, that charge exists whether it is expressed or not is an art physics at present has mastered to perfection. Though macroscopic objects don't seem to do anything for a living, as if 'to exist' is a state which requires no particular action, no work, their particles only exist to each other as long as they exchange energy. They would vanish instantaneously if we could cut off their exchange, just like an image on a TV screen vanishes if we pull its plug. So whereas the grand total of everything inside the universe remains nil so it has no physical reality as a whole, things inside of it do physically exist to each other, for as long as they manage to keep communicating their existence. My essay is but an examination of what 'to exist' may mean.

Regards, Anton

  • [deleted]

  • Post #10

Dear Sir,

You are absolutely right in your arguments about the principles to be followed. But for less intelligent person like us, the link between the principles you propose and the theories you present are as strangely related as the "blind cork" and the "blind iron", even though both are made out of the same atoms. We think that it is the different nature of bonding of the atoms that creates the difference in their behavior. We also think that these mechanisms cannot be unique only to the "blindness", "cork" or the "iron". They must fall under a broader pattern and that pattern must be real. Lesser mortals like us search for those mechanisms based on fundamental and verifiable principles. It is no surprise that evolved souls like you will feel bored. Hence kindly accept our sincere apologies. Yet, for the good of the lesser mortals, we request you to kindly bear with us.

You first talk about "There's no need for something to enclose the universe in as it doesn't exist as a whole", but again say: "I obviously cannot prove that the universe doesn't exist as a whole". Obviously lesser mortals like us are confused about what big science you are talking about?

You say: "The universe is not an object which can be observed from the outside, not so much because it is impossible for an observer to depart his universe to look at it from the outside". But we call everything that "surrounds us" as the Universe. If we can observe our surrounding, we can observe a part of the Universe. Obviously great scientists like you are not expected to look outward, but only inwards, so that you cannot describe "our Universe".

You say: "One problem is that since the properties, the existence of macroscopic objects doesn't seem to depend on anything, we assume the same to hold for their particles". We call it as your ignorance. We may be wrong, but your ignorance cannot be right either. There may be knowledge beyond your understanding. We have commented extensively on this subject in our posts under different essays. We advise you to read those before trying to belittle others.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Anton,

Thanks for a refreshing essay, you are welcome. Your idea about that a universe can create itself without any outside help out of nothing can be real.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Dear Anton,

Thanks for your post on my page.

One of the puzzling features of quantum theory which I mentioned is the presence of probabilities and the Born proabbility rule, and the related question of the collapse of the wave function during a quantum measurement. I could not figure out from your essay how you propose to resolve this puzzle, and will be grateful if you could elaborate.

Best regards,

Tejinder

    • [deleted]

    • Post #13

    Dear Sir,

    We have addressed this issue in reply to a post by Mr. Biermans under our essay. You may like to refer to it.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Tejinder,

    Thank you for your question.

    I was mainly concerned with understanding the non-causal character of quantum mechanics and its implications, and thus far have neglected specific questions such as yours, which are interesting and important. I'll try to find an answer but as I need to refresh my memory with a peek in Feynmans Lectures, this may take some time.

    If the energy of a particle, the frequency it oscillates at is composed of all frequencies it exchanges energy at with every particle within its interaction horizon, then the behavior or state of the observed particle depends on their behavior. As their behavior cannot be investigated without affecting it, we cannot ascertain, predict the effects of that behavior on the observed particle, that is, predict the amplitude for this or that reaction, agreeing with the idea that particles also are the product of their environment. Though particles are more independent from each other, have more freedom to behave as they 'like', for random, unrestricted kinds of actions as their distance is greater and/or the frequency they exchange energy at is lower, the effects of many such capers can add up to unpredictable behavior of the particle we observe. This is not to say that its state necessarily is indefinite as long as we leave it alone: only its specific reaction to our observation interaction is undetermined before that observation, that is, the manner in which the expression of its properties changes as we interfere with it. Another reason for the unpredictability of any individual interaction is that we cannot know in what phase the observed and the test particle are in as they interact. So it is not as if the particle itself doesn't 'know' what state it is in, that it takes our intervention to let it make a choice, adapt one state or the other. This does not mean that we cannot force a particle to make a choice for one spin direction or the other when it had no spin before. So I suspect that the expression 'collapse of the wave function' doesn't reflect what's happening.

    Another point is that whereas the energy we measure a particle to have encompasses all the frequencies it exchanges energy at with everything within its universe, its 'equation' value, to an observing particle, however, the energy of the observed particle consists of the frequency they exchange energy at. So if no observer is more unique than any other, his/its observation being no truer, having no precedence above the observation of any other observer/observing particle, then perhaps the 'many worlds' interpretation which is associated with this 'collapse' refers to the different realities the observed particle has according to all observing particles which contribute to its energy. If with our measuring interaction we affect the exchange of the particle, then we affect all particles it shares its energy with, so there would be no need for 'parallel universes', each of which is supposed to accommodate one of all the possible actions of the observer and one of all possible reactions of the particle. I hope to come back to this issue soon.

