Alternative Models of Cosmology

John, without distracting from my earlier post one can speculate whether the discrete picture seen on the screen when one slit is open is supportive of the medium that light is waving in having the capability of exhibiting discreteness. You may leave this out of your reply.

Why do you say I should be thrilled that you are replying my post? You may not answer that as well.

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Ah, the $64,000 question! One photon, or electron, or bucky-ball or whatever, that is faced with an either/or choice when approaching two side-by-side slits, exhibits a dual personality and goes through both thus resulting in a classic wave interference pattern. That of course is Twilight Zone physics. Of course if Richard Feynman didn't understand this, I'm not sure I should be expected to either, but here goes a few possibilities.

The first is that perhaps there might be leakage of photons, etc. through micro-wormholes from parallel universes such that while the experimenter thinks there is just one photon in the picture, there actually isn't. Okay, thumbs down.

The second is what happens in the delayed double-slit experiment? Well apparently if one allows the single photon or electron or bucky-ball or whatever to pass through the double-slits, but then pulls a swift switch and removes the broad screen detector revealing instead two detectors that are aligned with each of the two slits, then one or the other detector will detect the photon, etc. each and every time. In other words, after the photon, etc. passed through the double-slits, it somehow realised the gig was up and changed its mind and thus passed through just one of the two slits. How is this explained? Either the photon, etc. has awareness and a limited amount of free will (panpsychism), or else it time travels back into the past to the starting point and hence travels through one or the other slit. Harking back to the standard double-slit experiment with a both slits open scenario, the photon, etc. passes through one slit, then doubles back (in time) and then passes through the other slit. You have just crossed over into "The Twilight Zone".

Thirdly, and probably the traditional explanation, is that at point of emission and detection the photon or electron or bucky-ball is a particle, but in-between its alpha and omega it is a wave. That is of course unless there is only the single-slit option open when the wave fails to manifest itself which again implies consciousness or awareness on the part of the photon, etc. It knows in advance whether or not one or both slits are open and shape-shifts accordingly. IMHO that's also nuts.

Fourthly, it is all a computer simulation. Be it Hollywood special effects, or software programming, the required illusion or paradox can be easily achieved. I've gone on record as saying that the anomalies that are part and parcel of quantum physics can best be explained via the Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe scenario.

Harking back to the state of absolute nothingness between quanta energy packets, one further example crossed my mind. You have one electron in 'orbit' around a nucleus - that's one quanta. You have another electron in a higher 'orbit' - that too is a quanta. The question is, what can exist in the forbidden territory between the two 'orbits' which by definition are a no-man's land? Of course that raises another Twilight Zone question - when an electron quantum jumps from one 'orbit' to another' where the hell is it between orbits? It can't be an instantaneous jump for that violates the finite speed of light. It can't be in-between since that corresponds to a forbidden energy state! Specials effects perhaps courtesy of simulation software?

PS - I suggested that you must be thrilled with my reply since I've come under heavy criticism for ignoring unsolicited replies.

John Prytz

John Prytz,

Pointed responses:

Starting from, "I've come under heavy criticism for ignoring unsolicited replies"

I find that sometimes ladies can be touchy. I may say Georgina is an exception IMO. When, I started here on FQXi 2012/2013 I asked what I felt was an innocent question (coming from a different cultural background) and a participant, Lorraine Ford caught me unawares with a good 'tongue' lashing. I apologized but don't know if she really accepted it. By the way in your Simulated Universe, why should there be behavioral differences between the sexes. Is it an evolutionary trait in a real universe or a Supreme simulator playing games?

"Of course if Richard Feynman didn't understand this, I'm not sure I should be expected to either"

It has been nice exchanging views across the divide, Space-is-not-a thing and Space-is-a-thing. I think we have about exhausted all the angles without the case being settled one way or the other to my satisfaction. But one day, "We must bring down" this wall. I may just add that the headache that you and Richard Feynman are suffering appears to be self-inflicted, by not wanting to consider the possibility that I am advocating, or that advocated by General relativitists(substantivalism, with space-time not space as the thing). In your suggested solutions, no possibility is given to that option. In your third 'traditional explanation', you refuse to look at the possibility that right from alpha to omega, light is a wave. Rather, you entertain the nutty possibility of light having free-will and intelligently changing to and fro from particle to wave.

