Essay Abstract

I frame a concept that the reality has evolved from an analog to the digital form we experience today. I apply the theory of Darwinism beyond its original sphere of organic evolution on Earth. The evolution theory is not so easy to understand for non-professionals, especially if we demand a technically correct scientific theory. Moreover there are alternative views on the physical reality notion. So before addressing the "ultimate" nature of reality we need to establish a common language. First of all I propose a new definition of the matter and energy (the physical reality) however not contradictory to current theories but totally contradictory to everyday experience. The new quality here is that the definition is supposed to be free of human being's perception and as far as possible also free of our language and culture limitations. Then I suggest an explanation on how a primordial continuous Universe (starting before the Planck Era) has evolved to the discrete matter and energy we observe today. Finally I present some points of view on computability of the actual Universe and its evolution.

Author Bio

I have a background in engineering (M.Sc. - Silesian University, 1989) and in management (Silesian University, 2000). I developed my interest in physics a couple of years ago and decided to pursue theoretical physics as my future career. Now I work for the government and, as a hobby, study mathematics and physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Jacek, I liked the style of your essay very much. I came to similar conclusions myself incidentally. Regarding science, I have a major problem with the lack of a particle model for the force of gravity and think that anyone who uses the term "mass" is unwittingly subscribing to a spacetime continuum ideology. Do you understand what I mean by that statement Jacek? It's the mathematical formula left by Newton which is profoundly WRONG if one considers a simple helical screw as a model for a GRAVITON. This picture also incorporates the concept of ORIENTATION with the gravity force. There's a good reason to believe this is the case when one looks into it in more detail..

Nice essay and good luck in the competition,

Alan

    Hi Alan,

    Thank you for your post. You have touched the graviton notion. In the Technical Endnotes (ii) of my essay I tried to clarify shortly my point of view on the gravity. Due to the limits (2 pages only) I could not develop the full concept. The gravity, according to my idea, is apparently a spacetime deformation. This seems to support the GR. But there are crucial differences. As I propose: a differentiation of forces depends only on average gradient and its changes, size and shape of the deformation. There are implications of the assumption:

    1. The gravity is not a fundamental but emergent interaction. The reason of the gravity phenomenon is that the gravity force of e.g. a planet is a sum (wave packet) of many tiny spacetime deformations (elementary particles) resulting in far-reaching, but relatively weak interaction (the surrounding spacetime expansion). Continuing the reasoning: the size of the deformation is of an astronomical (very large) object radius. The average gradient is tiny (very weak spacetime deformation). The shape is complementary to the object and following the object. So the gravity emerges from the strong nuclear interaction. Let us consider as a similar example of the interaction between a star and a distant galaxy: The error arising from combining all the stars in the distant galaxy into one point mass is negligible. So-called tree algorithms are used to decide which particles can be combined into one pseudoparticle. These algorithms arrange all particles in an octree in the three-dimensional case [Barnes J. and Hut P. A hierarchical O (N log N) force-calculation algorithm. Nature, 324(4), December 1986]. So coming back to your post the gravity is discrete but it only seems to be continuous. I have not made a calculus yet (this is a fresh idea). But it seems not to be very hard to sum up the gravitational force of all particles (components of an astronomical object) using the a.m. algorithm and find out if I am right or wrong.

    2. A gravitational wave (graviton) is commonly defined as a fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime which propagates as a wave, traveling outward from the source. My concept gives quite different outlook. In brief: every "massive" object e.g. the earth is a gravitational wave itself. And the wave is not traveling outward from the source. There is no source e.g. the Earth is a gravitational wave orbiting the Sun along the geodesics.

    Jacek

    • [deleted]

    • Post #4

    Dear Jacek, I am not a professional physicist. I am Scientific American reader. So I like your article as it is one of those in the contest that stick to the evaluation criterion to be "Accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature." With some help on the Internet I think I can get your idea.

    But this is a bit dangerous idea because it could lead to a very simple unification theory. Assuming that you incorporate some maths that will be then too complicated to mere SciAm reader? Abd what about a predictive power?

    Good luck!

    Walter John

      Hi Walter,

      I am glad that you have found my essay clear and accessible.

      I do not agree that simplicity is a dangerous approach to physics especially when we are discussing a foundational issue. The simplicity is highly appreciated and usually the most wanted by scientists.

      As you see my essay frames a concept but not a theory or even a hypothesis. It is based on "thought experiments" and not on a calculus. I guess the equations will not be simple similarly as the existing ones e.g. the mathematics of GR (the metric tensor that describes the local geometry of spacetime) or non-linear dynamics.

      You have asked about predictions. I can give you some predictions however I declared my essay is not a hypothesis yet. A theory or hypothesis requires testability, simplicity, predictive power you demand (or generating new theories) and some conservatism (not to be contradictory to existing theories). My concept seems to be very simple at least for someone who is acquainted with geodesics in GR, Darwinism and dissipative systems.

      Let us come back to predictions.

      There are predictions related to the spacetime deformations concept: there is no WIMP and SuperWIMP particles and no gravitons. Both gravity and dark energy are reformulated.

      There are predictions related to the evolution concept: constants are not really constant. The example is the fine structure constant.

      And finally my first concept was the spacetime deformations and it generated the evolution concept.

      That's all at the moment. But you have inspired me to work harder. Thank you.

      Good luck to you.

      Jacek

      Oh, Walter,

      I would forgot: the original Darwin's theory for many years generated no predictions. Now scientists can find a little. The evolutionary science refers to the history.

      a month later

      Dear Jacek Safuta,

      It is difficult to compare our ideas, since I do not know what equations you use as the basis, but you make a number of interesting statements that seem to indicate that we see some things the same way. For example you state that: "a primordial continuous Universe ... has evolved to the discrete matter and energy we observe today."

      I begin with the same assumption.

      We may differ in that I believe that the gravity field actually 'defines' space-time. But with this caveat, we agree that:

      a) the spacetime is continuous, i.e. not perforated, not torn

      b) the spacetime has elastic properties

      c) the elastic properties of spacetime are [locally] isotropic

      d) any spacetime deformation is unlimited

      Actually, I do find a limit to deformation, but it is just this limit that gives rise to material particles. This seems to be what you are referring to when you say: "the matter is only a spacetime deformation (a contraction type)."

      You say: "The fine structure constant alpha has several physical interpretations". It may interest you to know that I derive the fine structure constant from the above (local) limit on spacetime deformation. I believe this is compatible with your statement that "The observable objects have been originated due to the spacetime deformations self-organization" and that the evolution of such objects is a "special case of a more general law of survival of the stable".

      So it is always difficult to know whether what your words say and what I think they mean are really the same, but I invite you to read my essay and determine for yourself.

      I enjoyed your essay, and hope that you enjoy mine.

      Best wishes,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        7 days later

        Dear Edwin,

        Thank you for your comments.

        I have read your essay but once is not enough. That is a pity that I cannot rate it. It would be very high.

        My essay was addressed to a layman reader like that of Scientific American. That was my understanding of the contest. So there is no equations. And honestly I am not ready yet to show them. Still working.

        Jacek

        Write a Reply...