    Best regards, Anton

    7 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #15

    Dear Anton,

    You have written an interesting essay. It is obvious that you have thought long and searched deeply for the unique ideas expressed in your paper. You have definite and distinctive convictions which are good as long as they don't conflict with observational evidence. It is my opinion that we will probably agree more on your concepts regarding the microscopic nature of reality as apposed to your macroscopic views. In point, you obviously do not believe that we live in a evolving universe. The observational evidence should refute this belief. It is well known in the astrophysical community that the distribution of quasars and gamma ray busters are homogeneous in space but anisotropic in time, that is, these unique objects occur only at high red shifts, which is fortunate for life as these (in particular, the GRBs) are highly energetic objects that could severely effect biospheres of planets up to 3250 ly if their beam was directed at such a planet. How does your self creating universe explain the distribution of these highly unique objects?

    Also, it seems to me that a self creating universe would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Does it, or does it not, and if it doesn't, how does entropy continually increase? I saw no reference to this in your essay.

    quote per Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington:

    "The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -- then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation -- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

    I look forward to your respondence.

    Best Regards,

    Dan

    P.S. I have left a response to some of the misunderstandings and poor definitions on my part regarding some of your comments to my essay on my forum. IMO the Evolving Steady State Multiverse explains observations, anomalous and otherwise, better than either the Standard Model, i.e. Big Bang model, or your self creating universe and it does so without abandoning the second law.

      Anton,

      I'm copying your reply you left for me on my forum and my response, since I believe it is important for the continuity for both of us.

      You wrote:

      Dear Dan,

      Thank you very much for reading and even comprehending (at least partly) what I'm trying to do! What I do not, however, is saying that the universe doesn't evolve. Though things inside of it certainly evolve with respect to each other, the universe as a whole does not evolve as a whole with respect to some imaginary Outside Observer. My point is that to obey conservation laws, in a universe which creates itself out of noting the sum of everything inside the universe, including spacetime and time must remain nil. If it then cannot have any particular property as a whole, then it doesn't make sense to say that it evolves as a whole. Only a universe which is created by some Outside Intervention can evolve as a whole, with respect to Him/Her/It: only on His/Her/Its watch did He/She/It create our universe 14 billion years ago. A self-creating universe, however, doesn't evolve IN time, but produces and contains all time itself. A statement like "The mass of the Universe is 1.8x10^54 kg and its radius is 0.95x10^26 meter" doesn't mean anything. That we nevertheless cannot get rid of our habit to make just such statements shows that we regard all inside objects as pieces of furniture floating in spacetime, as completely autonomous objects the existence of which is too self-evident to even bother much about their origin, their properties independent from anything, as if they would keep existing if they wouldn't interact, exchange energy at all. However, if particles create each other, if they preserve and express their properties by continuously exchanging energy, then they would vanish if we could cut off this exchange like the image on a TV screen when we pull its plug: particles power each other's existence by this continuous exchange, at the same time forcing each other to obey the same kind of behavior, the same laws of physics. The idea that the universe can have any particular property as a whole ignores or denies this exchange because it is unobservable, because, despite quantum field theory, we dare not let go of the (classical) belief that particles only are the source of their fields and interactions, and hence keep existing even if they wouldn't interact at all, so we regard their properties to have a physical reality even outside their interactions, as if they would be observable, have a physical reality even outside the universe. However, a property like the rest energy of a particle only exist in this exchange, in its expression, and is not something which has a physical reality outside these interactions. If we consider its mass as a property which depends on nothing, then we implicitly say that the particle passively has been created by some Outside Intervention. Similarly, we cannot speak about the mass or energy content of the universe as it has no autonomous, physical existence, as all mass is tied up in the continuous energy exchange between its particles. There's nothing left of their mass to engage an imaginary outside observer in an observation interaction (and which would incorporate the observer into the universe). This is why I insist that the universe as a whole is an intellectual concept, which has no physical reality whatsoever. Without their continuous energy exchange, particles wouldn't even belong to the same universe: particles are wave phenomena because of this exchange. That macroscopic objects have lots of superfluous properties which don't affect their function at all (like the color and shine of a bullet), properties which seem to depend on nothing, does not mean that we may treat quantum particles in the same manner.

      As to the anisotropy in time, I can but speculate. If new galaxies keep being created everywhere, at all distances, but we see on average more young galaxies at larger distances, and (if and when) quasars and GRB's mainly occur in an early phase of the evolution of galaxies, then this might explain why they are more numerous at higher redshifts. Another possibility may be that if the black-hole like objects at the centers of galaxies are more massive in heavier and/or more compact clusters of galaxies, then these hole-like objects may power more violent phenomena. So perhaps the clusters in our near neighborhood as yet aren't massive enough? I don't know. I only know that the big bang scenario doesn't make any sense at all as it treats the universe as an ordinary object which evolves as a whole, at a pace determined by the watch of its creator.

      In your previous reaction you wrote about a cyclical universe: I assume you mean a universe which alternates between big bangs and crunches, so we live 14 billion years after the bang, and x billion years before the next crunch. However, if there's no overarching 'Über Universe' in which a hypothetic observer may witness an alternation of big bangs and crunches, the energy liberated at the crunch being the stuff the universe starts with at the next bang, then this still doesn't answer the question as to its origin, how it was created without violating conservation laws. In my essay I sketch how a universe can create itself out of nothing without violating any conservation law, without needing any kind of bang (see for an alternative explanation for the 2.8 K background radiation my UPDATE 2 post at my thread).