Then on your interesting question, "...what can exist in the forbidden territory between the two 'orbits' which by definition are a no-man's land? ... - when an electron quantum jumps from one 'orbit' to another' where the hell is it between orbits? It can't be an instantaneous jump for that violates the finite speed of light. It can't be in-between since that corresponds to a forbidden energy state!"

Ponder the following, although speculative:

If a forbidden territory between two orbits can actually vanish and disappear, call it magic if you want, does an electron still need to jump to get to another orbit? Note that, if an electron can 'move' this way, it will not suffer the headache of violating light speed. It will not also suffer the flu of being in-between in a forbidden state or a no-man's land.

Of course, only a territory that is a thing can disappear (move) in this manner, so you may find this difficult to digest. I had earlier referred you to Zeno's paradoxes. Take a look at the Arrow and Dichotomy when you have the time.

I think that's all for now.

Akinbo

John Prytz,

Unsolicited replies? For future reference: I take questions that are not addressed to a particular person to be asked of the FQXi community in general and open for all to contribute replies. As replies were not wanted I think it would have been helpful to say these questions are rhetorical or something like "please don't answer its just food for thought".

It has been, as long as I've been here, a bit of a free for all; with people jumping in and out of conversations over multiple pages and threads. It sort of works in a clumsy, generally friendly, ruff and tumble way. Everyone having their own perspectives, interests and particular 'drums to beat'.

Heavy criticism? I just said a reply would be nice, (after the time I had taken reading and resounding). My mistake, as I said earlier, I am sorry.

I meant to say ....reading and responding.)

(I don't know why some days I can edit my posts and other days I can't, today I can't.)

Georgina,

It was unsolicited in that I did not actually ask anyone and everyone here to comment. If I had actually requested a response(s) that would be a different horse of another colour. It seems pretty clear that everybody does not respond to everyone else's posts 100% of the time. I'm sure that sometimes people post something here and nobody responds. I mean if I post here that 2 5 = 7, what would be the point in anyone replying?

John Prytz

Akinbo,

You asked about the photon and the double-slits and I gave you my two cents worth. I have little more to add except that quantum physics is full of examples where one would have to be tempted to allocate some degree of awareness and limited free will to fundamental particles. That's the Twilight Zone of quantum physics for you. Of course you can exchange that Twilight Zone for the Twilight Zone of the Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe. That latter option is one reason I don't have a headache over quantum physics. It's all just bits and bytes.

My summation of the double-slit experiments is as follows. If you have two slits open and you stand back and do nothing you will get a wave-interference pattern, regardless if you shoot off one photon per minute or thousands of photons per second. If you try to pin the 'wave' down to determine if both slits have in fact been travelled through then you will find out one and only one slit is breached whether before or after it reaches or has passed through the options given it. In other words, any time you interfere with that stand back approach to determine which slit the 'wave' went through, you will in fact discover what you expected to discover - only one slit was passed through. The particle or 'wave' somehow knows you are peeking. The particle or 'wave' is self-aware and knows what you are up to and behaves accordingly. There are many more examples of self-aware quasi-free will particle behaviours. That's why one has the subject of panpsychism to deal with. There is a section with interviews on panpsychism over at the "Closer to Truth" website for your edification.

So, you have your choice of Twilight Zones - Panpsychism or the Simulation Hypothesis!

As to behavioural differences between the sexes in the Simulation Hypothesis, well let's just say the Supreme Programmer has his / her / it / their own agenda.

John Prytz

MY TOP ASTRONOMICAL ANOMALIES: A LIST

The Universe is filled with mystery. There are a myriad of things that are, but shouldn't be, or probably shouldn't be. Adequate explanations are not only lacking, but even the wildest possible theoretical explanations are rather thin on the ground. There often tends to be a massive divide between observation and theory. These anomalies run the range from the Universe as a whole, down to your local neck of the woods, down in fact to the realms of the microscopic. Here are a few of my favourite astronomical anomalies.

ACCELERATING UNIVERSE: The anomaly here is quite straightforward in that there's considerable observational evidence that the expansion rate of the Universe is accelerating. However, logic dictates that because of the overall gravity that the Universe has, the expansion rate of the Universe should be decelerating. The 'anti-gravity' energy required to accelerate the Universe's expansion has to come from somewhere, and in ever increasing amounts to keep on keeping on the ever increasing rate of acceleration, yet, the Universe, almost by definition, already contains all there is and ever will be. If extra 'anti-gravity' energy is being created, it's being created out of nothing. Something from nothing is a clear violation of the basic conservation laws and principles that form the bedrock of modern science.