      As to the 2nd law of thermodynamics: if we could isolate the particles within a system completely from any interaction with the outside world, from the energy exchange by means of which they preserve and express their properties, then we would annihilate them, in which case it wouldn't make any sense to speak about the inside entropy. The same holds for the universe as a whole: as it doesn't exist, has no physical reality as a whole, it cannot have any particular entropy as a whole. The 2nd law only holds for systems which are closed to any net energy in- or outflow, but allows the energy exchange between the particles within the system and the outside world to continue. Only of a big bang universe which necessarily, implicitly must have been created by some outside intervention, which exists, has particular properties with respect to that creator, we might ask how much energy it contains, how large or how old it is and what its entropy is. The price we pay for believing in this naïve, religious view on the universe is very high: it affirms our classical, false notion that particles only are the source of their interactions. By clinging to the bigbang tale, to the idea that particle properties are independent from their interactions, we make them incomprehensible. The result is that we condemn ourselves to invent unnecessary, nonsensical hypotheses and theories like cosmic inflation, string theory and fictitious (Higgs) particles. Being the product of fundamental misconceptions, intended to solve or (weep under the carpet) the many problems and inconsistencies of the bang tale, such theories and particles are part of the problem, not of its solution. The result of these misconceptions is that one contradictory theory breeds the next inconsistent theory to appear consistent itself. As the bigbang scenario cannot explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe (unlike a self-creating universe which automatically, unavoidably produces this homogeneity and isotropy), it needed an inflation theory to repair this fundamental shortcoming. This theory, in turn, cannot answer fundamental questions as to its mechanism, who/what determined the time to start the inflation, its rate, and when to stop. I'm sure someone will come up with a theory to 'explain' this, a theory which in turn will prove to evoke more questions than it solves, and thus needs another theory to explain its inconsistencies away, etcetera. I like to think that my essay offers a way out of the present stalemate. As to the magnificent Maxwell laws, they certainly remain valid: it is only our present, outdated interpretation of what charge is which needs revision.

      Regards, Anton

      and my response was:

      Dear Anton,

      After reading your last comment, I don't believe you fully read my essay.

      You wrote: " if particles create each other, if they preserve and express their properties by continuously exchanging energy, then they would vanish if we could cut off this exchange like the image on a TV screen when we pull its plug".

      I completely agree with this statement. This is why I proposed the FPC, so that particles aren't seen as just their own source. But in that principle, I referred to the universe as a whole, and that is IMO where you must have lost my meaning. By reading the entire essay you missed the most profound part, that is of the role of the BHs in the creation cycles of the universe! The universe doesn't contract in a Big Crunch (that would violate second law), but as it expands the mass-energy that was lost to BHs is eventually recovered in the new cycle. My model actually gives your model a mechanism for self-creation!

      Your statement above is exactly why I proposed that mass-energy doesn't actually "fall into" a BH, as orthodox BH theory indicates, because it ceases to have any distinguishable meaning at the event horizons. This makes it a local boundary of the cosmos. I know it's against your philosophy, that the universe can have boundaries, so how does your model deal with BHs and the mass-energy that is lost to them? The universe can have boundaries *and* can still have the self creating aspects in which you embrace.

      When I was constructing my model, I asked myself, is the universe in a continual mode of creation? I came to the conclusion that it had to be cyclical due to 1) constancy of a finite velocity of light for all observers in the universe, 2) the simplest explanation for redshift is cosmic expansion, 3) the isotropic distribution of unusual astronomical objects only at high red-shift; and I determined that most of the SMBHs in the universe are in a "white hole" mode currently (as in right now), but they only reveal this mode to extremely distant observers (i.e. in the extreme distant future)! This mode is then followed by the quasar/GRB mode and a galaxy forming mode all in the subsequent cycle. This model explains a lot of phenomena. Can your model explain why there are two separate sets of empirical correlations between SMBHs and their galaxies? Does your model give an elegant alternative hypothesis for dark matter? This is what you missed if you didn't read the whole essay.

      Perhaps I didn't word like you would have, but if you re-read my essay and look past the statements that you disagree with, you may just see the beauty in it.

      Dan

      • [deleted]

      • Post #18

      Sir,

      We are extremely grateful to you for raising some vital questions and giving us an opportunity to explain them.

      In our essay we have described the meaning of "the object is in superposition of all possible states". Since all objects are continually evolving in time, and since we cannot know the true state of an object except for the instant we measured its state, we combine all other "unknown" states together and call it as "the object is in superposition of all possible states". This is different from the commonly accepted view.

      You say: "Particles (and the objects they form) owe their rest energy to each other, so the energy two particles have according to each other equals the frequency of their exchange. The total energy of a particle WE measure is the sum, the superposition of all the frequencies it exchanges energy at with every other particle within its interaction horizon."

      But how do you "know" or "measure" it? As we have described elsewhere, when some object is placed in a field, the object experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the nature of such interaction, the force is classified into different groups. The particles don't interact with each other directly. Each interacts with the field, which, in turn gets modified locally due to such interaction. When other particles interact with this modified field, they experience a different force than that they would have experienced in the absence of the other particle. This is what we call the effect of one particle interacting with the other particle or how the particle "sees" the other particle. It is dependent on the distance between the two also (not alone). But what we measure is not observer independent. The location of the observer with reference to the particle introduces different uncertainties changing the values for the observer, though apparently it does not affect how a particle evolves in time (it affect in other subtle ways). There is no way to isolate the particles and measure their energy independently. Till now we have not been able to isolate a single proton or neutron from their environment to measure its charge directly. We have derived theoretically their charge, which shows that the magnitude of positive charge of proton is less than that of the negative charge of electron and that neutron is slightly negatively charged. This has to be experimentally verified.

      Since no object is ever at rest, there is nothing as rest energy. What you describe as the rest energy is the effect of the total energy within the confinement that makes the particle stable by canceling the effect of each other. This gives the particle a particular density. When the density of the field is different from this density, the particle interacts with the field as a whole. This is known as its rest energy, which is divided by c^2 to give the rest mass. This varies from particle to particle - though apparently it is the same for similar particles as judged from their effect on other bodies in their surroundings. But then the effect will be different in different surroundings. For example, we require different amounts of force for displacing a plate kept in isolation on the table and a similar plate kept under a pile of plates. Similarly, the effect of quarks on its surrounding will be different from the effect of protons, neutrons and electron on their surroundings. If we compare their energy, we will get misleading information.

      You are absolutely correct that "By assuming that their mass only is the source of their interactions, we make it impossible to understand what mass is." Properties depend upon the composite structure of the particle. These are exhibited independently or through interactions (like mass and weight). They should not be considered ib isolation for judging their effect. While considering their effect, we have to consider the totality of all effects. But then if one description is defective, that does not make the whole object non-existent. Big bang is not a proper theory. But explained properly, it has some basis.

      A wave is a disturbance created due to the interaction of various forces acting on the field. We do not accept the wave function or its collapse, as there is no proof to accept such theories and the interactions can be explained by simpler methods. It is not true that the particle repeats in every cycle all possible energies. The particle either retains its position in the field while the wave passes by (planets in the solar system) or the particle moves with the field (planets move with the Sun in the galaxy). You are absolutely correct that "Though different observers then will, as a rule, find it in different states, if all observers repeat the same experiment over and over, they all find the same probability distribution of results." We treat planetary orbits as ellipses. But in reality, these are circular with the center (Sun) shifting continuously giving it an elliptical appearance. In effect, the ellipse is never closed. Thus, though the Kepler's laws give the proper position of planets, if we check back on the data collected by Tycho Brahe, which was used by Kepler to formulate his laws, we will find that the data do not match the theoretical prediction of the planets for those epochs.

      You are correct that "Quantum particles, however, completely coincide with their function, their existence cannot be distinguished from their action, so they are not observable but in the effect of their existence." But then this is the difference between quantum particles and macro particles. Quantum particles are not small particles, but particles that unite with other particles to submerge their independent identity and create a particle of entirely different characteristics. Macro particles are a mixture of the atoms and molecules that retain their independent identity while creating new substances by various combinations. You confirm this when you say: "QED treats the proton as a fundamental, rather than a composite particle, but nonetheless can predict experimental results to an extreme accuracy, indicates that quark properties are not separately observed."

      When the colliding energy is high enough, the reverse process starts and the quarks separate out, which shows their individual properties. You have correctly told that "If a particle only exist if and when its presence is expressed in identifiable interactions, can be observed or inferred from effects." But you have put it in the wrong sequence. When a particle exists its presence is expressed in identifiable interactions and can be observed or inferred from its effects on other bodies. The creation of a new particle can be in two ways as explained by you: "at high energy collisions and other violent events like supernovae explosions." These are opposite processes. At high energy collisions, the confinement of some objects is broken partially or fully leading to release of some energy. This leads to formation of a particle with higher mass or breaking up of the particles to its constituents. In the case of supernova, the confinement of all particles are broken and the entire energy is released till the interaction with the local medium slows them down and the inertia of restoration keeps the remnants intact. This does not prove that: "In that case we cannot say that baryons are built out of quarks."

      Regarding multiverses, we agree with the definition "a hypothetical space or realm consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one." In our theory, the origin of our Universe necessitates the origin of multiverses. We will discuss it separately. It is true that they cannot communicate with each other. Only if our Universe exists, it follows that other Universes must exist. But the mechanism of their creation makes them incommunicado with each other. We accept that "things inside of it only exist to each other as far as they interact and have no reality outside their interactions" because that is how the objects are perceived - through their interactions that is intelligible and communicable. This is our definition of reality in our Essay. Regarding spin, we will discuss separately.

      We stand by our statement that: "All bodies are created from the same fundamental particles." We have discussed it partly above to show that your inference may not be correct. You say: "If particles have to create themselves out of nothing, without any outside assistance, and have nothing to know with how to go about creating one another, then they'd hardly pop up in a flash with all properties fine-tuned to the last detail as the Big Bang tale has it. Instead, we may expect a trial-and-error process: whatever combination of particles, properties, exchange frequencies, mass ratio's, spins and kinds of behavior works in certain circumstances survives, as long as these circumstances last."

      You have correctly answered this problem: "Though as particles create each other, they also create the environment to prosper in, once they master the trick to keep existing, they cannot but keep contracting, evolving in steps, through many detours, eventually to objects of ever-increasing mass density. Every step towards a denser particle configuration further reduces their freedom to act as they like: if particle properties, exchange frequencies are to survive, then destructively interfering frequencies (or associated virtual particles) must be got rid of, radiated away." But your conclusions are not fully correct. We have a detailed theory for this, which we will discuss separately.