DARK ENERGY & DARK MATTER: When considering all things cosmological, it's become apparent that astronomers only observe about 4% of the matter plus energy that should be present. That is, about 96% of the matter plus energy that should be present and detectable to account for the observed behaviour of our observable universe is missing! Now 1% might be understandable given measurement uncertainty (error bars), but hardly 96%! So, cosmologists have postulated concepts termed 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' to make up the deficit. However, nobody has the foggiest idea what exactly 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' actually is. Neither has actually been detected, either out there, or in the laboratory down here - obviously. The anomaly here is that 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are both ad-hoc theoretical concepts to make sense of various astronomical observations, but without benefit of any actual observation of 'dark matter' and/or 'dark energy 'to back things up. That's a rather slight-of-hand trick, and until cosmologists put actual observational money on the board where their theoretical mouth is, it's all an anomalous pie-in-the-cosmic-sky.

MATTER-ANTIMATTER RATIO: In our Universe, there should theoretically have been equal amounts of matter and antimatter created at the time of the Big Bang, but there's not - equal amounts that is. We observe a Universe made out of matter. Our antimatter has gone walkabout. Why is it so? That question illustrates a big anomaly that doesn't have a really satisfying answer. Mother Nature should not favour one form of matter over the other, yet apparently that's the case. [However, see the section on "Parity" below.] Perhaps that's just as well. A Universe that's 50% matter and 50% antimatter would ultimately become a Universe of just 100% radiation or energy, and thus no material you and no material me could exist to ponder the issue.

MONOPOLES: We all know about magnetic fields having two sides, whether it's a bar magnet or the Earth's magnetic field (or those part and parcel of many other astronomical bodies) - there's a south pole and a north pole; a positive and a negative. It will probably come as a surprise that there should also be a monopole - a magnet with just one pole, north OR south; positive OR negative. That's because one of the many Big Bang 'in the beginning' predictions of all things theoretical is the existence of magnetic monopoles - magnets with either a south pole or a north pole, but not both. Alas, we've never ever found and confirmed the reality of even one monopole, so theoretical prediction and observation are not in harmony. In other words, an anomaly exists.

QUASARS: Quasars are 'quasi-stellar objects'. They are 'stellar' because they aren't all that large (like a galaxy). They are 'quasi' because they give off energy way, way, way more times greater than any star known in any astronomical catalogue. They seem to be primordial objects - they formed long ago and are now far away. Quasars, like stars or galaxies, are their own entities and if two or more show a very close and special causality relationships then they should show identical recessional velocities (since the Universe is expanding and they are part of the Universe and that expansion). Recessional velocities are measured by an object's red-shift. Theory identifies red-shift with velocity. However, you apparently have some observations of causality connected quasar pairs with vastly differing red-shifts (measurements of their recessional velocities). The anomaly, in an analogy, is that you can not have a runner running at 15 miles per hour holding hands with another runner running at 3 miles per hour!

NEITH: Neith is, or was, the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't. now-forever-lost satellite of our twin planet (in size if nothing else), Venus. The anomaly here is that bona-fide professional astronomers, not one but numerous celebrated astronomers, including Giovanni Cassini (1625-1712), sighted, noted and logged the existence of the damn thing and wrote up their findings in their professional journals. Okay, the time period was the mid-1600s to mid-1700s, but the professional eyeballs and the professional equipment was good enough to verify one way or the other the presence or absence of a reasonably sized natural satellite in orbit around Venus.

Of over thirty sightings of Neith, the best known and verified were in 1645, 1672, 1686, 1740, 1759, 1761 and 1764 (multiple sightings on numerous days in March). Observations over that stretch of period would seemingly rule out the 'satellite' being a faint star or asteroid or outer planet like Uranus or Neptune that just happened to be way beyond Venus but in the direct line of sight. Sometimes the observed phase of Neith matched the phase of Venus, which again suggests that the object was in close proximity to the planet.

Venus, inward and closer to the Sun than Earth, is a very visible and prominent celestial object when viewed from Earth, commonly called the Morning and Evening 'Star'. We've all seen Venus; in fact if you know exactly where to look it can be seen in the daytime sky. Venus is far enough away from the Sun that the Sun's glare doesn't drown out reflected light from Venus, and presumably any objects near or in orbit around Venus. A natural satellite of Venus of any reasonable size should be readily detectable with the astronomical equipment available at the time. And so it really didn't raise any astronomical eyebrows when Neith was in fact discovered. The anomaly here is that all and sundry were wrong. Neith doesn't exist. Venus has no natural satellite(s). Now either all and sundry were totally incompetent and wouldn't know one end of a telescope from the other, or else Neith really existed but somehow exited the local neighbourhood. If that's the case, then Neith wasn't natural at all but under intelligent control, and not by any terrestrial intelligence. What Neith was, and where it disappeared to, are major anomalies.