      We do not accept virtual particles. We have a name for what may be its equivalent, but is real. We call it "Rayi". We interpret your statement "their transition to real ones doesn't leave a recognizable footprint radiation, unlike the H H = He reaction, which likewise is an equilibrium reaction." differently. The H H = He reaction is not an equilibrium reaction like H H = 2H, because He has two additional neutrons over and above the two Hydrogen atoms. However, we can derive He from H H with "Rayi".

      We agree with you that: "Neutrons and protons then can knit each other to atomic nuclei by exchanging electrons, by alternating their identity, their distance, spin and motion adjusted in such a manner that, within a large but limited temperature scale, their resonance is preserved." The problem with modern science is their total acceptance of the Coulomb's law. As we have hinted elsewhere, we do not accept it and explain charge behavior differently. In our model, the apparent attraction of opposite charges and repulsion of similar charges are explained differently. This also explains how protons and quarks of similar charge co-exist without invoking any additional binding energy. We will discuss about it separately.

      Regards,

      basudeba.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #19

      Dear Dan and Anton,

      Your discussion is quite interesting.

      Perhaps you guys will find my essay interesting in relation to the ideas you are discussing. My essay is about the idea of motion transformations instead of the idea of space-time transformations.

      I treat particles and waves, mass and fields as motion constructs. In my discussions I've explained a genesis formula that I derived according to the idea of motion transformations.

      Rafael

      Dear Dan,

      I admit that I haven't understood you essay completely because my knowledge of GR is very limited. I do see that your FPC in some respects is equivalent to a Self-Creating Universe. However, as in a SCU the grand total of everything in it, including space and time itself, remains nil, it cannot have a beginning as a whole, so if with cosmic time you mean the time since the bang, then you've lost me. A universe which as a whole has a beginning must have been created by some outside intervention, is a caused universe. The flaw of causality, however, is that if we understand something only if we can reduce it to a cause, and we can understand this cause only as the effect of a preceding cause etcetera, to end at some primordial cause which cannot be reduced to a previous cause, then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. For short: a universe which as a whole has a beginning cannot by definition be understood rationally, so any bigbang scenario must be wrong, however much observations seem to be in favor of it. You propose that

      "mass-energy doesn't actually "fall into" a BH, as orthodox BH theory indicates, because it ceases to have any distinguishable meaning at the event horizons. [..] as it expands the mass-energy that was lost to BH's is eventually recovered in the new cycle"-

      I don't believe that there's mass/energy lost to BH's. As it eats a star, the mass of the BH increases, its energy exchange with all other objects within its interaction horizon, so there's no mass lost, taken out of circulation, whereas the energy which is radiated away as the star is consumed likewise isn't lost. To explain what I mean, I'm afraid I have to sketch the mechanism of self-creation (see also the UPDATE 1 post at my thread).

      If in a cloud of gas particles behave in such a manner that they always feel an equally strong force from all directions, then the force on a particle from its own cloud can only increase if it increases as much from the opposite direction, from neighboring clouds, so stars in statu nascendi only can contract in concert. The force between the particles within the stars then increases as much as it does between the stars. The result is that the energy of the particles increases, the frequency they exchange energy at, so the mass of the stars should increase as well. Though this agrees with the uncertainty principle, this is contrary to official lore according to which the mass of the cloud decreases as it contracts to a star, which agrees with the (false) assumption that the mass of particles doesn't depend on their interactions but only is their source. Whereas before contracting, the position of the mass centers of the clouds was ill-defined so the force between the clouds is weak, as they contract to stars the distance between the (mass centers of the) stars becomes less indefinite. As the force between them increases (and is as attractive as it is repulsive), their mass increases. However, if the gravitational field also increases as a cloud contracts to a stare and the field is an area of contracted spacetime, then as measured within their field, the distance between the stars in statu nascendi increases, expanding as they contract, so there's spacetime created as well as energy. So any increase, any creation of mass/energy IS a creation of a proportional quantity of spacetime: one cannot increase, be created without the other, so the contraction of matter, the creation of mass/energy powers the creation, the expansion of the universe and vice versa. However, since we calculate their distance from their positions with respect to surrounding stars, we find a smaller value than if we could measure their distance within their field, so we underestimate their mass. Though the effect of this expansion is small at the scale of stars and even galaxies, it is observable in the motion of clusters of galaxies with respect to each other, in the continuous creation of spacetime between them. This expansion then isn't a remnant of the velocity particles got at the hypothetic bigbang, but is powered by the contraction, the creation of mass/energy inside the clusters, in galaxies and stars, by the increase of the mass of more or less virtual particles to real ones as they contract to stars. This also explains why the expansion of the universe doesn't decelerate under the influence of gravity as the bigbang scenario predicts, but keeps accelerating. So in a SCU there's no need for dark energy. It is because we assume the mass of particles to be only the source of their interactions that we've come to believe that stars burn their mass, loose mass even if we ignore things like solar flares. It is the energy exchange between the particles, combined with the fact that an energy increase tends to conserve itself in time (unlike a decrease), which powers this combined contraction and expansion. Since in a SCU particles (stars, galaxies ...) move, contract in such a manner that the force they feel is equal from all directions, this automatically produces the homogeneity and isotropy we see, so here there's no need for the far-fetched cosmic inflation hypothesis the bigbang tale needs to appear to make sense itself.