THOSE ANOMALOUS MARTIAN ROCKY ARTEFACTS: One of the many things you expect in planetary exploration is to expect the unexpected. However, there's the unexpected and then there's the downright ridiculous! Mars is continuing to provide not only the unexpected but the ridiculous as well. Mars is awash in anomalies, most of which fall into the category of anomalous rocky artefacts; rocks on the surface that appear to be anything but a standard rock. Something is screwy somewhere and needs an explanation, even a ridiculous one.

One of the many things you expect in planetary exploration is to expect the unexpected, and the list of unexpected phenomena is quite a long one. However, there's the unexpected and then there's the downright ridiculous! Mars is continuing to provide not only the unexpected but the ridiculous as well. Mars appears to be up to its 'armpits' in anomalies, most of which fall into the category of anomalous rocky artefacts; rocks on the surface that appear to be anything but a standard rock as most of us would picture one. Something is screwy somewhere and needs an explanation, even a ridiculous one.

Mars has provided us with no shortage of anomalies initially presented by the scientific establishment from those 'canals' (where it turned out the intelligence was on the terrestrial viewing end of the telescope) to those 'hollow' Martian moons that weren't - hollow that is.

Viking (1976) of course is well known for its orbital discover of the 'face on Mars' which turned out to be a trick of the lighting, but a very convincing trick it was until photographs were taken later on down the track by other orbiting probes under differing lighting conditions.

The 'face' hasn't been the only anomaly photographed from orbit as both the Mars Express Orbiter and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took a snapshot of a profile of 'Mahatma Gandhi'.

What about all those on-the-ground and up-close-and-personal anomalies?

The Spirit robotic-probe or rover has several anomalies credited to it.

* There was a 'skull' was discovered in 2006, but not to be outdone...

* There was also a 'human figure' that was sighted in 2007.

The Opportunity robotic-probe or rover came up trumps too.

* Opportunity found the 'jelly doughnut' that appeared out of nowhere - first you didn't see it and several days later you did see it - in January 2014.

* Opportunity also found a 'bunny rabbit head' in March 2004.

The Curiosity robotic-probe or rover has several more anomalies credited to it.

* There was that 'finger' discovered in 2012.

* Some flora was found in the form of a 'flower' in 2012.

* There was that 'iguana' from January 2013.

* More fauna came to pass with 'the rat' in March 2013.

* We have 'the helmet' from 2013.

* We also have a 'door handle' from 2013.

* That was topped off with the most recent discovery of the 'thigh bone' in August 2014.

All of these anomalous rocky artefacts have been complemented by observations of anomalous lights-at-a-distance both stationary and in motion, for example a flash-of-light photographed by Curiosity in April 2014.

Now while one might expect one or two such unusual artefacts to appear in the images taken on the Martian surface, they are beginning to appear just a bit too frequently. Something is beginning to appear to be a bit screwy somewhere.

If you were to walk an equivalent area and distance, not a difficult thing to accomplish, across an arid (vegetation free) and rocky landscape, what are the odds that you would spot as many anomalous rocky artefacts as these Martian robotic rover-probes have?

If you extrapolate from the number of anomalous rocky artefacts found in the relatively tiny surface area covered by these robotic rover-probes, to the entire Martian surface, well that would have to translate or amount to multi-millions of such anomalous rocky artefacts on Mars if scattered at random on the Martian surface.

Now I don't really think the 'iguana' was a real iguana nor the 'rat' a real rat or the 'thigh bone' a real thigh bone. They are in all probability just rocks. But, and there's always a but, despite the propensity for humans to see design in things where there is no design, the pure number of these anomalous rocky artefacts is in itself become anomalous.

Here's my way out on a limb explanation. The pantheons of human mythologies are near universal in being populated by a number of 'trickster gods'. In modern translation, these pantheons were aliens, and they still are aliens since they haven't departed. Some of these extraterrestrials have a sense of humour - why should humans be unique in that regards? One can almost imagine some ET prankster out of sight of our robotic-probes placing a deliberately moulded 'rock' in the obvious pathway of the probe for no other reason than just to play a practical joke.