      Though a galaxy contracts in the sense that its stars slowly spiral towards its central BH, it is not that it starts out with a definite, finite quantity of matter as the bigbang tale has it. As stars go down the galaxy's 'drain', new particles 'crystallize' (UPDATE 1) where the gravitational field is strong enough to separate real particles from their more virtual siblings, restricting their behavior, forcing them to assume more discreet properties, energies. Whereas virtual particles have much freedom to act as they like, making their position and behavior less definite so they only interact weakly, keeping their mass small, to become real particles, to increase their rest energy to the required level, they must coordinate their behavior, limit their energy exchange to certain discrete values. By radiating the associated, disorderly frequencies, they loose much of the freedom they had as virtual particles. The same happens in as their star implodes to a neutron star or BH, though as their freedom of behavior then becomes much more limited, they'll radiate away much more energy at the supernova, in much higher frequencies.

      So it is not that a part of the mass which disappears into a hole is converted to energy: this radiation actually destroys order elsewhere, while the mass of the hole increases, its energy exchange with all other masses. In the water-drain picture of a galaxy, real particles (water) then are created, separated from virtual particles (vapor) where the field is strong enough, contracting to stars, forming a 'head of foam' circling around the drain, new ones appearing as old ones go down the drain.

      Whereas the rest energy of particles increases as they subsequently are part of a star, neutron star, BH, IMBH and SMBH, there's an equal energy flow in the opposite direction as in every subsequent step they radiate more disorder away. This radiation keeps empty space empty, restoring its potencies. So we have a spectrum with SMBH's at one end, where the rest energy of particles increases towards its center, the energy difference between neighboring particles smaller as their density is greater, without ever becoming zero as the hole keeps absorbing mass, at the same time by radiating disorder away, keeping empty spacetime empty. As the oscillation of the particles in a BH is more stringently coordinated as its mass is greater, it may behave in many respect as a Bose Einstein condensate. Anyhow, as far as I can see, there's no need for a cycle in this perpetuum-mobile like self-creation process. A cycle suggests (bigbang) that there's a finite quantity to go around, which it is not in a SCU which cannot stop creating itself.

      The problem of black holes is that they are the product of our belief that particles have been created, that they only are the cause, the source of their interactions, which they would be in a bigbang universe: only then the force between them can become infinite. As in a SCU the force between them also is the product of their interactions, it never can become infinite, so there's no singularity at the center of what for this reason I've called Black-Hole Like Objects (BHLO's) in my essay. So there also is no infinite curvature of spacetime: though there's no limit to the curvature, to the mass and mass density of a BHLO, it always is finite: there are no singularities in a SCU. Black holes then are the product of our naïve belief that the mass of particles depends on nothing, that it only is the source of the force between them, and hence becomes infinite at infinitesimal distances.

      If (as I argued in the UPDATE 2 post at my thread), the speed of light isn't a velocity but rather a property of spacetime, then we cannot say that photons cannot escape from behind the 'event horizon' of the BH, so it cannot have such a horizon either. If it would have a horizon, then gravitons similarly wouldn't be able to escape the hole and express the mass inside of it as gravity outside of it, implying a zero horizon radius. Another objection is that if the hole's field contains mass (as I argue in my essay), then the Schwarzschild equation for the horizon radius should contain a term for the distance the hole is observed from, which it doesn't. Perhaps this field mass of objects, consisting of the more or less virtual (that is: non-baryonic) particles discussed above causes the effects we summarize as dark matter?

      So to me terms like 'black/white hole', 'dark energy/matter' and 'singularities' belong to the language of fairy tales, not physics. A problem with calling a quantity infinite(simal) is that this requires the speaker to omit to state with respect to what that quantity is infinite(simal). As any measurement is a comparison to some arbitrarily chosen unit, we should abstain from using these terms in physics. If they pop up in a text, then you know for sure that you've entered wonderland.

      Our present confusion comes from the assumption that the mass of an object is an objective, interaction-independent property, that we treat it like a mathematical quantity, a number the size of which is undisputed, that is, doesn't depend on the 'calculation' it is used in. Though we can use the mass 'number' of an object in our equations, we too easily forget that the physical quantity mass only exists in its expression, in the interactions between objects and not as something which has a reality on its own. This is why I insist that the universe as a whole has no physical reality, why a statement like "The mass of the Universe is 1.8x10^54 kg" doesn't mean anything. As to your question

      -"is the universe in a continual mode of creation? I came to the conclusion that it had to be cyclical due to 1) constancy of a finite velocity of light for all observers in the universe, 2) the simplest explanation for redshift is cosmic expansion, 3) the isotropic distribution of unusual astronomical objects only at high red-shift"-

      As indicated above, the speed of light is not a velocity (see UPDATE 2). As to the redshift argument, I have argued above that this doesn't necessarily prove any expansion (other arguments can be found in the (short) chapter 1.2 'Mass: a quantum mechanical definition' at my Quantumgravity.nl site). As to 3) and "the two separate sets of empirical correlations between SMBHs and their galaxies", I have no idea as yet. As a universe in which particles have to create each other paints a totally different picture of the universe, many phenomena (CMB, BH's, quasars, GRB's, dark energy and matter) need to be rethought before we may accept observations as proof for one hypothesis or the other.

      -"The SMC views the CMB as the signature remnant of the expansion at the beginning of time, but has not adequately been able to explain the events leading to this expansion, especially the singularity. Our model incorporates the singularity as a limit in cosmic time of the previous cycle. " -

      As to the CMB, this indeed is no fossil, remnant radiation but is produced at present (see UPDATE 2) As to the origin of the CMB, it obviously cannot explain any singularity if there are none. As to "not adequately been able to explain the events leading to this expansion", this seems an understatement as the bigbang model doesn't explain anything at all: it only tries to infer the state we get if we extrapolate back in time. That is, if we assume that the particles have been created at the bang with all their properties they have today, if they only are the source of their interactions.

      However, if we extrapolate back in time assuming that particles create each other and don't causally precede stars and galaxies, then we get a completely different scenario, along the lines sketched above. As far as it makes sense to speak of a beginning in a SCU, this would be an indefinite state where particle masses are extremely small, their position ill defined, as would be spacetime itself.

      -"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using GR yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity."- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang 28-2-2011 In a SCU there's no break down of spacetime nor of the laws of physics: they always apply. Spacetime only is ill-defined until the energy of particles begins to increase as they contract to form more massive objects, as their mass increases, objects which in their field make positions physically different, defining, creating, expanding spacetime.

      Regards, Anton

        • [deleted]

        • Post #21

        Dear Readers,

        There are three kinds of essays in our contest: 1) the essays with original physics research where all physics' information was created by their authors. Often such papers contain some errors or unclear propositions because it is very difficult to create a NEW physical theory (information). 2) There are essays-stories about physics which contain physics' information copied from the physics' textbooks or papers (for example authors Jarmo Makela, Singh, Durham, Funakoshi and so on). The author's commentaries like ''this theory is good, or not'' is neither original physics research nor new physics' research. These essays-stories cannot have any errors by definition because all physics' information was copied from the textbooks and other papers. 3) There are essays of mixed type containing mixed information (original research physics' information copied from the textbooks and papers). It is clear that the authors of the essays-stories have advantages because their essays never contain errors since all Physics' information was copied from the textbooks or other published papers. However, it does not mean these essays-stories are better than essays with original research.

        What kind of the essay must FQXi community support? If we support the essays-stories then we'll transform FQXi community into the entertainment community. For example, instead of my ''interpretation of quantum mechanics'' I could send the anecdotes about Bohr, Einstein or stories like Gamov's ''Mr.Tompkins in paperback''. It would be very interesting and fun. Another option is to create essays-discussions with Einstein, Bohr, or Aristotle following the example of Jarmo Makela. In this context, the next logical step is to organize a banquet for the authors of essays where we tell jokes and funny stories about physics. What is Our Purpose?

        However, since the goals of the FQXi (the "Contest") are to: Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology; Identify and reward top thinkers in foundational questions, therefore I ask readers to vote for essays with original physics research rather than for essays-stories even if the first may contain some unclear information. In this way we'll encourage the fundamental physics research but not entertainment essays.

        Sincerely,

        Constantin

          • [deleted]

          • Post #22

          Author Dan T Benedict replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 19:32 GMT

          Dear Anton,

          I believe we have made much progress in understanding each others positions, and I think we are much closer in agreement than I first thought, although we still have our differences.

          You wrote: "so if with cosmic time you mean the time since the bang, then you've lost me."

          No, cosmic time only means that all mass-energy, all spacetime, everything that we define...

          view entire post

          Dear Anton,

          I believe we have made much progress in understanding each others positions, and I think we are much closer in agreement than I first thought, although we still have our differences.

          You wrote: "so if with cosmic time you mean the time since the bang, then you've lost me."

          No, cosmic time only means that all mass-energy, all spacetime, everything that we define as the universe expands and evolves together, regardless of time dilation differences due to motion or gravity, (i.e.regardless of local time).

          You quoted me: "the mass-energy that was lost to BH's is eventually recovered in the new cycle"

          This is poor wording by me. By "mass-energy that was lost", I don't mean that it was actually destroyed. As you stated, the mass of the BH increases. Agreed. More about this later, because BHs are the key to my model.

          You wrote: "Though the effect of this expansion is small at the scale of stars and even galaxies, it is observable in the motion of clusters of galaxies with respect to each other, in the continuous creation of spacetime between them."

          Agreed.

          You wrote: "... the expansion of the universe doesn't decelerate under the influence of gravity as the bigbang scenario predicts, but keeps accelerating."

          Agreed

          You wrote: "So to me terms like 'black/white hole', 'dark energy/matter' and 'singularities' belong to the language of fairy tales, not physics."

          If you want to be taken seriously, IMO you must work within the incorrect paradigm, with the given terminology, and explain why your theory/model/paradigm is better than the status quo. The burden is on us to convince those who accept the Standard Model that a better model exits. My understanding of the 'black/white hole', 'dark energy/matter' and 'singularities' is different the Standard Model, but I'm going to rejected, without any consideration, if I refer to them as "fairy tales, not physics".

          Let's return to BHs, because they are fundamental. This how I explained it to a friend on the "time travelers" blog: "What do you think the expansion of the universe is? It's a form of anti-gravity. Gravity is not the major influence on the universe on the large scale, expansion is. Think in terms of your frequency shifted photons, how long does it take for them to cross the event horizon for a observer outside of the BH's sphere of influence? It takes until the end of the universe! Now, if the universe is undergoing an accelerated expansion, what is happening to the frequency of the photons that are waiting to cross the event horizon for a observer outside of the BH's sphere of influence? The photons are having their frequency shifted in opposition to the gravity of the BH! If you wait long enough BH's will no longer be perfect sinks, but perfect sources, that is until they receive the feedback from other BHs (that are in the same state) which will transition them all back once again to perfect sinks. This is the mechanism for a eternally expanding cyclical universe."