But one shouldn't pick on Mars alone. Anomalous rocky artefacts on Mars wouldn't be the first anomalous structures we've spotted in our local neck of the solar system woods, from spires and bridges on the Moon (as well as those well verified transient lunar phenomena - TLP) including the recently brought to light 'alien' in profile on the lunar surface.

I shall predict that anomalies of the unexpected and of the ridiculous kind will continue to make the news headlines, provider fodder for the conspiracy theorists, and just maybe, bring a chuckle or two to those trickster 'gods'.

P.S. And those Martian anomalies just keep on keeping on!

To add to the growing collection, the Curiosity rover in the month of September 2014 photographed a 'traffic signal light' in stone, and also a perfectly round ball of rock. The latter looks very anomalous indeed relative to the irregular shaped rocks around it. It's almost looks like someone just placed a bowling ball (minus the finger holes) on top of ordinary rocky outcrops. It's all the more odd since wind and water erosion on Mars are negligible.

Hello,

I'm new to this site and am not completely sure of the rules.

I really admire the holographic principle but, according to my theories, invisibility and holography are inverse forms of the same thing; if you turned one inside-out or outside-in, you'll have the other.

I think a complete principle would be an invisible/holographic principle of the universe. Two sides of the same coin.

Please check out my facebook group and read the "about" section first.

I act a little off-topic in my group, sometimes, but I try to keep members and myself entertained. I don't post anything pornographic, I just post music and act like an idiot.

Facebook group: Invisibility (adaptive camouflage) and Holodeck (virtual immersion) Theory

This is the url: https://www.facebook.com/groups/229849683808284/

Hi there Kieth,

there used to be a list of rules including not using bad language, personal criticism , advertising or excessively lengthy posts. I tried to finds the rules for you but couldn't find them. Any way its really just courtesy to others. Also comments posted are meant to relate to the topic or introductory article for that page but that is only loosely adhered to. Links are supposed to be made using the format found by clicking the link help page link, found under reply to this thread. People post comments or ideas, as you have, and others read and sometimes respond. No guarantees.Welcome.

COSMOLOGY: THE STATE OF THE UNIVERSE

The answer to life, the Universe and everything isn't really "42". Okay, so here are the real answers (well, my answers anyway) to life, the Universe and everything cosmic! Over the past 2000 years, three undeniable trends have emerged in our on-going studies of life, the Universe and everything. It's probably worth while keeping these in mind when pondering the cosmos and what future discoveries are likely to reveal.

Firstly, our place in the central scheme of things has gone from be-all-and-end-all uniqueness, a unique life form created in God's image, the cream of all there is and ever will be, to, well, just another life form in the Darwinian scheme of things. Detection of extraterrestrial life, especially extraterrestrial intelligence will be the final straw (nail) in that scenario (coffin).

Secondly, we've shrunk in potential significance because the size of the Universe keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger as instrumentation and observations get better and better. We've become displaced as well. Earth is no longer all there is (the be-all-and-end-all of real estate) and the centre of everything (we've been moved from the CBD to the boonies several times over) as well. We're not located at the centre of things and as our visions of the size of the Universe has ever increased over time, will there ever be an end to it?

Thirdly, cosmological common sense has decreased, given way to weirdness. Or, depending on your point of view (POV), weirdness has increased over time in all things cosmological. The well ordered and common sense cosmology of Genesis or the ancient Greeks was pretty straight forward. Even up through the life and times of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Brahe and Newton that was still pretty much the case, albeit with the invention of the telescope things did get a little weirder (and more unsettling) with respect to Genesis (and the Church) and the ancient Greeks (and other ancient societies like the Chinese). Then, ever accelerating, the weirdness quotient, the scientific fertilizer, really hit the fan! In fairly short order, uncommon sense descriptions of the cosmos and the stuff in it. Concepts like relativity, space-time, quantum mechanics, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, antimatter, atomic structure, and string/superstring theory. Nothing made much common sense any more. I suspect that's a trend that's also likely to continue. In fact, you can probably bet on it.

Now on to the Big Questions (and little answers):

Q: Did God or Nature Create the Universe or Multiverse?

A: Here I opt for nature. If God can create one universe, God can create more than one universe (but what would be the point of doing so?). If nature can create one universe, then nature can create more than one universe. Since nature isn't intelligent, creation of multi-universes (the Multiverse) is more like to be a natural than a supernatural event. That is, it's probably illogical to create more than one universe where one will do - so that eliminates the God hypothesis since we assume that a God would be logical. Nature however tends to be prolific. Since nature, that is the laws of physics as we understand them, can adequately explain the creation of a universe(s), there is no need to appeal to a supernatural being or higher authority or universal designer, or whatever.

Q: Is There A Universe or A Multiverse?

A: Here I opt for the Multiverse. But the background to the Multiverse, that which contains the Multiverse, is something I call the "Superverse". There is, always has been and always will be a super vast expanse (call it the all being "Superverse") of nothing - that is, the vacuum (lowest possible) energy (state) which seethes with quantum activity and pervades everything. That's the bottom line. I don't know how big the Superverse of vacuum energy is, maybe it's infinite (but cosmologists, physicists and I too like to steer clear of the can-of-worms that is infinity), but when I consider the following progression, logic suggests 'pretty damn big'. Just as an atomic nucleus is tiny relative to an atom; an atom is tiny relative to you; you are tiny relative to Planet Earth; Planet Earth is tiny relative to our solar system; the solar system is tiny relative to the Milky Way Galaxy; our galaxy is tiny relative to the super-cluster of galaxies of which it is a part; our super-cluster of galaxies is tiny relative to the observable universe. That's as far as knowledge can take us, but if the progression continues, then our observable universe will be tiny relative to our Universe; our Universe is tiny compared to the Multiverse, all of which resides with the Superverse energy vacuum!

Q: What is the Origin and Fate of Our Universe? Is the Universe Open or Closed? Will There Be A Heat Death or A Big Crunch? How Can A Universe Be Created?

A: I opt for death by Big Crunch despite all the evidence currently against it! I reason as follows - we know matter can create energy. The reverse is also possible - energy can create matter. That's because, as per Einstein's famous equation, matter and energy are opposite sides of the same coin. And thus the all pervasive, all surrounding, vacuum energy, seething with quantum uncertainty (albeit certain quantum activity), will now and again produce particles, thus reducing the overall energy of the vacuum. This energy debt must eventually be repaid, so said particles usually decay (annihilate actually) back into pure energy and rejoin the vacuum pretty quick-smart. But, it's possible that those particles, could, by chance, evolve into an entire universe. Particles, if they exist long enough, will be subjected to all manner of quantum effects and thus evolve into a universe instead of being immediately reabsorbed back into the energy vacuum. The energy debt however still must be eventually repaid, but who's to say how quickly that is required? So, ultimately, in order to repay that energy debt, our Universe will need to ultimately collapse (undergo Big Crunch) back into the Superverse energy vacuum from which it originally came and pay the energy debt. The Universe (our Universe) begins and ends as pure energy - energy borrowed from the vacuum; energy returned to the vacuum. How exactly that Big Crunch is going to come about I know not, I'm just convinced it will happen.

So, why aren't new universes being created from scratch in our backyards (where the energy vacuum holds sway as it does everywhere)? Because, for any given tiny area (like your backyard), under the relatively low probabilities of the exact circumstances coming together just so, it's going to take trillions of years for it to happen. But, given the vast acreage of the Superverse, new universes probably pop into (and out of) existence on a fairly regular basis. It's like you are fairly unlikely to have a meteor land in your backyard tomorrow, but somewhere tomorrow a meteor is likely to hit our planet.

Now, what if the vacuum energy (Superverse) can not produce a universe? Well, the next best (second) option I suggest is the black hole as a universal motherhood idea. That is, the extreme conditions that produce a black hole in one universe ends up producing a new universe in a different place (obviously), maybe in a different time. Our black hole connects us to that new universe, but no physicist would advise you to make the trip! At least this origin-of-a-baby-universe doesn't rely on a Big Crunch ending.

The third best option is the Big Crunch of one universe producing the Big Bang of the next, but from observations, the prospect of a Big Crunch is dicey at best. But, I like to give the prospect of a Big Crunch the benefit of the doubt. Further, there's nothing to say that option two, black holes, couldn't produce a baby universe that would end up cyclic - Big Bang - expansion - contraction - Big Crunch - Big Bang, etc. Reproduction and reincarnation!