          As for what I refer to as the singularity, it is a time in the history of the universe, when viewed from a long distance, therefore in the extreme distant future, the universe (if we were able to observe it at its most distant past), appears point-like. It never was a point in the mathematical sense (as in the BBT), it would only appear point-like compared to the vastly expanded universe we presently inhabit. This has a very different meaning than that of the BBT.

          You wrote: "As to the CMB, this indeed is no fossil, remnant radiation but is produced at present (see UPDATE 2)"

          I'm sure I will have to disagree with you on this, but before I respond I will read your update.

          Finally, you admitted: "I admit that I haven't understood your essay completely because my knowledge of GR is very limited."

          Even the experts have difficultly with the mathematics of Einstein's Equations, because they are very difficult to solve and obtain exact solutions! That doesn't mean that you can't learn the concepts of GR and then use them against those who prefer the status quo. Those of us who would like to see the Standard Model replaced could always use another ally, but as I stated previously, IMO you won't be taken seriously, unless you work within the incorrect paradigm to change it.

          Dan

          • [deleted]

          • Post #23

          Costantin,

          I would say that I completely agree. I admit to enjoying the essays of which you are referring, but I haven't rated any essays yet, because I wanted to read them all, which is quite a chore, and then determine the "most qualified" to get the highest scores. Since reading all of the essays is so time consuming, I'll wager that a good number of the community hasn't and won't read them. So is the community rating system appropriate since an essay needs to be within the top 35 to be presented to the judges? Many of the essays that provide fundamentally novel ideas are typically more difficult to fully understand than with just "a brief look". Thank you for helping me determine which essays deserve the best scores. I only hope that those in the community that haven't rated essays yet will read your comments before doing so.

          Best Regards,

          Dan

          • [deleted]

          • Post #24

          Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 10:00 GMT

          Dear Anton,

          Probably you mean the ''Black Holes'' by the word ''holes'', since I don't found any mention about my vacuum holes in your thread. There is a considerable difference between the orthodox notion of the Black Holes and my vacuum holes.

          You wrote in this post ''the speed of light isn't a velocity but rather a property of spacetime''.

          By definition, the velocity is the rate and direction of the change in the position of an object. For example, since light travels a distance ct during the time t, it is in agreement with the definition of the velocity.

          I can add another flaw in the Black Hole theory: according to the theory, the magnetic field is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. Since the light (virtual photons) cannot escape from a black hole, therefore the Black Holes cannot have the magnetic fields.

          Sincerely,

          Constantin

          Dear Leshan,

          ''By definition, the velocity is the rate and direction of the change in the position of an object. For example, since light travels a distance ct during the time t, it is in agreement with the definition of the velocity.''

          We can only speak about the velocity of an object with respect to objects if and when it interacts with them as it moves. Since the photon has no mass or charge, it cannot express its presence to the objects with respect to which it is supposed to move: having no mass, it cannot have a position. If it doesn't interact, exist to these objects nor the environment to the photon, then it makes no sense to speak about its velocity as there's nothing with respect to which it moves. This is why to the photon itself its transmission is instantaneous: it bridges a spacetime distance in no time at all even though an observer measures a time equal to that space distance. (All interactions the photon is supposed to be involved in as travels, all Feynman diagrams of all possible interactions with virtual electrons, positrons and photons, are actually taken care off at the photon source and receiver.) The idea of a photon as some kind of bullet buzzing from a light source to some random target across spacetime is a classical notion of what in actually is a purely quantum mechanic phenomenon. Since we assume that the universe evolves as a whole with respect to some clock outside of it, we assume the emission of the photon to (causally) precede its absorption elsewhere, according to that clock.

          If particle A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission changing the state of both A and B, then A sees the state of B change at the time it emits the photon, whereas B sees the state of A change as it absorbs the photon. (That is, unless B after absorbing the photon sends back a message to A to confirm the receipt of the photon, a thank-you-note saying that A can from this moment start to see B in its new state). Whereas according to A and B the transmission is instantaneous, having no mass, to the photon there's no space nor time distance between A and B so to the photon its transmission also is instantaneous. Since to a massive observer A and B are separated in space and thus in time, he measures a transmission time equal to their distance. So if there's no time, no clock outside the universe to determine what in an absolute sense precedes what, then we cannot say that either A or B is the cause of the transmission, which is a requisite to be able to speak about a velocity. We can, therefore, only speak about a velocity if it is smaller than c. The difference is that at velocities < c, a bullet may miss the intended target, whereas at the 'speed' of light, the bullet only can be shot if and when it hits the target. For a photon to be emitted, transmitted requires the cooperation of the receiver, so quantum mechanics at heart is non-causal, which is why it seems so strange. The flaw of causality, however, is that if we understand something only if we can reduce it to a cause, and we can understand this cause only as the effect of a preceding cause etcetera, to end at some primordial cause which by definition cannot be understood, then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. More over time and causality you can find in my UPDATE 2 post above (Feb. 8).

          Regards, Anton