Lastly, albeit unlikely in the extreme yet I'm sure sci-fi writers have a ball with this idea, is that advanced E.T. could manufacture a universe using the laws of physics, especially quantum physics, to do so. If nature can manufacture a universe, could not intelligence also manufacture a universe? Call it the mother of all engineering achievements. Now this differs from God creating universes, in that presumably God knows He/She/It can do so and knows the outcome to the Nth degree, but to E.T., this is just a scientific experiment. Whether an E.T. created universe would take on a life and evolution of its own, who knows? Now you'd think that creating a rapidly expanding universe in the laboratory would end up destroying said lab and surroundings. Of course maybe the physics of baby universe creation dictates that the universe forms elsewhere and/or elsewhen! One other scenario is that once universe creation becomes so routine as to end up being part and parcel of the science lab curricula at E.T. Junior High School, then it's going to be universes galore - maybe that why we have a Multiverse!

Q: Does Our Universe or Multiverse Have an Existence that's Finite or Infinite in Time?

A: The philosophical answer here is 'infinite'. One can never get away from the question "Well that's fine, but what happened before that?" Even if our specific Universe had a beginning, there was a before the Big Bang that extends the timeline back, and back, and back. If our Universe continues to expand forever, well forever equals infinity. If our Universe ends in a Big Crunch that kick-starts off the existence of another universe, then the timeline of the cosmos continues onward, ever onward.

Q: To Quantum or Not to Quantum the Big Bang?

A: Here I opt for the Big Bang as a non-quantum event. I just can't figure out how you can cram the entire contents of our Universe into a space smaller than an atom at the point of origin. In any event, if the point of origin of the Big Bang were a singularity, then because singularities can't have zero dimensions and infinite density - that just makes no sense at all - then said singularity could have been large enough to exceed the volumes commonly associated with quantum physics.

Q: Are the Laws of Physics the Same or Different in Various Universes?

A: The answer here is unknown and probably unknowable. However, I suspect that there is only one type of physics possible - as Einstein is quoted, 'did God have any choice in the matter?' - or maybe not. Anyway, my reasoning is that assuming that all universes arise from a common cause, say the Superverse vacuum energy or via Lee Smolin's black holes as universe generators, or the budding off of universes via chaotic/eternal inflation, with no evidence to the contrary, it's probably more logical to suspect that only one type of physics exists, and each universe will be the same - physics wise. But, what if you introduce extraterrestrial intelligence into the picture? Maybe, just maybe, intelligence advanced enough to create universes, may be intelligent enough to tweak the laws of physics and alter them. That certainly would be easy enough to do if you created computer software that simulated universes, each software package having different physics programmed in! So, maybe it's just as well to fence sit on this issue.

Q: Is our Universe (Hence Ourselves) Really Real or Simulated?

A: The odds overwhelmingly favour our reality as being a simulated one. If that could be proved, it would also be likely proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. If all terrestrial life is simulated, who else is left to simulate us but extraterrestrials? I just bet we're some alien's Ph.D. thesis. The possibility of course exists that humans from what we would term the future have simulated us and the running simulation has only reached a simulated early 21st Century. Of course this is a fairly unpalatable theory, so I'll just conclude here that the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of my being wrong.

John,

It's clear that space can have 0 'condensed 'matter', but you've not shown any evidence the condensate doesn't also exist. John Bell called that syndrome a 'failure of imagination', perhaps unfairly as we must first 'try before 'failing' and many may not even have tried.

Those who look find the evidence for a condensate overwhelming, and the anomalies and paradoxes resolved to be extensive. The anomalies may include you and I. A very simple coherent mathematical and physical adjustment to rationalise our view of nature is here;

Short Krauss video inc. Nobel Prize work.

You might also look up the solid evidence for the proposed Unruh effect. Writing vast reams is fine, but I found that time spent researching is 100 times as valuable. I know that's a bit of a 'professional' view, but I do strongly recommend the method, which also informs the output!

Best wishes

Peter

May we consider SCALE FACTOR in the classic dynamical laws?

"Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is a theory that proposes a modification of Newton's laws to account for observed properties of galaxies. Created in 1983 by Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom, the theory's original motivation was to explain the fact that the velocities of stars in galaxies were observed to be larger than expected based on Newtonian mechanics. Milgrom noted that this discrepancy could be resolved if the gravitational force experienced by a star in the outer regions of a galaxy was proportional to the square of its centripetal acceleration (as opposed to the centripetal acceleration itself, as in Newton's Second Law), or alternatively if gravitational force came to vary inversely with radius (as opposed to the inverse square of the radius, as in Newton's Law of Gravity). In MOND, violation of Newton's Laws occurs at extremely small accelerations, characteristic of galaxies yet far below anything typically encountered in the Solar System or on Earth."

"And Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS), developed by Jacob Bekenstein in 2004, is a relativistic generalization of Mordehai Milgrom's Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) paradigm."

In the same way that the theories of MOND are proposing alternatives to the laws of Newton and SR-GR for very high spatial scales (> 10 e+20 m), there are also other QG theories proposing alternatives for very small (or very high energy) spatial scales. For example the DSR (= Doubly or Deformed SR) theory which proposes that GR is not valid for High Energies (Planck scale), and it forecast that light speed could increase till infinite for Planck Energy (c = f (E))

Scale relativity and fractal space-time: theory and applications (Laurent Nottale, 2009): "...during the last decades, the various sciences have been faced to an ever increasing number of new unsolved problems, of which many are linked to questions of scales. It therefore seemed natural, in order to deal with these problems at a fundamental and first principle level, to extend theories of relativity by including the scale in the very definition of the coordinate system, then to account for these scale transformations in a relativistic way."

The Dynamic Laws of Physics (and Universal Gravitation) have varied over time, and even Einstein had already proposed that they still has to evolve:

ARISTOTLE: F = m.v

NEWTON: F = m.a

EINSTEIN. E = m.c2

MOND: F = m.a.(A/A0)

NEXT ?: F = f (scale) = m.a.(scale factor)

I have inserted the gravitation in the equation of matter energy.E=mc²+ml² with the spherons like particles of gravitation.Gravitational forces are so weak ....at quantum scale.

Big Bang Cosmology is now officialy dead, see files attached.Attachment #1: 1_Cosmology_of_Einsteins_NOW.pdfAttachment #2: UDE_Cosmology_Without_Higgs_Boson_and_Without_Graviton.pdf

Amrit

I read it. It is remarkable!

Regards,

Branko

That is good !

And what do you think about to include the SCALE FACTOR to Newton-Einstein equations.

MOND, TEVES, Scale Relativity consider this option !

There are other studies or theories in this direction ?

What about FRACTAL COSMOLOGY ?

Please, read this paper from one of the best specialist on fractal cosmology (40 years working on it):

A Fractal Universe? (Robert L. Oldershaw, 2002, A Fractal Universe?)

ABSTRACT: From subatomic particles to superclusters of galaxies, nature has a nested hierarchical organization. There are also suggestive hints that self-similarity, the idea of similar form on different size scales, might be a fundamental property of the cosmological hierarchy. These features are the hallmarks of fractal structure. Could nature, as a whole, be a fractal system?

POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF COSMOLOGICAL SELF-SIMILARITY

If the dark matter is composed of ultra-compact stellar scale objects with a mass spectrum that is approximated by predictions of the self-similar hypothesis, then it would appear that discrete self-similarity is a newly identified global property of nature. This would certainly change our current understanding of the cosmos. Firstly it would provide a new approach toward a more unified understanding of nature, since cosmological self-similarity implies analogous physics on all observable scales. It would also imply that the usual assumption that the universal hierarchy has cutoffs at about our current observational limits, an assumption that has always seemed suspiciously anthropocentric, should be questioned. If cosmological self-similarity is verified, then it would seem more likely that additional scales underlie the atomic scale and encompass the galactic scale. According to the new paradigm the Big Bang does not involve the expansion of the entire universe, but rather just one metagalactic object with dimensions far exceeding our current observational limits. Also, a new fractal geometry of space-time-matter would appear to be called for.

If microlensing experiments verify the unique predictions mentioned above, however, we would still be faced with some important and very difficult questions. How many scales are there in all, a finite number or "worlds within worlds" without end? How strong is the degree of self-similarity between analogues? Why is nature self-similar, and why are scales separated by a factor of about 5x1017? Like past discoveries, this one too would come wrapped in enigmas.

Some might argue that the self-similar cosmological paradigm is too fantastic to be true, that it is too speculative to deserve serious attention. But is it more fantastic or speculative than Alice In Wonderland theories like cosmic strings, shadow matter, Higgs bosons, the "many worlds" inter-pretation of quantum mechanics, etc. Probably not, if judged objectively, and at least the self-similar model can make definitive predictions and point to actual observational support. It is possible that nature really does involve the "worlds within worlds" structure of a fractal system. Certainly there is enough supporting evidence to warrant serious consideration of discrete cosmological self-similarity. And soon, via microlensing experiments, we will learn nature's own verdict on this hypothesis.

May Gravity "constant" (G) vary with scale factor ?